[House Report 114-745]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


114th Congress   }                                     {        Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                     {       114-745

======================================================================



 
        DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY ACT

                                _______
                                

 September 13, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Chaffetz, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4419]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 4419) to update the financial 
disclosure requirements for judges of the District of Columbia 
courts, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Committee Statement and Views....................................     4
Section-by-Section...............................................     5
Explanation of Amendments........................................     6
Committee Consideration..........................................     6
Roll Call Votes..................................................     6
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................     7
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................     7
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     7
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     7
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................     7
Federal Advisory Committee Act...................................     7
Unfunded Mandate Statement.......................................     7
Earmark Identification...........................................     7
Committee Estimate...............................................     8
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...     8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9

    The amendments are as follows:
  Add at the end the following new sections:

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PROBATE DIVISION TO USE MAGISTRATE JUDGES.

  (a) In General.--Section 11-1732(j)(5), District of Columbia 
Official Code, is amended by striking ``Family Divisions''' and 
inserting ``Probate Divisions, and the Family Court,''.
  (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 11-
1732(j)(4)(A), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended 
by striking ``Family Division'' and inserting ``Family Court''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS TO ACCEPT CERTAIN 
                    TYPES OF PAYMENTS.

  (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 17 of title 11, 
District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``Sec. 11-1748. Authority of courts to accept certain types of payments

  ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the term `electronic 
funds transfer'--
          ``(1) means a transfer of funds, other than a 
        transaction by check, draft, or similar paper 
        instrument, that is initiated through an electronic 
        terminal, telephone, or computer or magnetic tape for 
        the purpose of ordering, instructing, or authorizing a 
        financial institution to debit or credit an account; 
        and
          ``(2) includes point of sale transfers, automated 
        teller machine transfers, direct deposit or withdrawal 
        of funds, transfers initiated by telephone, and 
        transfers resulting from debit card transactions.
  ``(b) Authority to Accept Credit Card Payments and Electronic 
Funds Transfers.--
          ``(1) In general.--The District of Columbia courts 
        may accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments, 
        restitution, bonds, and other payments to the courts by 
        credit card or electronic funds transfer.
          ``(2) Use of vendors and third party providers.--The 
        Executive officer--
                  ``(A) may contract with a bank or credit card 
                vendor, or other third party provider, for 
                purposes of accepting payments by credit card 
                or electronic funds transfer; and
                  ``(B) shall make every effort to find the 
                lowest cost vendor for purposes of accepting 
                such payments.
          ``(3) Responsibility for paying fees.--Under any 
        contract entered into under paragraph (2), the person 
        making the payment shall be responsible for covering 
        any fee or charge associated or imposed with respect to 
        the method of payment.
          ``(4) Completion of payment.--If a person elects to 
        make a payment to the District of Columbia courts by a 
        method authorized under paragraph (1), the payment 
        shall not be deemed to be made until the courts receive 
        the funds.
  ``(c) Authority to Accept Checks.--
          ``(1) In general.--The District of Columbia courts 
        may accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments, 
        restitution, bonds, and other payments to the courts by 
        check.
          ``(2) Use of check guarantee vendor.--The Executive 
        Officer--
                  ``(A) may contract with a check guarantee 
                vendor for purposes of accepting payments by 
                check; and
                  ``(B) shall make every effort to find the 
                lowest cost vendor for purposes of accepting 
                such payments.
          ``(3) Responsibility for paying fees.--Under any 
        contract entered into under paragraph (2), the person 
        making the payment by check shall be responsible for 
        covering any fee or charge associated or imposed with 
        respect to the method of payment.
  ``(d) Liability for Non-payment.--If a check or other method 
of payment, including payment by credit card, debit card, or 
charge card, so received is not duly paid, or is paid and 
subsequently charged back to the District of Columbia courts, 
the person by whom such check or other method of payment has 
been tendered shall remain liable for the payment, to the same 
extent as if such check or other method of payment had not been 
tendered.''.
  (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
sections for subchapter III of chapter 17 of title 11, District 
of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``11-1748. Authority of courts to accept certain types of payments.''.

SEC. 5. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY PERMITTED FOR CASES 
                    UNDER JURISDICTION OF SMALL CLAIMS AND CONCILIATION 
                    BRANCH OF SUPERIOR COURT.

  (a) In General.--Section 11-1321, District of Columbia 
Official Code, is amended by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting 
``$10,000''.
  (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
shall apply to any case filed in the Superior Court of the 
District of Columbia on or after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO APPROVE COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEYS IN EXCESS OF 
                    MAXIMUM AMOUNT.

  (a) In General.--
          (1) Criminal defense appointments.--Section 11-
        2604(c), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended 
        by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
        following: ``Each chief judge may delegate such 
        approval authority to an active or senior judge in the 
        court in which the chief judge sits.''.
          (2) Child abuse and neglect appointments.--Section 
        16-2326.01(f), District of Columbia Official Code, is 
        amended--
                  (A) by striking ``(f)(1)'' and inserting 
                ``(f)'';
                  (B) by striking paragraph (2); and
                  (C) by adding at the end the following: 
                ``Each chief judge may delegate such approval 
                authority to an active or senior judge in the 
                court in which the chief judge sits.''.
  (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
shall apply with respect to any case or proceeding initiated on 
or after the date of enactment of this Act.
    Amend the title so as to read:
    A bill to update the financial disclosure requirements for 
judges of the District of Columbia courts and to make other 
improvements to the District of Columbia courts.

                     Committee Statement and Views


                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    H.R. 4419, the District of Columbia Judicial Financial 
Transparency Act, would strengthen disclosure requirements for 
judges in the District of Columbia (District). The bill aligns 
financial disclosure requirements for District judges with 
those required for federal judges.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    Federal judicial officers are required to provide extensive 
financial disclosures under the Ethics in Government Act of 
1978 (5 App. U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 101-505) (Ethics Act). Title I of 
that Act requires that certain officers and employees of the 
federal government disclose information on their financial 
dealings so as to prevent an appearance of corruption or bias. 
In these disclosures, individuals are required to disclose 
sources of income other than their government paid salaries, 
for both themselves and their spouses. The Ethics Act also 
requires that individuals subject to the Act disclose 
information on their liabilities and debts.\1\ Once a report is 
filed, the Act requires that the filed report be made publicly 
available for a period of six years.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\5 U.S.C. Sec. 101
    \2\5 U.S.C. Sec. 105
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1970, Congress passed the District of Columbia Court 
Reorganization Act, which, among other things, established 
financial disclosure requirements for District judges.\3\ The 
D.C. Home Rule Act prohibits the District government from 
passing any law with respect to any provision of the financial 
disclosure requirements for District judges.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\P.L. 91-358
    \4\P.L. 93-198, Sec 602(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The District's disclosure requirements are far less 
stringent than those for federal judges and have been 
insufficiently transparent. This shortcoming was made clear in 
May of 2014 when the Center for Public Integrity reviewed 
financial disclosure requirements for the District, the federal 
government, and the States.\5\ The review placed the District 
among the worst examples of financial disclosure, assigning the 
disclosure requirements a failing grade. One of the major 
problems with the disclosure requirements was the fact that 
information was sealed and not available for public review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Reity O'Brien, et. al. District of Columbia Earns `F' For 
Judicial Financial Disclosure, Center for Public Integrity (May 19, 
2014) available at https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/12/04/13725/
district-columbia-earns-f-judicial-financial-disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 4419 would increase the disclosure requirements of 
District judges to more closely match the requirements of the 
Ethics Act. Importantly, the Chair of the Joint Committee on 
Judicial Administration and Chief Judge of the District of 
Columbia Court of Appeals submitted a letter in support of the 
Senate companion to H.R. 4419 (S. 2966) urging the passage of 
that bill.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Letter to Sen. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. On Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, et. al. from Eric T. Washington, 
Chair, Joint Comm. On Judicial Administration, Chief Judge, District of 
Columbia Court of Appeals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    H.R. 4419 was introduced by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton 
(D-DC) on February 1, 2016. The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The bill was 
ordered favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote on July 
12, 2016.
    The Senate companion to H.R. 4419 is S. 2966, sponsored by 
Senator James Lankford (R-OK) and cosponsored by Senators 
Thomas Carper (D-DE), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Cory Booker (D-
NJ). S. 2966 was introduced on May 23, 2016 and referred to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The 
bill was ordered favorably reported with an amendment on May 
25, 2016.

                           Section-by-Section


Section 1. Short title

    Designates the short title of the bill as the District of 
Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act.

Section 2. Financial disclosure requirements for judges of district of 
        columbia courts

    Amends section 11-1530 of the D.C. Code to require each 
judge to disclose the source, type, and amount of any income 
that exceeds $200 or of the judge's spouse that exceeds $1,000, 
except income from the federal government.
    Requires the judge to disclose the name and address of each 
private foundation, business, or corporation in which the judge 
is an officer, director, proprietor, or partner. It also 
requires judges to disclose liabilities greater than $10,000.
    Requires that the judge disclose the identity and value of 
any real or personal property with a value greater than 
$10,000. The judge must also disclose the value and source of 
any gift or honorarium or expense account or reimbursement 
worth more than $250.
    Requires the judge to disclose the source and amount of any 
waiver of a fee or charge.
    Requires disclosures to be filed in a report that shall be 
made available for public inspection upon written request to 
the District of Columbia Commission on Judicial Disabilities 
and Tenure and notice to the reporting judge. Reports will be 
kept on file for at least three years. A judge may file for an 
exemption from public disclosure, which will be granted if the 
commission finds that revealing the personal or sensitive 
information would endanger a judge or family member.
    Makes clear that failure to file the required report or 
filing a fraudulent report constitutes willful misconduct and 
shall be grounds for removal from office.

Section 3. Authority of Probate Division to use magistrate judges

    Amends section 11-1732(j)(5) of the D.C. Code to allow the 
Probate Division to use magistrate judges.

Section 4. Authority of District of Columbia courts to accept certain 
        types of payments

    Creates 11-1748 in the D.C. Code to provide authority to 
the District court system to establish a system to take and 
process credit card and electronic payments of funds not 
deposited in the U.S. Treasury.

Section 5. Increase in maximum amount in controversy permitted for 
        cases under jurisdiction of Small Claims and Conciliation 
        Branch of Superior Court

    Amends section 11-1321 of the D.C. Code to increase the 
maximum amount in controversy in small claims court from $5,000 
to $10,000.

Section 6. Authority to approve compensation of attorneys in excess of 
        maximum amount

    Amends section 11-2604(c) of the D.C. Code to allow for a 
chief judge to delegate approval authority for compensation of 
attorneys in excess of maximum amount to an active or senior 
judge in the court in which a chief judge sits.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    During Full Committee consideration of the bill, Delegate 
Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced an amendment to provide 
authority for probate court to utilize magistrate judges to 
handle cases on the docket. The amendment would also provide 
authority for the District court system to establish a system 
to take and process credit card and electronic payments of 
funds not deposited in the U.S. Treasury. The amendment also 
increases the maximum amount in controversy allowed in small 
claims court from $5,000 to $10,000. Finally, the amendment 
would provide authority for the Chief Judge to delegate 
authority for approving attorney compensation to active or 
senior judges. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 12, 2016 the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 4419, as amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present.

                            Roll Call Votes

    No roll call votes were requested or conducted during Full 
Committee consideration of H.R. 4419.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services and accommodations. 
This bill updates the financial disclosure requirements for 
judges of the District of Columbia courts. As such this bill 
does not relate to employment or access to public services and 
accommodations.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of 
this report.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance 
goal and objective of the bill is to update the financial 
disclosure requirements for judges of the District of Columbia 
courts.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that enacting this bill does not 
direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the 
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.

                     Federal Advisory Committee Act

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish 
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within 
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement as to 
whether the provisions of the reported include unfunded 
mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has 
received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included 
herein.

                         Earmark Identification

    This bill does not include any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI.

                           Committee Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out 
this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has 
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the 
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.

     Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received 
the following cost estimate for this bill from the Director of 
Congressional Budget Office:

                                                   August 11, 2016.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4419, the District 
of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Pickford.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 4419--District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act

    H.R. 4419 would change portions of the District of Columbia 
Official Code that governs the D.C. Courts system. Under 
current law, the Congress annually appropriates funds for the 
District of Columbia Courts; and its expenditures are recorded 
in the federal budget. The legislation would revise the 
financial disclosure requirements for District of Columbia 
judges. The revisions would establish new dollar thresholds and 
requirements for reporting to the District of Columbia 
Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. The bill also 
would allow the District of Columbia Courts to collect fines, 
fees, and other payments via credit card or electronic funds 
transfer. In addition, H.R. 4419 would provide new authorities 
to certain judges and increase the limit for small claims cases 
in the District of Columbia from $5,000 to $10,000.
    Based on an analysis of the administrative costs of the 
District of Columbia Courts, CBO estimates that the bill would 
have an insignificant effect on federal spending. However, the 
new financial disclosure requirements would require the 
District of Columbia to hire up to one new staff member. 
Although the District of Columbia Small Claims Court could be 
presented with more claims under the bill, the number of judges 
addressing those claims would not be increased by the 
legislation. Cases in the setting of a small claims court are 
often more expeditious and inexpensive to resolve.
    Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending 
or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4419 would not increase direct 
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 
10-year periods beginning in 2027.
    The revisions and increases in jurisdictional limits in the 
bill would be intergovernmental mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because they alter local 
laws. CBO estimates that the aggregate costs of the mandates 
would be minimal and fall well below the threshold established 
in the UMRA ($77 million in 2016, adjusted annually for 
inflation). H.R. 4419 contains no private-sector mandates.
    On August 3, 2016, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 
2966, the District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency 
Act, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs on May 25, 2016. The two 
pieces of legislation are similar, and CBO's estimates of their 
budgetary effects are the same.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew 
Pickford (for federal costs) and Zachary Bryum (for the 
intergovernmental mandates). The estimate was approved by H. 
Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE 11--ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 13-- SMALL CLAIMS AND CONCILIATION BRANCH OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SUBCHAPTER II-- JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 11 1321. Exclusive jurisdiction of small claims

  The Small Claims and Conciliation Branch has exclusive 
jurisdiction of any action within the jurisdiction of the 
Superior Court which is only for the recovery of money, if the 
amount in controversy does not exceed [$5,000] $10,000, 
exclusive of interest, attorney fees, protest fees, and costs. 
An action which affects an interest in real property may not be 
brought in the Branch. If a counterclaim, cross claim, or any 
other claim or any defense, affecting an interest in real 
property, is made in an action brought in the Branch, the 
action shall be certified to the Civil Division.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 15--JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



    SUBCHAPTER II--THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL 
DISABILITIES AND TENURE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



[Sec. 11 1530. Financial statements

  [(a) Pursuant to such rules as the Commission shall 
promulgate, each judge of the District of Columbia courts 
shall, within one year following the date of enactment of the 
District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970 and at 
least annually thereafter, file with the Commission the 
following reports of the judge's personal financial interests:
          [(1) A report of the judge's income and the judge's 
        spouse's income for the period covered by the report, 
        the sources thereof, and the amount and nature of the 
        income received from each such source.
          [(2) The name and address of each private foundation 
        or eleemosynary institution, and of each business or 
        professional corporation, firm, or enterprise in which 
        the judge was an officer, director, proprietor, or 
        partner during such period;
          [(3) The identity of each liability of $ 5,000 or 
        more owed by the judge or by the judge and the judge's 
        spouse jointly at any time during such period.
          [(4) The source and value of all gifts in the 
        aggregate amount or value of $ 50 or more from any 
        single source received by the judge during such period, 
        except gifts from the judge's spouse or any of the 
        judge's children or parents.
          [(5) The identity of each trust in which the judge 
        held a beneficial interest having a value of $ 10,000 
        or more at any time during such period, and in the case 
        of any trust in which the judge held any beneficial 
        interest during such period, the identity, if known, of 
        each interest in real or personal property in which the 
        trust held a beneficial interest having a value of $ 
        10,000 or more at any time during such period. If the 
        judge cannot obtain the identity of the trust interest, 
        the judge shall request the trustee to report that 
        information to the Commission in such manner as the 
        Commission shall by rule prescribe.
          [(6) The identity of each interest in real or 
        personal property having a value of $ 10,000 or more 
        which the judge owned at any time during such period.
          [(7) The amount or value and source of each 
        honorarium of $ 300 or more received by the judge 
        during such period.
          [(8) The source and amount of all money, other than 
        that received from the United States Government, 
        received in the form of an expense account or as 
        reimbursement for expenditures during such period.
  [(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this 
subsection the content of any report filed under this section 
shall not be open to inspection by anyone other than (A) the 
person filing the report, (B) authorized members, alternate 
members, or staff of the Commission to determine if this 
section has been complied with or in connection with duties of 
the Commission under this subchapter, or (C) a special court 
convened under section 11-1529 to review a removal order of the 
Commission.
  [(2) Reports filed pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (7) of 
subsection (a) shall be made available for public inspection 
and copying promptly after filing and during the period they 
are kept by the Commission, and shall be kept by the Commission 
for not less than three years.
  [(3) The intentional failure by a judge of a District of 
Columbia court to file a report required by this section, or 
the filing of a fraudulent report, shall constitute willful 
misconduct in office and shall be grounds for removal from 
office under section 11-1526(a)(2).]

Sec. 11-1530. Financial statements

  (a) Pursuant to such rules as the Commission shall 
promulgate, each judge of the District of Columbia courts 
shall, within one year following the date of enactment of the 
District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970 and at 
least annually thereafter, file with the Commission a report 
containing the following information:
          (1)(A) The source, type and amount of the judge's 
        income which exceeds $200 (other than income from the 
        United States government and income referred to in 
        subparagraph (C)) for the period covered by the report.
          (B) The source and type of the judge's spouse's 
        income which exceeds $1,000 (other than income from the 
        United States government and income referred to in 
        subparagraph (C)) for the period covered by the report.
          (C) The source and type of income which consists of 
        dividends, rents, interest, and capital gains received 
        by the judge and the judge's spouse during such period 
        which exceeds $200 in amount or value, and an 
        indication of which of the following categories the 
        amount or value of such item of income is within--
                  (i) not more than $1,000,
                  (ii) greater than 1,000 but not more than 
                $2,500,
                  (iii) greater than $2,500 but not more than 
                $5,000,
                  (iv) greater than $5,000 but not more than 
                $15,000,
                  (v) greater than $15,000 but not more than 
                $50,000,
                  (vi) greater than $50,000 but not more than 
                $100,000,
                  (vii) greater than $100,000 but not more than 
                $1,000,000,
                  (viii) greater than $1,000,000 but not more 
                than $5,000,000, or
                  (ix) greater than $5,000,000.
          (2) The name and address of each private foundation 
        or eleemosynary institution, and of each business or 
        professional corporation, firm, or enterprise in which 
        the judge was an officer, director, proprietor, or 
        partner during such period.
          (3) The identity and category of value (as set forth 
        in subsection (b)) of each liability of $10,000 or more 
        owed by the judge or by the judge and the judge's 
        spouse jointly at any time during such period.
          (4) The source and value of all gifts in the 
        aggregate amount or value of $250 or more from any 
        single source received by the judge during such period, 
        except gifts from the judge's spouse or any of the 
        judge's children or parents.
          (5) The identity of each trust in which the judge 
        held a beneficial interest having a value of $10,000 or 
        more at any time during such period, and in the case of 
        any trust in which the judge held any beneficial 
        interest during such period, the identity, if known, of 
        each interest in real or personal property in which the 
        trust held a beneficial interest having a value of 
        $10,000 or more at any time during such period. If the 
        judge cannot obtain the identity of the trust interest, 
        the judge shall request the trustee to report that 
        information to the Commission.
          (6) The identity and category of value (as set forth 
        in subsection (b)) of each interest in real or personal 
        property having a value of $10,000 or more which the 
        judge owned at any time during such period.
          (7) The amount or value and source of each honorarium 
        of $250 or more received by the judge and the judge's 
        spouse during such period.
          (8) The source and amount of all money, other than 
        that received from the United States government, 
        received in the form of an expense account or as 
        reimbursement for expenditures from any source 
        aggregating more than $250 during such period.
          (9) The source and amount of all waivers or partial 
        waivers of fees or charges accepted by the judge on 
        behalf of the judge or the judge's spouse, domestic 
        partner, or guest during such period.
  (b) For purposes of paragraphs (3) and (6) of subsection (a), 
the categories of value set forth in this subsection are--
          (1) not more than $15,000;
          (2) greater than $15,000 but not more than $50,000;
          (3) greater than $50,000 but not more than $100,000;
          (4) greater than $100,000 but not more than $250,000;
          (5) greater than $250,000 but not more than $500,000;
          (6) greater than $500,000 but not more than 
        $1,000,000;
          (7) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than 
        $5,000,000;
          (8) greater than $5,000,000 but not more than 
        $25,000,000;
          (9) greater than $25,000,000 but not more than 
        $50,000,000; and
          (10) greater than $50,000,000.
  (c)(1) Reports filed pursuant to this section shall, upon 
written request, and notice to the reporting judge for purposes 
of making an application to the Commission for a redaction 
pursuant to paragraph (2), be made available for public 
inspection and copying within a reasonable time after filing 
and during the period they are kept by the Commission (in 
accordance with rules promulgated by the Commission), and shall 
be kept by the Commission for not less than three years.
  (2) This section does not require the public availability of 
reports filed by a judge if upon application by the reporting 
judge, a finding is made by the Commission that revealing 
personal and sensitive information could endanger that judge or 
a family member of that judge, except that a report may be 
redacted pursuant to this paragraph only--
          (A) to the extent necessary to protect the individual 
        who filed the report or a family member of that 
        individual; and
          (B) for as long as the danger to such individual 
        exists.
  (d) The intentional failure by a judge of a District of 
Columbia court to file a report required by this section, or 
the filing of a fraudulent report, shall constitute willful 
misconduct in office and shall be grounds for removal from 
office under section 11-1526(a)(2).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 17--ADMINISTRATION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Subchapter II--COURT PERSONNEL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 11-1732. Magistrate judges

  (a) With the approval of a majority of the judges of the 
Superior Court of the District of Columbia in active service 
and subject to standards and procedures established by the 
rules of the Superior Court, the chief judge of the Superior 
Court may appoint magistrate judges, who shall serve in the 
Superior Court and perform the duties enumerated in subsection 
(j) of this section (or, in the case of magistrate judges for 
the Family Court or the Domestic Violence Unit of the Superior 
Court, the duties enumerated in section 11-1732A(d)) and such 
other functions incidental to these duties as are consistent 
with the rules of the Superior Court and the Constitution and 
laws of the United States and of the District of Columbia.
  (b) Magistrate judges shall be selected pursuant to standards 
and procedures adopted by the Board of Judges. Such procedures 
shall contain provisions for public notice of all vacancies in 
magistrate judge positions and for the establishment by the 
Court of an advisory merit selection panel, composed of lawyer 
and nonlawyer residents of the District of Columbia who are not 
employees of the District of Columbia Courts, to assist the 
Board of Judges in identifying and recommending persons who are 
best qualified to fill such positions.
  (c) Except as provided in section 11-1732A(b), no individual 
shall be appointed as a magistrate judge unless that 
individual--
          (1) is a citizen of the United States;
          (2) is an active member of the unified District of 
        Columbia Bar and has been engaged in the active 
        practice of law in the District for the five years 
        immediately preceding the appointment or for such five 
        years has been on the faculty of a law school in the 
        District, or has been employed as a lawyer by the 
        United States or District government; and
          (3) is a bona fide resident of the District of 
        Columbia and has maintained an actual place of abode in 
        the District for at least ninety days immediately prior 
        to appointment, and retains such residency during 
        service as a magistrate judge, except that magistrate 
        judges appointed prior to the effective date of this 
        section shall not be required to be residents of the 
        District to be eligible to be appointed to one of the 
        initial terms under this section or to be reappointed.
  (d) Magistrate judges shall be appointed for terms of four 
years and may be reappointed for terms of four years. Those 
individuals serving as magistrate judges on the effective date 
of this Act shall be automatically appointed for a four year 
term.
  (e) Upon the expiration of a magistrate judge's term, the 
magistrate judge may continue to perform the duties of office 
until a successor is appointed, or for 90 days after the date 
of the expiration of the hearing commissioner's term, whichever 
is earlier.
  (f) No individual may serve as a magistrate judge under this 
section after having attained the age of seventy-four.
  (g) The Board of Judges may suspend, involuntarily retire, or 
remove a magistrate judge, during the term for which the 
magistrate judge is appointed, only for incompetence, 
misconduct, neglect of duty, or physical or mental disability. 
Suspension, involuntary retirement, or removal requires the 
concurrence of a majority of the judges in active service. 
Before any order of suspension, involuntary retirement, or 
removal shall be entered, a full specification of the charges 
and the opportunity to be heard shall be furnished to the 
magistrate judge pursuant to procedures established by rules of 
the Superior Court.
  (h) If the Board of Judges determines that a magistrate judge 
position is not needed, the Board of Judges may terminate the 
position.
  (i)(1) Magistrate judges may not engage in the practice of 
law, or in any other business, occupation, or employment 
inconsistent with the expeditious, proper, and impartial 
performance of their duties as officers of the court.
  (2) Magistrate judges shall abide by the Canons of Judicial 
Ethics.
  (j) A magistrate judge, when specifically designated by the 
chief judge of the Superior Court, and subject to the rules of 
the Superior Court and the right of review under subsection 
(k), may perform the following functions:
          (1) Administer oaths and affirmations and take 
        acknowledgements;
          (2) Determine conditions of release pursuant to the 
        provisions of Title 23 of the District of Columbia 
        Official Code (relating to criminal procedure);
          (3) Conduct preliminary examinations and initial 
        probation revocation hearings in all criminal cases to 
        determine if there is probable cause to believe that an 
        offense has been committed and that the accused 
        committed it;
          (4)(A) In any case brought under Sec.  11-1101(1), 
        (3), (10), or (11) of the District of Columbia Official 
        Code involving the establishment or enforcement of 
        child support, or in any case seeking to modify an 
        existing child support order, where a magistrate judge 
        in the [Family Division] Family Court of the Superior 
        Court finds that there is an existing duty of support, 
        the magistrate judge shall conduct a hearing on 
        support, make findings, and enter judgment as provided 
        by law, and in accordance with guidelines established 
        by rule of the Superior Court, which judgment shall 
        constitute a final order of the Superior Court.
          (B) If in a case under paragraphs (A), the magistrate 
        judge finds that a duty of support exists and makes a 
        finding that the case involves complex issues requiring 
        judicial resolution, the magistrate judge shall 
        establish a temporary support obligation and refer 
        unresolved issues to a judge of the Superior Court.
          (C) In cases under subparagraphs (A) and (B) in which 
        the magistrate judge finds that there is a duty of 
        support and the individual owing that duty has been 
        served or given notice of the proceeding under any 
        applicable statute or court rule, if that individual 
        fails to appear or otherwise respond, the magistrate 
        judge shall enter a default order, which shall 
        constitute a final order of the Superior Court;
          (5) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court and 
        with the consent of the parties involved, make findings 
        and enter final orders or judgments in other 
        uncontested or contested proceedings, in the Civil, 
        Criminal, and [Family Divisions] Probate Divisions, and 
        the Family Court, of the Superior Court, excluding jury 
        trials and trials of felony cases.
  (k) With respect to proceedings and hearings under paragraphs 
(2), (3), (4), and (5) of subsection (j) (or proceedings and 
hearings under sectionSec.  11-1732A(d), in the case of 
magistrate judges for the Family Court or the Domestic Violence 
Unit of the Superior Court), a review of the magistrate judge's 
order or judgment, in whole or in part, may be made by a judge 
of the appropriate division (or, in the case of an order or 
judgment of a magistrate judge of the Family Court or the 
Domestic Violence Unit of the Superior Court, by a judge of the 
Family Court or the Domestic Violence Unit) sua sponte and must 
be made upon a motion of one of the parties made pursuant to 
procedures established by rules of the Superior Court. The 
reviewing judge shall conduct such proceedings as required by 
the rules of the Superior Court. An appeal to the District of 
Columbia Court of Appeals may be made only after a judge of the 
Superior Court has reviewed the order or judgment.
  (l) The Superior Court shall ensure that all magistrate 
judges receive training to enable them to fulfill their 
responsibilities (subject to the requirements of section 11-
1732A(f) in the case of magistrate judges of the Family Court 
of the Superior Court or the Domestic Violence Unit).
  (m)(1) The chief judge of the Superior Court, in consultation 
with the District of Columbia Bar, the City Council of the 
District of Columbia, and other interested parties, shall 
within one year of the effective date of this section, make a 
careful study of conditions in the Superior Court to 
determine--
          (A) the number of appointments required to provide 
        for the effective administration of justice;
          (B) the divisions in which hearing commissioners 
        shall serve;
          (C) the appropriate functions of hearing 
        commissioners; and
          (D) the compensation of, and other personnel matters 
        pertaining to, hearing commissioners.
Upon completion of the study, the chief judge shall report the 
findings of such study to the appropriate committees of the 
Congress.
  (2) After the study required by paragraph (1), the chief 
judge shall, from time to time, make such studies as the Board 
of Judges shall deem expedient, giving consideration to 
suggestions of the District of Columbia Bar and other 
interested parties.
  (n) With the concurrence of the District of Columbia Court of 
Appeals, the Board of Judges of the Superior Court may 
promulgate rules, not inconsistent with the terms of this 
section, which are necessary for the fair and effective 
utilization of magistrate judges in the Superior Court.
  (o) For purposes of this section, the term ``Board of 
Judges''' means the judges of the Superior Court of the 
District of Columbia. Any action of the Board of Judges shall 
require a majority vote of the sitting judges.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


              Subchapter III--DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Sec.
11-1741. Court operations and organization.
     * * * * * * *
11-1748. Authority of courts to accept certain types of payments.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 11-1748. Authority of courts to accept certain types of payments

  (a) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``electronic 
funds transfer''--
          (1) means a transfer of funds, other than a 
        transaction by check, draft, or similar paper 
        instrument, that is initiated through an electronic 
        terminal, telephone, or computer or magnetic tape for 
        the purpose of ordering, instructing, or authorizing a 
        financial institution to debit or credit an account; 
        and
          (2) includes point of sale transfers, automated 
        teller machine transfers, direct deposit or withdrawal 
        of funds, transfers initiated by telephone, and 
        transfers resulting from debit card transactions.
  (b) Authority to Accept Credit Card Payments and Electronic 
Funds Transfers.--
          (1) In general.--The District of Columbia courts may 
        accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments, 
        restitution, bonds, and other payments to the courts by 
        credit card or electronic funds transfer.
          (2) Use of vendors and third party providers.--The 
        Executive officer--
                  (A) may contract with a bank or credit card 
                vendor, or other third party provider, for 
                purposes of accepting payments by credit card 
                or electronic funds transfer; and
                  (B) shall make every effort to find the 
                lowest cost vendor for purposes of accepting 
                such payments.
          (3) Responsibility for paying fees.--Under any 
        contract entered into under paragraph (2), the person 
        making the payment shall be responsible for covering 
        any fee or charge associated or imposed with respect to 
        the method of payment.
          (4) Completion of payment.--If a person elects to 
        make a payment to the District of Columbia courts by a 
        method authorized under paragraph (1), the payment 
        shall not be deemed to be made until the courts receive 
        the funds.
  (c) Authority to Accept Checks.--
          (1) In general.--The District of Columbia courts may 
        accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments, 
        restitution, bonds, and other payments to the courts by 
        check.
          (2) Use of check guarantee vendor.--The Executive 
        Officer--
                  (A) may contract with a check guarantee 
                vendor for purposes of accepting payments by 
                check; and
                  (B) shall make every effort to find the 
                lowest cost vendor for purposes of accepting 
                such payments.
          (3) Responsibility for paying fees.--Under any 
        contract entered into under paragraph (2), the person 
        making the payment by check shall be responsible for 
        covering any fee or charge associated or imposed with 
        respect to the method of payment.
  (d) Liability for Non-payment.--If a check or other method of 
payment, including payment by credit card, debit card, or 
charge card, so received is not duly paid, or is paid and 
subsequently charged back to the District of Columbia courts, 
the person by whom such check or other method of payment has 
been tendered shall remain liable for the payment, to the same 
extent as if such check or other method of payment had not been 
tendered.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 26--REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENTS IN CRIMINAL CASES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 11 2604. Payment for representation

  (a) Any attorney appointed pursuant to this chapter shall, at 
the conclusion of the representation or any segment thereof, be 
compensated at a fixed rate of $ 90 per hour. Such attorney 
shall be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred.
  (b) The compensation to be paid to an attorney appointed 
pursuant to this chapter shall not exceed the following maximum 
amounts:
          (1) For representation of a defendant before the 
        Superior Court of the District of Columbia for 
        misdemeanors or felonies, the maximum amount set forth 
        in section 3006A(d)(2) of title 18, United States Code, 
        for representation of a defendant before the United 
        States magistrate judge or the district court for 
        misdemeanors or felonies (as the case may be).
          (2) For representation of a defendant before the 
        District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the maximum 
        amount set forth in section 3006A(d)(2) of title 18, 
        United States Code, for representation of a defendant 
        in an appellate court.
          (3) For representation of a defendant in post-trial 
        matters for misdemeanors or felonies, the amount 
        applicable under paragraph (1) for misdemeanors or 
        felonies (as the case may be).
  (c) Claims for compensation and reimbursement in excess of 
any maximum amount provided in subsection (b) of this section 
may be approved for extended or complex representation whenever 
such payment is necessary to provide fair compensation. Any 
such request for payment shall be submitted by the attorney for 
approval by the chief judge of the Superior Court upon 
recommendation of the presiding judge in the case or, in cases 
before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, approval by 
the chief judge of the Court of Appeals upon recommendation of 
the presiding judge in the case. [A decision shall be made by 
the appropriate chief judge in the case of every claim filed 
under this subsection.] Each chief judge may delegate such 
approval authority to an active or senior judge in the court in 
which the chief judge sits.
  (d) A separate claim for compensation and reimbursement shall 
be made to the Superior Court for representation before that 
court, and to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for 
representation before that court. Each claim shall be supported 
by a sworn written statement specifying the time expended, 
services rendered, and expenses incurred while the case was 
pending before the court, and the compensation and 
reimbursement applied for or received in the same case from any 
other source. The court shall fix the compensation and 
reimbursement to be paid to the attorney. In cases where 
representation is furnished other than before the Superior 
Court or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, claims 
shall be submitted to the Superior Court which shall fix the 
compensation and reimbursement to be paid.
  (e) For purposes of compensation and other payments 
authorized by this section, an order by a court granting a new 
trial shall be deemed to initiate a new case.
  (f) If a person for whom counsel is appointed under this 
section appeals to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 
such person may do so without prepayment of fees and costs or 
security therefor and without filing the affidavit required by 
section 1915(a) of title 28, United States Code.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 16--PARTICULAR ACTIONS, PROCEEDINGS AND MATTERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 23--FAMILY DIVISION PROCEEDINGS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



 SUBCHAPTER I-- PROCEEDINGS REGARDING DELINQUENCY, NEGLECT, OR NEED OF 
                              SUPERVISION


Sec. 16-2326.01. Compensation of attorneys in neglect and termination 
                    of parental rights proceedings

  (a)(1) Except as provided for by subsections (b) and (e), an 
attorney representing a person who is financially unable to 
obtain legal counsel in a neglect proceeding or appointed to 
serve as counsel or guardian ad litem for a child who is the 
subject of a neglect proceeding shall, at the end of the 
representation or at the end of a segment of the 
representation, be compensated at a rate not less than the 
hourly rates established in D.C. Official Code, sec. 11-2604.
  (2) The attorney may make a claim for expenses reasonably 
incurred during the course of the representation.
  (b) Compensation payable pursuant to this section shall be 
subject to the following limitations:
          (1) for all proceedings from initial hearing through 
        disposition, the maximum compensation shall be $ 1,980;
          (2) for all subsequent proceedings other than 
        termination of parental rights, the maximum 
        compensation shall be $ 1,980 per year;
          (3) for proceedings to terminate parental rights, the 
        maximum compensation shall be $ 2,700; and
          (4) for appeal of trial court orders, the maximum 
        compensation shall be $ 1,350 per case.
  (c)(1) A separate claim for compensation and reimbursement 
shall be made to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia 
for representation before that Court, and to the District of 
Columbia Court of Appeals for representation before the 
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
  (2) Each claim shall be supported by a sworn written 
statement specifying the time expended, services rendered, and 
expenses incurred while the case was pending before the court, 
and the compensation and reimbursement applied for or received 
in the same case from any other source.
  (3) The Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the 
District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall fix the 
compensation and reimbursement to be paid to the attorney.
  (4) In cases where representation is furnished other than 
before the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the 
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, claims shall be 
submitted to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia 
which shall fix compensation and reimbursement to be paid.
  (d) For purposes of compensation and other payments 
authorized by this section, an order by a court granting a new 
trial shall be deemed to initiate a new case.
  (e) If a person for whom counsel is appointed under this 
section appeals to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 
the person may do so without prepayment of fees, costs, or 
security and without filing the affidavit required by D.C. 
Official Code Sec.  11-2604.
  (f)[(1)] Claims for compensation and reimbursement in excess 
of the maximum amount provided in subsection (b) may be 
approved for extended or complex representation when the 
payment is necessary to provide fair compensation. The request 
for payment shall be submitted by the attorney for approval by 
the chief judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia upon recommendation of the presiding judge in the case 
or, in cases before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 
approval by the chief judge of the District of Columbia Court 
of Appeals upon recommendation of the presiding judge in the 
case. Each chief judge may delegate such approval authority to 
an active or senior judge in the court in which the chief judge 
sits.
  [(2) A decision shall be made by the appropriate chief judge 
in the case of every claim filed under this subsection.]
  (g)(1) Counsel for a person who is financially unable to 
obtain investigative, expert, or other services necessary for 
adequate representation may request compensation for services 
in an ex parte application.
  (2) Upon a finding, after appropriate inquiry in an ex parte 
proceeding, that investigative, expert, or other services are 
necessary but are not available through existing court 
resources, and that the person is financially unable to obtain 
them, the court shall authorize counsel to obtain the services.
  (3) Compensation to be paid to a person for services rendered 
under this subsection shall not exceed $ 300, unless payment in 
excess of that limit is certified by the court, as necessary to 
provide fair compensation for services of an unusual character 
or duration, and the amount of the excess payment is approved 
by the presiding judge in the case.
  (4) In no event shall the total compensation recoverable for 
the services described in this section exceed $ 750 or the rate 
provided by D.C. Official Code Sec.  11-2605(c).
  (h) Compensation for attorneys appointed to represent parties 
in neglect proceedings and costs of investigative, expert, and 
other services shall be paid pursuant to procedures established 
by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  [all]