[Senate Report 114-359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                      Calendar No. 645
                                                      
114th Congress     }                                     {   Report
                              SENATE                          
 2d Session        }                                     {  114-359
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       

                     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL

                       FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                S. 2966

          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
                                 
                                 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


               September 27, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
               
               
                            _________ 
                                  
                U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
 59-010                  WASHINGTON : 2016                     
               
               
               
               
        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa                     GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                  Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
                Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
       Patrick J. Bailey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
              Rebecca N. Nuzzi, Professional Staff Member
              Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
           John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
               Mary Beth Schultz, Minority Chief Counsel
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                     



                                                       Calendar No. 645
                                                       
114th Congress     }                                        {   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session        }                                        {   114-359

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



 
        DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY ACT

                                _______
                                

               September 27, 2016.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
                    Affairs, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2966]

    The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 2966) 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, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill, 
as amended, do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
 II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Legislative History..............................................4
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................5
  V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................5
 VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................6
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............7

                         I. Purpose and Summary

    S. 2966, the District of Columbia Judicial Financial 
Transparency and Courts Improvement Act of 2016, revises the 
financial disclosure requirements for District of Columbia 
Superior Court and District of Columbia Court of Appeals 
(collectively D.C. Courts) judges. The revisions establish new 
dollar thresholds for which judges and their spouses are 
required to report to the District of Columbia Commission on 
Judicial Disabilities and Tenure.
    In addition, S. 2966 strengthens and enhances the D.C. 
Courts' operational capacity by addressing issues related to 
caseloads and efficiency. The bill authorizes the use of 
Magistrate Judges in the Probate Division of the D.C. Courts to 
preserve access to justice that is timely, fair, and just for 
self-represented litigants.
    S. 2966 also reduces the amount of administrative work 
required by the Chief Judges of the D.C. Courts by allowing 
them to delegate certain approval authorities to an active or 
senior judge, enabling them more time to see to the efficient 
operation of the D.C. Courts. Finally, the legislation 
simplifies payment methods for court fees by authorizing the 
use of credit cards and electronic funds transfer.

              II. Background and the Need for Legislation

    The District of Columbia is an autonomous, permanent 
Federal district that serves as the ``Seat of the Government of 
the United States'' under Article I of the Constitution.\1\ 
Congress has the power ``to exercise exclusive Legislation in 
all Cases whatsoever'' within this Federal district.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cls. 8, 17.
    \2\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Financial disclosure requirements

    Financial disclosure reports serve as ``safeguards against 
conflicts of interest and abuse of the public trust by 
government officials.''\3\ Under current law, D.C. Superior 
Court and D.C. Court of Appeals judges are required to file 
annual financial disclosure reports.\4\ However, unlike the 
disclosure reports for other Federal judges,\5\ very little of 
these reports is available to the public.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\H. Doc. No. 95-139, 95 Cong. 1 sess.
    \4\D.C. Code Sec. 11-1530.
    \5\U.S.C. app. Sec. 105(b).
    \6\District of Columbia Earns `F' for Judicial Financial 
Disclosure, The Center for Public Integrity (Dec. 4, 2013, 12:01 AM), 
available at https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/12/04/13725/district-
columbia-earns-f-judicial-financial-disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When the disclosure requirements for D.C. Courts judges 
were codified in 1970, lawmakers modeled them after the rules 
that were in place at the time for Federal judges.\7\ These 
rules were subsequently modified when, in the wake of the 
Watergate scandal, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act 
of 1978, which enhanced public disclosure requirements in an 
effort to ``preserve and promote the integrity of public 
officials and institutions.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\D.C. Code Sec. 11-1530 (1978).
    \8\Pub. L. No. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 amended the 
U.S. Code, but did not amend the D.C. Code, D.C. Courts judges' 
annual financial disclosure requirements were never updated to 
reflect the 1978 changes.
    This legislation would bring the financial disclosure 
requirements for D.C. Courts judges in line with those 
currently in place for Federal judges and enhance public trust 
through enhanced transparency.

Authority of probate division to use magistrate judges

    Under current D.C. Code, the Chief Judge of the D.C. 
Superior Court, with the approval of a majority of judges in 
active service, is authorized to appoint magistrate judges to 
serve as judicial officers in the Superior Court. Magistrate 
judges are authorized to make findings and enter final orders 
or judgments in other uncontested or contested proceedings in 
the Civil, Criminal, and Family Divisions of the Superior 
Court, so long as both parties consent.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\D.C. Code Sec. 11-1530 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The caseload of the District of Columbia Probate Division 
has increased in recent years, thanks, in large part, to a rise 
in the number of incapacitated persons under court supervision 
in adult guardianship cases.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\The Caseload of the Probate Division increased from 7,240 total 
cases as of August 30, 2014, including 2,432 adult guardianship cases, 
to a caseload of 7,563 total cases, including 2,602 adult guardianship 
cases as of July 1, 2016. Information provided by the DC Courts to 
Comm. staff on July 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Between 2010 and 2015, the number of court orders issued in 
Probate Division cases increased 123 percent, from 6,755 court 
orders in 2010, to 15,044 in 2015.\11\ In the same time period, 
the number of court hearings held increased 93 percent from--
2,008 hearings in 2010, to 3,882 hearings in 2015.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Id.
    \12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By granting magistrate judges authority to make findings 
and enter final orders or judgments in the Probate Division, 
this legislation grants the Chief Judge and District judges the 
flexibility to address the issue of the Probate Division's 
increased caseload and ensure the court's ability to serve the 
public with fair, prompt, and timely access to justice.

Credit cards

    While D.C. Courts are not Federal entities, they are 
Federally-funded, and therefore must obligate and extend their 
appropriations ``in the same manner as funds appropriated for 
salaries and expenses of other federal agencies.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, 
Pub. L. No. 113-235, 124 Stat. 2353 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An increasing number of government agencies are accepting 
credit cards as a form of payment. The D.C. Courts accept 
credit cards for limited purposes through the website 
pay.gov.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Pay.gov, DCD Criminal Debt Form, https://www.pay.gov/public/
form/start/75717538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Allowing the D.C. Courts to recover the commissions that 
credit card companies charge per use by exacting a fee from 
users would significantly reduce their administrative costs. It 
would also increase their operational efficiency, and provide 
the public with a convenience that is otherwise commonly 
available.

Increase jurisdictional amount for Small Claims Court from $5,000 to 
        $10,000

    The Small Claims and Conciliation Branch of the D.C. 
Superior Court was created in 1938 to:

          [I]mprove administration of justice in small civil 
        cases and make the service of the municipal court more 
        easily available to all of the people whether of large 
        or small means; to simplify practice and procedure in 
        the commencement, handling, and trial of such cases; to 
        eliminate delay and reduce costs; to provide for 
        installment payment of judgments; and generally to 
        promote confidence of the public in the courts through 
        provision of a friendly forum for disputes, small in 
        amount but important to the parties.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Pub. L. No. 75-441, 52 Stat. 103 (1938).

    Congress has authorized an increase in the jurisdictional 
amount of the Small Claims Branch several times over the 
years.\16\ The most recent increase was in 1994, when the 
amount was raised from $2,000 to its current level of 
$5,000.\17\ Past increases in the jurisdictional amount have 
resulted in a greater number of civil cases eligible for 
consideration in a less formal setting, which is both faster 
and less expensive. This has the added benefit of reducing the 
caseload at the D.C. Superior Court level, thus freeing up 
resources and personnel to address the District's criminal and 
complex civil dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\See Pub. L. No. 87-203, 75 Stat. 470 (1961) (from $50 to $150); 
Pub. L. No. 91-358, 84 Stat. 489 (1970) (from $150 to $750); Pub. L. 
No. 103-303, 108 Stat. 1564, Sec. 2(a) (1994) (from $2,000 to $5,000).
    \17\Pub. L. No. 103-303, 108 Stat. 1564, 2(a) (1994) (from $2,000 
to $5,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This bill will adjust the small claims jurisdictional 
amount to reflect the historical effect the past 22 years has 
had on inflation. According to data from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics on inflation in the Consumer Price Index, a claim 
worth $5,000 in 1994 would be worth $8,105 in 2016.\18\ Raising 
the jurisdictional limit to $10,000 not only decreases the 
burden on the Superior Court personnel and resources; it also 
preserves access to Small Claims courts for litigants according 
to inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\CPI Inflation Calculator, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, available at http://www.bls.gov/data/
inflation_calculator.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority to allow the chief judges to delegate authority to approve 
        certain vouchers

    Under current law, Criminal Justice Act Vouchers (CJA 
Vouchers) must be approved directly by chief judges of the D.C. 
Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals. Such 
administrative work can detract from the amount of time chief 
judges have to devote to the efficient operation of the courts 
and the management of their resources. This authority is 
similar to that which is provided to chief judges in the 
Federal courts.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\``The chief judge may delegate such approval authority to an 
active or senior judge.'' 18 U.S.C. 3006A (d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        III. Legislative History

    S. 2966, the D.C. Judicial Financial Transparency and 
Courts Improvement Act of 2016, was introduced on May 23, 2016, 
by Senator James Lankford with Senators Ron Johnson, Tom 
Carper, and Cory Booker. The bill was referred to the Committee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
    The Committee considered S. 2966 at a business meeting on 
May 25, 2016. During the business meeting, an amendment by 
Senator Lankford was offered and adopted. Both the amendment 
and the legislation as modified were passed by voice vote with 
Senators Johnson, Portman, Paul, Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, 
Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, Tester, Baldwin, Heitkamp, Booker, 
and Peters present.

        IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported


Section 1. Short title

    This section establishes 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

    Establishes rules requiring each judge of the District of 
Columbia courts to submit financial disclosure reports to the 
D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure, and 
outlines the reporting thresholds for each source of outside 
income.

Section 3. Authority of probate division to use magistrate judges

    Authorizes the use of magistrate judges in the probate 
division of the D.C. Superior Court.

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

    Section 4 expands the payment methods permitted by the D.C. 
Courts to include check payments, credit card payments, and 
electronic funds transfer, in addition to the previously 
accepted forms of cash or money order.

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

    This section increases the small claims court jurisdiction 
from $5,000 to $10,000.

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

    Section 6 authorizes chief judges to delegate CJA Voucher 
approval authority to an active or senior judge in the court in 
which the chief judge sits. This section also clarifies that 
chief judges may also delegate authority to approve counsel for 
Child Abuse and Neglect vouchers in addition to CJA vouchers.

                   V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact

    Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has 
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined 
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning 
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional 
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs 
on state, local, or tribal governments.

             VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                                    August 3, 2016.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 
        Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2966, 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.

S. 2966--District of Columbia Judicial Financial Transparency Act

    S. 2966 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, S. 2966 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 add 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 S. 2966 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). S. 2966 contains no private-sector mandates.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew 
Pickford (for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for the 
intergovernmental mandates). The estimate was approved by H. 
Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

       VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows: (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

CODE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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] 
a report containing the following information:
          (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.]
                  (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 
                whether the amount or value of such an item of 
                income is
                          (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 [$5,000] 
        $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 [$50] $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 [in such manner as the 
        Commission shall by rule prescribe].
          (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 [$300] $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)
          [(1) * * *
          [(2) * * *
          [(3) * * *]
    (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).

SEC. 11-1732. MAGISTRATE JUDGES

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (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) * * *
          (5) Subject to the rules of the Superior Court and 
        with the consent of the parties involved, make findings 
        and enter final orders or judgements 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 17--ADMINISTRATION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Subchapter III--Duties and responsibilities

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



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 with 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) * * *
    (b) * * *
          (1) * * *
          (2) * * *
    (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 16--PARTICULAR ACTIONS, PROCEEDINGS AND MATTERS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



CHAPTER 23--FAMILY DIVISION [FAMILY COURT] 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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(f)(1)] (f) 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.]