D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act of 2011

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1379, the ``The D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act of 2011,'' the purpose of which is to grant the District of Columbia (D.C.) Courts and Public Defender Service (PDS) greater administrative flexibility in several areas.

First, the bill authorizes the D.C. Superior Court and Court of Appeals to hold judicial conferences either annually or biennially, eliminating the current mandate that they always hold such conferences every year. Under S. 1379, magistrate judges are required to attend these judicial conferences.

Moreover, this bill authorizes the D.C. Courts to toll or delay judicial deadlines in certain emergency situations such as natural disasters, and allows the D.C. Courts to be reimbursed by the D.C. Government for certain office expenses.

Finally S. 1379 gives the D.C. Public Defender Service authority to purchase liability insurance for its attorneys and changes the term for Family Court judges from five years to three years.

Current law requires the D.C. Courts to hold a judicial conference annually ``for the purpose of advising as to the means of improving the administration of justice within the District of Columbia.''

Federal Courts, however, must hold a conference only every two years. The D.C. Courts have estimated that, in addition to the time spent by judicial personnel planning and attending the conference, they will spend approximately $50,000 on the 2012 judicial conference.

We know that local governments, like D.C., are under tremendous budget constraints, and given Congress' Constitutionally-mandated duty to oversee the District, we should be solicitous to District concerns when it comes to what we require of its government, particularly where costs are concerned.

The requirement that D.C. Courts hold annual judicial conferences was enacted before 1975, long before the internet was created in addition to numerous other advances in communication.

D.C. Courts have determined that the funds, resources, and time required to prepare for and conduct such conferences would be more effectively used if the judicial conference were conducted biennially rather than annually.

With the significant improvement in the dissemination and exchange of information the D.C. Courts' judicial conference is no longer the primary means of obtaining advice pertaining to the administration of justice within D.C.

Specifically, the Courts have determined that electronic and other forms of communication, including the Courts' websites, enable them to regularly communicate with the various participants in the court system.

We should remove the burdensome requirement that D.C. Courts hold annual judicial conferences and, instead, require biannual conferences. Furthermore, despite their important role in the judicial system of the District, magistrate judges currently are not required to attend the D.C. Courts' judicial conference.

D.C. Court magistrate judges hear a variety of cases, including misdemeanor and traffic cases, criminal arraignments, small claims, child support orders, and protection orders.

The D.C. Courts have requested that magistrate judges be required to attend judicial conferences. Because of their importance to the judicial system, I believe that this request should be granted.

The D.C. Courts have also expressed concern with their inability to toll or delay judicial deadlines in the event of an emergency or terrorist attack.

For example, in recent years, snowstorms as well as Tropical Storm Sandy have resulted in devastation of the D.C. Metropolitan area, resulting in federal government closings.

To address this concern, S. 1379 authorizes the Chief Judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals and the D.C. Superior Court to toll or delay judicial proceedings in the event of natural disasters or emergency situations.

Emergency authority under this bill should be used sparingly, and only in extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, S. 1379 requires that if the emergency authority is used for 14 days or more, the Joint Judicial Committee must approve each extension and the courts must give Congress a written justification no later than 180 days after the expiration of the last extension granted.

Currently, there is no statutory authority to allow D.C. Courts, absent explicit authority from Congress, to enter into reimbursable agreements with anyone, including the D.C. government.

This is because the D.C. Home Rule Act prevents the obligation of funds without approval by an Act of Congress. To address this concern, S. 1379 modifies the D.C. Code to allow the D.C. Courts to enter into reimbursable agreements for certain office expenses.

Finally, unlike Federal public defender service organizations, D.C. Public Defender Service does not have explicit authority to purchase liability insurance for its attorneys; consequentially, its attorneys are unable to protect themselves from potential lawsuits arising during the course of their official duties.

Individuals who provide professional advice and services, such as attorneys, typically carry liability insurance in order to offset the risks arising as a result of the advice or services they render.

To address this, S. 1379 provides the D.C. Public Defender Service explicit statutory authority to purchase professional liability insurance, allowing its staff to be protected from the financial risk of potential lawsuits by clients and others.

The accommodations sought by the D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act are reasonable and will ameliorate several deficiencies under current law. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1379.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Utah for his kind remarks.

(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I rise today in strong support of the D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act of 2011. I would like to thank Senator Joe Lieberman, the chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and particularly Senator Daniel Akaka, the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Management and the Senate sponsor of the bill, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia for ushering the bill through subcommittee and committee and getting it passed by voice vote.

Both Senators Lieberman and Akaka are retiring this year. They each will leave rich legacies of accomplishment to the Nation, and both Senator Lieberman and Senator Akaka have always been good friends of the District of Columbia. They will be very much missed in both Chambers by all of us, I know, but particularly by the residents of the District of Columbia.

S. 1379 is an important bill for the administration of justice in the District of Columbia. It will allow the chief judge of the superior court or the court of appeals to delay judicial proceedings in the event of a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or other emergency. It is clear that the Nation's capital is at risk to such emergencies. Most recently, Hurricane Sandy, the unprecedented storm that devastated the east coast, and was expected to hit the District much harder than what actually occurred.

S. 1379 also allows the chief judge of the court of appeals to hold judicial conferences biennially rather than annually as required by current law.

This option is common sense, considering the increase in the use of electronic communication today and the significant cost savings involved.

The bill also allows the D.C. courts to enter into reimbursable agreements with the D.C. government for equipment, supplies, and other services, a measure to assure that reimbursement costs do not come from congressional appropriations.

The bill reduces the term of service, from 5 to 3 years, required of judges of the family court division of the superior court, a policy aimed at easing recruitment of able judges to the family court division.

In addition, the bill authorizes the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, a federally funded government agency, to purchase professional liability insurance for its attorneys, staff, and board members, which is, of course, indispensable to all who practice law today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for his work on this bill, and I particularly want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Issa, who went to great lengths to make sure that this bill, in fact, made the agenda of the Congress and who has been so important to understanding and making sure that particularly minor D.C. bills like this received quick treatment and, I must say, in addition to his work on very important bills for the District of Columbia that are still in progress like our budget autonomy bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1379) to amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to revise certain administrative authorities of the District of Columbia courts, and to authorize the District of Columbia Public Defender Service to provide professional liability insurance for officers and employees of the Service for claims relating to services furnished within the scope of employment with the Service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 1379 would grant the District of Columbia courts and Public Defender Service greater administrative flexibility in several areas.

First, it authorizes the D.C. Superior Court and the Court of Appeals to hold judicial conferences either annually or biennially, eliminating the current mandate that they always hold such conferences each and every year.

It requires magistrate judges to attend these judicial conferences.

It authorizes the D.C. courts to delay judicial deadlines in certain emergency situations such as a natural disaster.

It also allows the D.C. courts to be reimbursed by the D.C. government for certain office expenses, and it gives the D.C. Public Defender Service authority to purchase liability insurance for its attorneys, and changes the term for family court judges from 5 years to 3 years.

Nearly identical legislation was approved unanimously by the House in the 111th Congress. There is no expected cost associated with the legislation.

I would like to thank Senator Akaka for sponsoring this bill and guiding its passage in the other body. I would also like to thank our colleague, Ms. Norton, for her work in getting this legislation to the floor today. She cares passionately about D.C. and has nothing but its best interests at heart. We listen to that, we hear that, and in part, because of that, we support this legislation and encourage our colleagues to do the same.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 436, S. 1379.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be read a third time.

I know of no further debate on this bill, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.