[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4] [House] [Pages 4667-4668] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]PAYING ATTORNEYS OF INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5551) to amend title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, to implement the increase provided under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2008, in the amount of funds made available for the compensation of attorneys representing indigent defendants in the District of Columbia courts, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: H.R. 5551 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF INCREASE PROVIDED IN FUNDING FOR COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS. (a) Increase in Hourly Rate.--Section 11-2604(a), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking ``$65 per hour'' and inserting ``$80 per hour''. (b) Increase in Caps on Total Compensation Paid for Particular Cases.--Section 11-2604(b), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended to read as follows: ``(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).''. SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to cases and proceedings initiated on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois. General Leave Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? There was no objection. Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she might consume to the author of this legislation, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I especially thank him for his alacrity and [[Page 4668]] the expert way in which he has carried this bill quickly to and through the process. Mr. Speaker, this is a no-cost bill. Indeed, the appropriations for an increase in the amounts paid to these attorneys has been appropriated. This is another of those District of Columbia anomalies. The courts of the District of Columbia operate through payments from the appropriations of the Congress of the United States and the judges are Title I attorneys. Therefore, District of Columbia judges may not use the funds that have been appropriated to raise the hourly rate of these attorneys, who are essential to the functioning, particularly of the criminal justice system, but also of the civil justice system, in the District of Columbia. They supplement the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia. These attorneys have not had their hourly rates raised since 2002, when they were set at $65 per hour. They have requested $80 per hour. They are being granted $80 an hour, this in spite of the fact that the rate of inflation has been between 3 and 4 percent a year. They, of course, had in mind that they went some years where their rates did not keep up with the rates of other attorneys who serve Federal courts. Of course, they recognize that we are not going to raise their rates every year, but this is what the Congress is willing to do at this time. It does seem to me that the last thing we want to do is to slow down in particular criminal justice processing in the District of Columbia, particularly where there are already funds from the Appropriations Committee available, and when the failure to spend them only comes from a jurisdictional technicality, where we and we alone can indeed authorize the spending of these funds. What H.R. 5551 does is simply accomplish this authorization. I am very, very grateful to Chairman Davis for bringing this bill forward so quickly. Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I am pleased it has moved so quickly through the committee and is being considered by the House today. When I was chairman of the DC Subcommittee, Congress enacted legislation I sponsored known as the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997. This law in part granted Congress authority over the District's court system in matters relating to public defender services. The law also amended the D.C. Home Rule Act to the same effect. H.R. 5551, authored by Ms. Norton, would authorize a provision of the D.C. Appropriations Act of 2008 which increased from $65 per hour to $80 per hour the amount of compensation for attorneys representing indigent clients before the District of Columbia Superior Court. The current compensation rate of $65 per hour was established in fiscal year 2002, an increase from the previous rate of $50 per hour. Attorneys representing indigents in similar cases before U.S. District Courts are compensated at a rate of $100 per hour. No opposition to this bill was raised, either during the committee hearing or at the committee markup. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Again, I thank Ms. Norton for bringing this forward, and Chairman Waxman and Chairman Davis for moving this ahead so quickly. I think this needs to be enacted. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I stand with my colleague, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton from our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia, in consideration of H.R. 5551, which will provide for a much-needed increase in the compensation paid to attorneys assigned to represent indigent clients in the DC court system. Congresswoman Norton and I introduced this measure on March 6, 2008. On March 11, 2008, the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia held a hearing to examine aspects of the legislation, and on March 13, 2008, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform considered and passed the bill out of committee by voice vote. H.R. 5551 calls for an increase in the hourly pay rate from $65 to $80 for Criminal Adjusters Act, CJA attorneys, representing indigent defendants in the DC courts. The measure would also increase the caps on the total compensation paid to these attorneys per case type to be equal to the total compensation paid to attorneys representing similar clients in Federal Court. {time} 1430 The increased compensation rate for CJA attorneys practicing in DC courts would only apply to cases that proceeded or initiated on or after the date of enactment of the Act. Mr. Speaker, a core element of our unique democracy is the right and requirement that every citizen, regardless of income or socioeconomic class, be afforded adequate counsel or representation when confronting judicial proceedings. In fact, one of the most important decisions in this area of law was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942, when it held that the Sixth Amendment required the government afford indigent defendants with competent counsel. The measure we have before us further reiterates this fundamental concept by helping to ensure that the DC court system is in a competitive position to attract the best and brightest lawyers to represent the indigent. And so, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 5551. I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5551. The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. ____________________