[Senate Report 114-110]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 190
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 114-110
_______________________________________________________________________
DC COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY ACT OF 2015
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 1629
TO REVISE CERTAIN AUTHORITIES OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA COURTS, THE COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER
SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
August 3, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-010 WASHINGTON : 2015
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
Keith B. Ashdown, Staff Director
Christopher R. Hixon, Chief Counsel
Patrick J. Bailey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
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. 190
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 114-110
======================================================================
DC COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY ACT OF 2015
_______
August 3, 2015.--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. 1629]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 1629) to revise
certain authorities of the District of Columbia courts, the
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District
of Columbia, and the Public Defender Service for the District
of Columbia, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Legislative History..............................................3
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................3
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................4
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................4
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............5
I. Purpose and Summary
S. 1629, the District of Columbia (DC or the District)
Courts, Public Defender Service, and Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency Act of 2015, seeks to provide the
judicial offices of the District of Columbia with increased
authority to make personnel, managerial, and programmatic
decisions, including authority to improve the reentry programs
of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency by
allowing the agency to offer programmatic incentives to
sentenced offenders; authority to collect debts and erroneous
payments from DC Courts employees; authority for the DC Public
Defender Service to accept volunteer services; and related
provisions.
II. Background and the Need for Legislation
In 1997, Congress reorganized the District of Columbia
judicial agencies and turned them into federal agencies with
federal employees.\1\ However, while federalizing these local
agencies, Congress did not provide basic authorities that are
available to other federal agencies and are necessary to the
efficient operation of the judicial branch of the local
District government.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement
Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33.
\2\For example, while 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5901 provides authorization for
appropriations for uniforms for all federal agencies ``and the
government of the District of Columbia,'' that law was explicitly
superceded by the D.C. Code Sec. 1-632.02(a)(5)(I). Furthermore, the
D.C. City Council has no authority to authorize the purchase of
uniforms based on the strict limitation under D.C. Code Sec. 1-
206.02(a)(4), which prevents the council from enacting any measure
related to the courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency has specific statutory authority to punish sentenced
offenders but lacks statutory authority to improve reentry
programs by offering incentives to those sentenced offenders
who succeed.\3\ A growing body of research indicates that not
only should supervision services provide incentive programs,
they should be offering more opportunities for incentives than
for sanctions.\4\ With the authority provided under this bill,
the agency could provide simple, low cost items to former
offenders such as bus fares to job interviews and fees for GED
tests if those offenders are doing particularly well in the
reentry program. These incentives would be paid for out of the
agency's general operating fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement
Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33.
\4\American Probation and Parole Association, Effective Responses
to Offender Behavior: Lessons Learned for Probation and Parole
Supervision, available at https://www.appa-net.org/eWeb/docs/APPA/pubs/
EROBLLPPS-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District's Public Defender Service also lacks authority
to accept volunteer services. Without this authority, the
agency cannot accept pro bono legal services from local law
firms or unpaid legal interns and law clerks, which also
hampers entry-level attorney recruitment, according to the
agency.\5\ S. 1629 gives the Public Defender Services the
authority to accept donations and volunteer services while also
recognizing that its board members are employees of the
District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement
Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the District of Columbia Courts lack the basic
authority to collect overpayments to their own employees by
offsetting pay.\6\ If a simple payroll error occurs, the courts
can ask the employee to repay and can proceed using common law
legal methods to collect, but have no authority to simply and
efficiently offset the employee's pay. The courts also lack the
authority to purchase uniforms for employees.\7\ S. 1629 would
provide the District of Columbia Courts with the authorities it
needs to operate efficiently by authorizing the District of
Columbia Courts to purchase uniforms for certain employees and
collect overpayments and other debts owed by employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\The Comptroller General has held that specific statutory
authority is necessary for a federal agency to offset an employee's
pay. See 61 Comp. Gen. 450 (1982). While this specific authority has
been granted to all federal agencies and to other agencies of the
government of the District of Columbia, see 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 5514 and
5584; 31 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3711 and 3716; D.C. Code Sec. Sec. 1-629.01--
1-629.04, and D.C. Code Sec. 2-406, it is not available to the Courts.
\7\See, D.C. Code Sec. 1-632.02(a)(5)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Legislative History
Senator Johnson introduced S. 1629 with Senator Carper on
June 18, 2015. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The Committee considered S. 1629 at a business meeting held
on June 24, 2015. No amendments were offered. The Committee
ordered the bill reported favorably en bloc by voice vote.
Members present for the vote were: Johnson, McCain, Lankford,
Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, and Heitkamp.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported
Section 1. Short title
This section provides the bill's short title, the
``District of Columbia Courts, Public Defender Service, and
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency Act of 2015.''
Section 2. Authorities of District of Columbia Courts
This section authorizes the District of Columbia Courts to
collect overpayments and outstanding employee debts by
offsetting pay. It furthermore establishes the timing and
guidelines for the recovery of such overpayments.
This section also allows the District of Columbia Courts to
provide uniforms for employees whose responsibilities warrant
the wearing of uniforms.
Section 3. Authorities of Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency
This section authorizes the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency to offer programmatic incentives to
sentenced offenders.
It also makes permanent the authority of the agency to
accept and solicit monetary and nonmonetary gifts and to accept
and use reimbursements from the District of Columbia.
Section 4. Authorities of Public Defender Service
This section authorizes the Public Defender Service to
accept and use volunteer services, public grants, and private
donations.
It also clarifies that members of the Board of Trustees for
the Public Defender Services are employees of the Public
Defender Service.
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 Congressional Budget Office confirmed that S.
1629 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates
as defined in UMRA.
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 2, 2015.
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. 1629, the District
of Columbia Courts, Public Defender Service, and Court Services
and Offender Supervision Agency Act of 2015.
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. 1629--District of Columbia Courts, Public Defender Service, and
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency Act of 2015
S. 1629 would make changes to the District of Columbia
Official Code that governs the D.C. Courts system. Under
current law, the budget of the D.C. Courts system, including
the Public Defender Service (PDS) and the Court Services and
Offender Service Agency (CSOSA), is funded by federal
appropriations; thus, its expenditures are recorded in the
federal budget. Among other changes, the bill would allow the
D.C. Courts System to collect debts and erroneous payments owed
by its employees and to purchase uniforms for non-judicial
employees. The bill also would allow CSOSA to operate incentive
programs for offender education, accept and spend gifts, and
receive reimbursement from the D.C. government for the use of
office space in D.C. Courts facilities. Finally, the bill would
allow PDS to use unpaid volunteers. Based on information
provided by the District of Columbia Courts, PDS, and CSOSA,
CBO estimates that the proposed changes would have an
insignificant effect on discretionary spending.
Enacting the legislation would affect direct spending
because it would authorize CSOSA to accept and spend monetary
gifts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO
estimates that the net effect on direct spending would not be
significant. Enacting S. 1629 would not affect revenues.
S. 1629 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. This 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
S. 1629 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):
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE
* * * * * * *
TITLE 2--GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 16--PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2--1603. BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) For the purposes of any action brought against the
trustees of the Service, they shall be deemed to be [employees
of the District of Columbia] employees of the Service.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2--1607. APPROPRIATIONS; PUBLIC GRANTS AND PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) * * *
(b) Upon approval of the Board of Trustees, [the Service
may accept public grants and private contributions made to
assist it] the Service may accept and use public grants,
private contributions, and voluntary and uncompensated
(gratuitous) services to assist it in carrying out the
provisions of this chapter.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 11--ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 17--ADMINISTRATION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS
* * * * * * *
Subchapter II--Courts Personnel
* * * * * * *
Sec. 11--1733. Collection, compromise, and waiver of employee debts and
erroneous payments
(a) Collection of Debts and Erroneous Payments Made to
Employees.--
(1) Authority to collect.--If the Executive Officer
determines that an employee or former employee of the
District of Columbia Courts is indebted to the District
of Columbia Courts because of an erroneous payment made
to or on behalf of the employee or former employee, or
any other debt, the Executive Officer may collect the
amount of the debt in accordance with this subsection.
(2) Timing of collection.--The Executive Officer may
collect a debt from an employee under this subsection
in monthly installements or at officially established
regulat pay period intervals, by deduction in
reasonable amounts from the current pay of the
employee.
(3) Source of deductions.--The Executive Officer may
make a deduction under paragraph (2) from any wages,
salary, compensation, renumeration for services, or
other authorized pay, including incentive pay, back
pay, and lump sum leave payments, but not including
retirement pay.
(4) Limit on amount.--In making deductions under
paragraph (2) with respect to an employee, the
Executive Officer--
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B),
may not deduct more than 20 percent of the
disposable pay of the employee for any period;
and
(B) upon consent of the employee, may deduct
more than 20 percent of the disposable pay of
the employee for any period.
(5) Collections after employment.--If the employement
of an employee ends before the Executive Officer
completes the collection of the amount of the
employee's debt under this subsection, deductions may
be made--
(A) from later non-periodic government
payments of any nature due the former employee,
except retirement pay; and
(B) without regard to the limit under
paragraph (4)(A).
(b) Notice and Hearing Required.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3),
prior to initiating any proceedings under subsection
(a) to collect any debt from an individual, the
Executive Officer shall provide the individual with--
(A) a written notice, not later than 30 days
before the date on which the Executive Officer
initiates the proceeding, that informs the
individual of--
(i) the nature and amount of the debt
determined by the District of Columbia
Courts to be due;
(ii) the intention of the Courts to
initiate a proceeding to collect the
debt through deductions from pay; and
(iii) an explanation of the rights of
the individual under this section;
(B) an opportunity to inspect and copy Court
records relating to the debt;
(C) an opportunity to enter into a written
agreement with the Courts, under terms
agreeable to the Executive Officer, to
establish a schedule for the repayment of the
debt; and
(D) an opportunity for a hearing in
accordance with paragraph (2) on the
determination of the Courts--
(i) concerning the existence or the
amount of the debt; and
(ii) in the case of an individual
whose repayment schedule is established
other than by a written agreement under
subparagraph (C), concerning the terms
of the repayment schedule.
(2) Procedures for hearings.--
(A) Availability of hearing upon request.--
Except as provided in paragraph (3), the
Executive Officer shall provide a hearing under
this paragraph if an individual, not later than
15 days after the date on which the individual
receives a notice under paragraph (1)(A), and
in accordance with any procedures that the
Executive Officer prescribes, files a petition
requesting the hearing.
(B) Basis for hearing.--A hearing under this
paragraph shall be on the written submissions
unless the hearing officer determines that the
existence or amount of the debt--
(i) turns on an issue of credibility
or ceracity; or
(ii) cannot be resolved by a review
of the documentary evidence.
(C) Stay of collection proceedings.--The
timely filing of a petition for hearing under
subparagraph (A) shall stay the commencement of
collection proceedings under this section.
(D) Independent officer.--An independent
hearing officer appointed in accordance with
regulations promulgated under subsection (e)
shall conduct a hearing under this paragraph.
(E) Deadline for decision.--The hearing
officer shall issue a final decision regarding
the questions covered by the hearing at the
earliest practicable date, and not later than
60 days after the date of the hearing.
(3) Exception.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not
apply to routine intra-Courts adjustment of pay that is
attributable to a clerical or administrative error or
delay in processing pay documents that occurred within
the 4 pay periods preceding the adjustment or to any
adjustment that amounts to not more than $50, if at the
time of the adjustment, or as soon thereafter as
practical, the Executive Officer provides the
individual--
(A) written notice of the nature and amount
of the adjustment; and
(B) a point of contact for contesting the
adjustment.
(c) Compromise.--
(1) Authority to compromise claims.--The Executive
Officer may--
(A) compromise a claim to collect an debt
under this section if the amount involved is
not more than $100,000; and
(B) suspend or end collection action on a
claim described in subparagraph (A) if the
Executive Officer determines that--
(i) no person liable on the claim has
the present or prospective ability to
pay a significant amount of the claim;
or
(ii) the cost of collecting the claim
is likely to be more than the amount
recovered.
(2) Effect of compromise.--A compromise under this
subsection shall be final and conclusive obtained by
fraud, misrepresentation, presenting a false claim, or
mutual mistake of fact.
(3) No liability of official responsible for
compromise.--An accountable official shall not be
liable for an amount paid or for the value of property
lost or damaged if the amount or value is not recovered
because of a compromise under this subsection.
(d) Waiver of Claim.--
(1) Authority to waive claims.--Upon application from
a person liable on a claim to collect a debt under this
section, the Executive Officer may, with written
justification, waive the claim if collection would be--
(A) against equity;
(B) against good conscience; and
(C) not in the best interests of the District
of Columbia Courts.
(2) Limitations on authority.--The Executive Officer
may not waive a claim under this subsection if the
Executive Officer--
(A) determines that there exists, in
connection with the claim, an indication of
fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of
good faith on the part of the employee, the
former employee, or any other person that has
an interest in obtaining a waiver of the claim;
or
(B) receives the application for waiver later
than 3 years after the later of the date on
which the erroneous payment was discovered or
the date of enactment of this section, unless
the claim involves money owed for Federal
health benefits, Federal life insurance, or
Federal retirement benefits.
(3) Denial of application for waiver.--A decision by
the Executive Officer to deny an application for a
waiver under this subsection shall be the final
administrative decision of the District government.
(4) Refund of amounts already collected against claim
subsequently waived.--If the Executive Officer waives a
claim against an employee or former employee under this
section after the District of Columbia Courts have been
reimbursed for the claim in whole or in part, the
Executive Officer shall provide the employee or former
employee a refund of the amount of the reimbursement
upon application for the refund, if the Executive
Officer receives the application not later than 2 years
after the effective date of the waiver.
(5) Effect on accounts of courts.--In the audit and
settlement of accounts of any accountable official,
full credit shall be given for any amounts with respect
to which collection by the District of Columbia Courts
is waived under this subsection.
(6) Validity of payments.--An erroneous payment or
debt, the collection of which is waived under this
subsection, shall be a valid payment for all purposes.
(7) No effect on other authorities.--Nothing
contained in this subsection shall be construed to
affect the authority of the District of Columbia under
any other statute to litigate, settle, compromise, or
waive any claim of the District of Columbia.
(e) Regulations.--The authority of the Executive Officer
under this section shall be subject to regulations promulgated
by the Joint Committee.
Subchapter III--Duties and Responsibilities
* * * * * * *
SEC. 11--1742. PROPERTY AND DISBURSEMENT.
(a) * * *
(b) The Executive Officer shall be responsible for the
procurement of necessary equipment, supplies, and services for
the courts and shall have power, subject to applicable law, to
reimburse the District of Columbia government for services
provided and to contract for such equipment, supplies, and
services as may be necessary. In carrying out the authority
under the preceding sentence, the Executive Officer may
purchase uniforms to be worn by nonjudicial employees of the
District of Columbia Courts whose responsibilities warrant the
wearing of uniforms if the cost of furnishing a uniform to an
employee during a year does not exceed the amount applicable
for the year under section 5901(a)(1) of title 5, United States
Code (relating to the uniform allowance for employees of the
Government of the United States).
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL CAPITAL REVITALIZATION AND SELF-GOVERNMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
1997
* * * * * * *
TITLE XI--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVITALIZATION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Criminal Justice
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 3--OFFENDER SUPERVISION AND PAROLE
* * * * * * *
SEC. 11233. COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY.
(a) * * *
(b) Director.--
(1) * * *
(2) Powers and duties of director.--The Director
shall--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(F) develop and operate intermediate
[sanctions] sanctions and incentives;
* * * * * * *
(3) Acceptance of gifts.--
[(A) Authority to accept gifts.--During
fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the Director
may accept and use gifts in the form of--
[(i) in-kind contributions of space
and hospitality to support offender and
defendant programs; and
[(ii) equipment and vocational
training services to educate and train
offenders and defendants.]
(A) Authority to accept gifts.--The Director
may accept, solicit, and use on behalf of the
Agency any monetary or nonmonetary gift,
donation, bequest, or use of facilities,
property, or services for the purpose of aiding
or facilitating the work of the Agency.
* * * * * * *
(4) Reimbursement from district government.--[During
fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the Director] The
Director may accept and use reimbursement from the
District government for space and services provided, on
a cost reimbursable basis.
[all]