109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–371 

FEDERAL JUDICIARY EMERGENCY TOLLING ACT OF 2005 

FEBRUARY 8, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3729] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 3729) to provide emergency authority to delay or toll judicial 

proceedings in United States district and circuit courts, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 3 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 4 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 4 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 4 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 5 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 5 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 6 

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 6 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 7 

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 9 

THE AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Judiciary Emergency Tolling Act of 2005’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
2 

SEC. 2. EMERGENCY AUTHORITY TO DELAY OR TOLL JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘§ 1660. Emergency authority to delay or toll judicial deadlines 

‘‘(a) TOLLING IN DISTRICT COURTS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation requiring the closure of courts or rendering it impracticable for the 

United States Government or a class of litigants to comply with deadlines imposed by any Federal or State law or rule that applies in the courts of the 

United States, the chief judge of a district court that has been affected may exercise emergency authority in accordance with this section. 

‘‘(2) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.—(A) The chief judge may enter such order or orders as may be appropriate to delay, toll, or otherwise grant relief from the time 

deadlines imposed by otherwise applicable laws or rules for such period as may 

be appropriate for any class of cases pending or thereafter filed in the district 

court or bankruptcy court of the district. 

‘‘(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the authority conferred by 

this section extends to all laws and rules affecting criminal and juvenile proceedings (including, prearrest, post-arrest, pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures), civil actions, bankruptcy proceedings, and the time for filing and perfecting an appeal. 

‘‘(C) The authority conferred by this section does not include the authority 

to extend— 

‘‘(i) any statute of limitation for a criminal action; or 

‘‘(ii) any statute of limitation for a civil action, if— 

‘‘(I) the claim arises under the laws of a State; and 

‘‘(II) extending the limitations period would be inconsistent with 

the governing State law. 

‘‘(3) UNAVAILABILITY OF CHIEF JUDGE.—If the chief judge of the district is 

unavailable, the authority conferred by this section may be exercised by the district judge in regular active service who is senior in commission or, if no such 

judge is available, by the chief judge of the circuit that includes the district. 

‘‘(4) HABEAS CORPUS UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. 

‘‘(b) CRIMINAL CASES.—In exercising the authority under subsection (a) for 

criminal cases, the court shall consider the ability of the United States Government 

to investigate, litigate, and process defendants during and after the emergency situation, as well as the ability of criminal defendants as a class to prepare their defenses. 

‘‘(c) TOLLING IN COURTS OF APPEALS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation requiring the closure of courts or rendering it impracticable for the 

United States Government or a class of litigants to comply with deadlines imposed by any federal or States law or rule that applies in the courts of the 

United States, the chief judge of a court of appeals that has been affected or 

that includes a district court so affected may exercise emergency authority in 

accordance with this section. 

‘‘(2) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.—The chief judge may enter such order or orders 

as may be appropriate to delay, toll, or otherwise grant relief from the time 

deadlines imposed by otherwise applicable laws or rules for such period as may 

be appropriate for any class of cases pending in the court of appeals. 

‘‘(3) UNAVAILABILITY OF CHIEF JUDGE.—If the chief judge of the circuit is unavailable, the authority conferred by this section may be exercised by the circuit 

judge in regular active service who is senior in commission. 

‘‘(4) HABEAS CORPUS UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. 

‘‘(d) ISSUANCE OF ORDERS.—The Attorney General or the Attorney General’s 

designee may request issuance of an order under this section, or the chief judge of 

a district or of a circuit may act on his or her own motion. 

‘‘(e) DURATION OF ORDERS.—An order entered under this section may not toll 

or extend a time deadline for a period of more than 14 days, except that, if the chief 

judge (whether of a district or of a circuit) determines that an emergency situation 

requires additional extensions of the period during which deadlines are tolled or extended, the chief judge may, with the consent of the judicial council of the circuit, 

enter additional orders under this section in order to further toll or extend such 

time deadline. 

‘‘(f) NOTICE.—A court issuing an order under this section— 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
3 

‘‘(1) shall make all reasonable efforts to publicize the order, including announcing the order on the web sites of all affected courts and the web site of 

the Federal judiciary; and 

‘‘(2) shall, through the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 

States Courts, send notice of the order, including the reasons for the issuance 

of the order, to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. 

‘‘(g) REQUIRED REPORTS.—A court issuing one or more orders under this section 

relating to an emergency situation shall, not later than 180 days after the date on 

which the last extension or tolling of a time period made by the order or orders 

ends, submit a brief report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, the 

Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and the Judicial Conference of the United States describing the orders, including— 

‘‘(1) the reasons for issuing the orders; 

‘‘(2) the duration of the orders; 

‘‘(3) the effects of the orders on litigants; and 

‘‘(4) the costs to the judiciary resulting from the orders. 

‘‘(h) EXCEPTIONS.—The notice under subsection (f)(2) and the report under subsection (g) are not required in the case of an order that tolls or extends a time deadline for a period of less than 14 days.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 

111 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 

new item: 

‘‘1660. Emergency authority to delay or toll judicial deadlines.’’. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 3729 is to amend 28 U.S.C. § 1660 to allow 

the chief judge of any district court (or, if unavailable, the next 

most senior active district judge in the district or the chief judge 

of the court of appeals for the circuit in which the district is located), to enter an order or orders to delay or toll any and all deadlines imposed by any statute or rule of procedure whenever the district court is closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation. The bill allows the chief judge 

to make this motion either on his own determination or at the request of the Attorney General or his designee. 

When a judge makes a motion to delay or toll court deadlines 

under this section, he or she may take into consideration solely the 

burden on the government to comply with deadlines in the aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency situation when 

granting the motion. Subsection (b) of the new 28 U.S.C. § 1660 

would make clear that, in setting new time limits applicable in 

criminal cases, the court must consider the government’s ability to 

investigate, litigate and process defendants during and beyond the 

emergency situation. Subsection (c) of the new section would provide like authority to the chief judge of the court of appeals for the 

circuit when the court of appeals itself is so affected. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The need for this legislation initially became apparent following 

the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the impact of 

these disasters on court operations, particularly in New York City. 

In emergency conditions, a Federal courthouse may be closed for 

extended periods of time. As was made clear in the aftermath of 

September 11th and the hurricanes of calendar year 2005, in an 

emergency situation, law enforcement may have to devote an overwhelming majority of their resources and manpower to ensuring 

the safety of the area and investigating criminal behavior that may 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
4 

occur. Large classes of litigants may also be negatively affected by 

an emergency situation and may be unable to meet the deadlines 

required in their pending civil or criminal cases. 

Currently, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), a judge 

may extend the deadline on a per-day basis, if weather or other 

conditions have made the office of the clerk or the district court inaccessible. A district judge has similar authority in criminal cases 

under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, both of these rules only allow the judge to make this determination when conditions render the clerk of court inaccessible and 

only on a daily basis. H.R. 3729 allows a judge to extend deadlines 

in an emergency situation for an appropriate time according to the 

judge’s discretion. 

This legislation is also needed to address natural disasters. The 

recent impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Federal courts in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi has increased the urgency of congressional action regarding this proposal. Where court operations 

cannot be transferred to other divisions within the affected judicial 

district due to widespread flooding and destruction, judges must be 

empowered to delay or toll deadlines for pending cases where appropriate. 

HEARINGS

The House Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 

3729. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On September 13, 2005, the House Committee on the Judiciary 

received an exclusive referral for H.R. 3729. On November 9, 2005, 

the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported 

the bill H.R. 3729, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 

present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there were no 

recorded votes during the Committee consideration of H.R. 3729. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
5 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 3729, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under the section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, November 29, 2005. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3729, the ‘‘Federal Judiciary Emergency Tolling Act of 2005.’’ 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Gregory Waring, who can 

be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 3729—Federal Judiciary Emergency Tolling Act of 2005. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3729 would have no significant impact on the federal budget and would not affect direct 

spending or revenues. H.R. 3729 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. 

Enacting H.R. 3729 would provide chief judges of federal courts 

the authority to delay time deadlines and proceedings of certain 

criminal and civil cases, including bankruptcy proceedings, in the 

event of a natural disaster or other emergency. CBO cannot predict 

when or how often such situations may arise that would close the 

courts or make it difficult for litigants to comply with court rules 

and deadlines. Based on information from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, however, the cost of issuing such 

orders would be negligible. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Gregory Waring, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. This estimate was approved by Peter 

H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee expects that enactment of H.R. 3729 will allow 

the operation of the Federal judiciary to continue in the event of 

widespread damage resulting from a natural disaster or emergency 

situation. Federal civil and criminal cases will not be dismissed 

based on delays created from an emergency situation and the chief 

judge of a Federal district or circuit will have limited discretion to 

delay or toll deadlines according to need. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
6 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in art. I, § 8 of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Section 1. Short Title. 

The act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Judiciary Emergency Tolling Act of 2005.’’ 

Section 2. Emergency Authority to Delay or Toll Judicial Proceedings. 

In the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation 

requiring the closure of courts or other emergency situation rendering it impracticable for the government or a class of litigants to 

comply with deadlines imposed by any Federal or State rule that 

applies in the courts of the United States, the chief judge of the affected district may exercise emergency authority to enter an order 

to toll, delay, or otherwise grant relief from deadlines imposed for 

any cases pending or thereafter filed in a district court or bankruptcy court. This authority extends to all laws and rules affecting 

criminal and juvenile proceedings, civil actions, bankruptcy proceedings, and the time for filing and perfecting an appeal. This authority does not extend to any statute of limitation for a criminal 

action or any statute of limitation for a civil action if the claim 

arises under the laws of a State and extending limitations would 

be inconsistent with the governing State law. 

In addition, section 2 provides that if the chief judge of the district is unavailable, the authority is conferred to the district judge 

in regular active service who is senior in commission or if no such 

judge is available, the chief judge of the circuit that includes the 

district. 

Habeas Corpus Unaffected. This section also expressly provides 

that nothing in this section is to be construed to authorize suspension of habeas corpus. 

Criminal Cases. This section mandates that a court must consider the ability of the government, in criminal cases, to investigate, litigate, and process defendants during and after an emergency situation, as well as the ability of criminal defendants, as a 

class to prepare defenses. 

Tolling in Courts of Appeals. This section also provides authority 

to Federal appellate courts. The chief judge of a circuit or his designee, in the event of his or her absence, may enter an order to toll 

or delay deadlines for cases pending in the court of appeals. A chief 

judge of a circuit may not authorize suspension of habeas corpus. 

Issuance of Orders. The Attorney General or his designee may request issuance of an order under this section or the chief judge of 

a district or a circuit may act on his or her own motion. 

Duration of an Order. An order to extend or toll a deadline may 

not exceed 14 days, except where a judge determines that an emergency situation requires additional extensions of the period during 

which deadlines are delayed or tolled, he or she may, with the consent of the judicial council of the circuit, enter additional orders 

under this section in order to further extend the deadline. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
7 

Notice. A court issuing an order under this section must: make 

all reasonable efforts to publicize the order, including announcing 

the order on the web sites of all affected courts and the web site 

of the Federal judiciary; and the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts must send notice, including reasons for the 

issuance, to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. 

Reporting Requirement. A court issuing one or more orders under 

this section must submit a brief report to the House and Senate 

Judiciary Committees, and the Judicial Conference of the United 

States describing the impact of the order—including the reasons for 

issuing the order, the duration, the impact of the order on litigants, 

and the costs to the judiciary. The report must be filed within 180 

days after the last extension or tolling of a time period made by 

an order ends. A report is only required under this section if the 

court issues one or more orders that toll or extend a time deadline 

for more than 14 consecutive days. 

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 (new matter is printed in italics 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

CHAPTER 111 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE 

CHAPTER 111—GENRAL PROVISIONS 

Sec. 

1651. Writs. 

* * * * * * * 

1660. Emergency authority to delay or toll judicial deadlines. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1660. Emergency authority to delay or toll judicial deadlines 

(a) TOLLING IN DISTRICT COURTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the event of a natural disaster or other 

emergency situation requiring the closure of courts or rendering 

it impracticable for the United States Government or a class of 

litigants to comply with deadlines imposed by any Federal or 

State law or rule that applies in the courts of the United States, 

the chief judge of a district court that has been affected may exercise emergency authority in accordance with this section. 

(2) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.—(A) The chief judge may enter 

such order or orders as may be appropriate to delay, toll, or 

otherwise grant relief from the time deadlines imposed by otherwise applicable laws or rules for such period as may be appropriate for any class of cases pending or thereafter filed in the 

district court or bankruptcy court of the district. 

(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the authority 

conferred by this section extends to all laws and rules affecting 

criminal and juvenile proceedings (including, prearrest, post-arrest, pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures), civil actions, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
8 

bankruptcy proceedings, and the time for filing and perfecting 

an appeal. 

(C) The authority conferred by this section does not include 

the authority to extend— 

(i) any statute of limitation for a criminal action; or 

(ii) any statute of limitation for a civil action, if— 

(I) the claim arises under the laws of a State; and 

(II) extending the limitations period would be inconsistent with the governing State law. 

(3) UNAVAILABILITY OF CHIEF JUDGE.—If the chief judge of 

the district is unavailable, the authority conferred by this section may be exercised by the district judge in regular active 

service who is senior in commission or, if no such judge is 

available, by the chief judge of the circuit that includes the district. 

(4) HABEAS CORPUS UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in this section 

shall be construed to authorize suspension of the writ of habeas 

corpus. 

(b) CRIMINAL CASES.—In exercising the authority under subsection (a) for criminal cases, the court shall consider the ability of 

the United States Government to investigate, litigate, and process 

defendants during and after the emergency situation, as well as the 

ability of criminal defendants as a class to prepare their defenses. 

(c) TOLLING IN COURTS OF APPEALS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the event of a natural disaster or other 

emergency situation requiring the closure of courts or rendering 

it impracticable for the United States Government or a class of 

litigants to comply with deadlines imposed by any federal or 

States law or rule that applies in the courts of the United 

States, the chief judge of a court of appeals that has been affected or that includes a district court so affected may exercise 

emergency authority in accordance with this section. 

(2) SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.—The chief judge may enter such 

order or orders as may be appropriate to delay, toll, or otherwise grant relief from the time deadlines imposed by otherwise 

applicable laws or rules for such period as may be appropriate 

for any class of cases pending in the court of appeals. 

(3) UNAVAILABILITY OF CHIEF JUDGE.—If the chief judge of 

the circuit is unavailable, the authority conferred by this section 

may be exercised by the circuit judge in regular active service 

who is senior in commission. 

(4) HABEAS CORPUS UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in this section 

shall be construed to authorize suspension of the writ of habeas 

corpus. 

(d) ISSUANCE OF ORDERS.—The Attorney General or the Attorney General’s designee may request issuance of an order under this 

section, or the chief judge of a district or of a circuit may act on 

his or her own motion. 

(e) DURATION OF ORDERS.—An order entered under this section 

may not toll or extend a time deadline for a period of more than 

14 days, except that, if the chief judge (whether of a district or of 

a circuit) determines that an emergency situation requires additional extensions of the period during which deadlines are tolled or 

extended, the chief judge may, with the consent of the judicial counVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:04 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR371.XXX HR371

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
9 

cil of the circuit, enter additional orders under this section in order 

to further toll or extend such time deadline. 

(f) NOTICE.—A court issuing an order under this section— 

(1) shall make all reasonable efforts to publicize the order, 

including announcing the order on the web sites of all affected 

courts and the web site of the Federal judiciary; and 

(2) shall, through the Director of the Administrative Office 

of the United States Courts, send notice of the order, including 

the reasons for the issuance of the order, to the Committee on 

the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary 

of the House of Representatives. 

(g) REQUIRED REPORTS.—A court issuing one or more orders 

under this section relating to an emergency situation shall, not later 

than 180 days after the date on which the last extension or tolling 

of a time period made by the order or orders ends, submit a brief 

report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, and the Judicial Conference of the United States describing the orders, including— 

(1) the reasons for issuing the orders; 

(2) the duration of the orders; 

(3) the effects of the orders on litigants; and 

(4) the costs to the judiciary resulting from the orders. 

(h) EXCEPTIONS.—The notice under subsection (f)(2) and the report under subsection (g) are not required in the case of an order 

that tolls or extends a time deadline for a period of less than 14 

days. 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will come to order. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Now, pursuant to notice, I call up 

the bill H.R. 3729, to provide emergency authority to delay or toll 

judicial proceedings in the United States district and circuit courts, 

for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to 

the House. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read 

and open for amendment at any point. 

[The bill, H.R. 3729, follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
10 

I

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3729

To provide emergency authority to delay or toll judicial proceedings in United

States district and circuit courts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 13, 2005

Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide emergency authority to delay or toll judicial

proceedings in United States district and circuit courts.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EMERGENCY AUTHORITY TO DELAY OR TOLL

4 JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 111 of title 28, United

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing:

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI3729.AAB
11 

2

•HR 3729 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1660. Emergency authority to delay or toll judicial

2 proceedings

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon application of the Attorney

4 General or the Attorney General’s designee, or on his or

5 her own motion, the chief judge of a district court that

6 has been affected (or, if the chief district judge is unavail7 able, the most senior available active district judge or the

8 chief judge of the court of appeals including the district)

9 may, in the event of a natural disaster, civil disobedience,

10 or other emergency situation requiring the closure of

11 courts or other circumstances inhibiting the ability of liti12 gants to comply with deadlines imposed by rules of proce13 dure applicable in the courts of the United States, enter

14 such order or orders as may be appropriate to delay, toll,

15 or otherwise grant relief from time deadlines imposed by

16 otherwise applicable statutes and rules of procedure for

17 such period and in such judicial district as may be appro18 priate, including, without limitation, those affecting all

19 prearrest, post-arrest, pretrial, trial, and post-trial proce20 dures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil

21 process and proceedings, and the time for filing and per22 fecting an appeal.

23 ‘‘(b) CRIMINAL CASES.—In setting new time limits

24 under this section for criminal cases, the court shall con25 sider the Government’s ability to investigate, litigate, and

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI3729.AAC
12 

3

•HR 3729 IH

1 process defendants during and after the emergency situa2 tion.

3 ‘‘(c) APPEALS.—Upon application of the Attorney

4 General or the Attorney General’s designee, or on his or

5 her own motion, the chief judge of a court of appeals that

6 has been affected or that includes a district court so af7 fected (or, if the chief circuit judge is unavailable, the

8 most senior available active circuit judge) may, in the

9 event of a natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other

10 emergency situation requiring the closure of courts or

11 other circumstances inhibiting the ability of litigants to

12 comply with deadlines imposed by rules of procedure appli13 cable in the courts of the United States, enter such order

14 or orders as may be appropriate to delay, toll, or otherwise

15 grant relief from time deadlines imposed by otherwise ap16 plicable statutes and rules of procedure for such period

17 and in such circuit as may be appropriate, including, with18 out limitation, those affecting all appellate proceedings.’’.

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

20 at the beginning of chapter 111 of title 28, United States

21 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new

22 item:

‘‘1660. Emergency authority to delay or toll judicial proceedings.’’.

Æ

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI3729.AAD
13 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 

minutes to explain the bill. 

This bill would grant the chief judge of any district court or appeals court the authority to enter an order to delay or toll any 

deadlines on pending court cases whenever an effective court is 

closed due to a natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation. I think this is pretty self-explanatory. It’s discretionary with the judge. If the courthouse is closed, obviously deadlines can’t be enforced. 

I will have an amendment in the nature of a substitute to offer 

at the appropriate time and yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman from Michigan 

wish to give an opening statement? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. I’ll yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina 

is recognized for an opening statement. 

Mr. WATT. I don’t have an opening statement. I just wanted to 

ask a question at an appropriate time. Maybe it’s better to ask it 

when you introduce the amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Whenever. Does the gentleman from 

Michigan have an opening statement? 

Mr. CONYERS. I’ll ask that it go in the record. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members—— 

Mr. CONYERS. And I support the measure. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. All Members may include opening 

statements in the record at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE

ON THE JUDICIARY

Let me begin by thanking Chairman Sensenbrenner for his willingness to work 

with members on this side of the aisle to address many of the concerns that have 

existed with regard to this legislation. This Manager’s amendment, while maybe 

still not perfect, represents a noticeable improvement over the version of the bill, 

as it was originally introduced. 

First, it narrows the circumstances under which the chief judge of a federal judicial district may toll or delay deadlines to those involving a natural disaster or 

emergency. 

Second, and equally important, it includes clarifying language which makes it 

clear that this bill is not to be construed to authorize suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. 

Third, it limits the amount of time that a chief judge may extend or toll a deadline to no more than 14 days, except where a judge determines that an emergency 

situation requires additional extensions. 

Finally, for any court that decides to toll or delay a deadline, the amendment creates a notice requirement. Under this requirement, a court would have to: 

(1) make all reasonable efforts to publicize the order—including announcing the 

order on the web sites of all affected courts and the web site of the Federal 

Judiciary; and 

(2) The Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts must send notice, 

including reasons for the issuance, to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. 

This latter provision will go along way towards helping our committee conduct 

adequate oversight and assist in our efforts to detect any possible abuses. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
14 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? And the 

Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute, which the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

3729, offered by Chairman Sensenbrenner. Strike all after the—— 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. 

[The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA3729A1.eps
15 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA3729A2.eps
16 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA3729A3.eps
17 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA3729A4.eps
18 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA3729A5.eps
19 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA3729A6.eps
20 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 

minutes. 

This bipartisan substitute makes a number of clarifying changes 

to reflect the recommendations of the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts and the Department of Justice. The substitute would 

reduce the authority of a Federal judge to toll deadlines during 

emergency situations. The amendment also includes an express 

provision that the authority of this bill does not extend to any statute of limitation for a criminal or civil action if the claim arises 

under the laws of a State and extending limitations would be inconsistent with governing State law. This provision was added in 

order to ensure that the bill does not violate the Erie Doctrine, 

which preserves the primacy of State law. 

Additionally, the substitute expressly provides that the legislation not be construed to authorize the suspension of habeas corpus 

and places a limitation, 14-day limitation, on the amount of time 

a deadline may be extended or tolled while preserving the ability 

of a judge to seek additional extensions. 

Finally, the substitute requires a court issuing an order to toll 

or delay deadlines to make all reasonable efforts to publicize the 

order on the websites of the Federal judiciary and all affected 

courts and also to notify our Committee and the wise people over 

on the other side who serve on the Judiciary Committee when such 

an action is taken. 

I urge the Members to support the substitute, and—— 

Mr. WATT. Would the Chairman yield for—— 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from North 

Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. I was quickly trying to read the substitute. I had read 

the original bill and thought that we were proceeding on that. Does 

this require an application of any kind, or it’s just the initiative of 

the judge? The original bill gave the Attorney General but not litigants the right to apply to trigger, but I don’t see a triggering 

mechanism here either one, either the Attorney General or private 

litigants. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman—reclaiming my 

time, it is my belief that the judge can do this on his own with the, 

you know, appropriate notice on the website. I imagine that if there 

are extenuating circumstances, any of the litigants, including the 

Attorney General, should the United States be a party, can make 

an application, in which case it would be up to the judge on whether or not to grant the application or deny it. 

Mr. WATT. That’s fine, Mr. Chairman. The concern I had about 

the original bill was that it seemed to give the Attorney General 

the right to apply, not litigants. But I think you’ve solved that, and 

I’ll yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair yields back his time. 

Without objection, all Members may include opening statements in 

the record at this point. 

Are there any second degree amendments to the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Hearing no amendments, the question occurs on the amendment in the nature of the substitute offered by the Chair. All those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no? 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
21 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. A reporting quorum 

is present. 

The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 3729 

favorably as amended. All those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no? 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion to report favorably is agreed to. 

Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the 

House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the amendments adopted here today. Without 

objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and all Members will be given 2 days as provided 

by the rules in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority views. 

This concludes the business for which this markup was called. 

The Chair thanks everybody for dealing with these matters expeditiously, and without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING