U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

49–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2015

114–110 

Calendar No. 190 

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 

AUGUST 3, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGcongress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 190 

114TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 

105–33. 2For example, while 5 U.S.C. § 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 § 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 

§ 1–206.02(a)(4), which prevents the council from enacting any measure related to the courts. 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. 5 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 

105–33. 6The 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. §§ 5514 and 5584; 31 U.S.C. §§ 3711 and 3716; D.C. Code §§ 1– 

629.01—1–629.04, and D.C. Code § 2–406, it is not available to the Courts. 7See, D.C. Code § 1–632.02(a)(5)(I). 

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

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. 

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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

certain employees and collect overpayments and other debts owed 

by employees. 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

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 øemployees 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, øthe 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 

* * * * * * * 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

§ 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; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

(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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

(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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

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— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(F) develop and operate intermediate øsanctions¿ sanctions and incentives; 

* * * * * * * 

(3) ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS.— 

ø(A) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT GIFTS.—During fiscal years 

2006 through 2008, the Director may accept and use gifts 

in the form of— 

ø(i) in-kind contributions of space and hospitality to 

support offender and defendant programs; and 

ø(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.—øDuring 

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. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING