Mr. SCHMIDT. He reported the extent to which these accommodations could be provided in this building by vacating some of the present office operations that are now located there. This work would not be entirely lost, even when the courts finally vacate the building and move to the new building. Much of this is improvements that we would normally make in the building when we remodel it. Mr. BOLAND. That does not follow at all because you are improving this particular area for this particular duty: the judge's suite, a witness room, and a court reporter's office. You are improving it only for this purpose. Then when the new building is built a year from now, you will take the new judge out. He is going to move into the new building. They will start to reconvert the chamber which you made new in the old building back to other office space. This is what you are doing, are you not? Mr. SCHMIDT. It undoubtedly would require the removal of some of the interior partitioning which would be in the way of a general office operation in the space. Mr. BOLAND. I think the GSA could look over this space that is available. I understand you are working in cooperation with the Administrative Officer of the U.S. Courts and you follow their judg ment and advice in these matters. I understand that fully. It would seem to me the GSA should look this space over and determine for themselves the adequacy of that available space, which will be used temporarily by a judge who will be moved out of there within a year, into a brand new Federal building and where this new Federal building has the space requirement and has the facility for the new judge in Hartford, Conn., I do not know why we have to provide this type of a facility for him in the present building. I would think the GSA should look at it and determine whether or not you can put a judge in there where he will be at least comfortable for a year. He will be a lot more comfortable after the year is over. Mr. THOMAS. Gentlemen, may I suggest to the committee now, without any formality, that you pick out some of these alteration sites that may come to mind. Bear in mind that $25,000 and $30,000 an item is the smallest part. of this bill. It is about one-fifth of it. We will go into the other items outside of alteration costs in a few minutes. Bear in mind, it is the small part that is involved. It is the moving, furnishing, rent, et cetera, that costs. Mr. ROONEY. You have a request for $64,000 in Cleveland just for alterations. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Jensen. POSSIBILITY OF ABSORBING COSTS Mr. JENSEN. It is a little difficult for me to understand why at this early date in fiscal year 1962 that a supplemental request such as this is justified. You have your regular appropriation, have you not? Mr. THOMAS. They got it last night about midnight. Mr. JENSEN. All right. Right after the breakfast of the same day you come up here and ask us for how much money supplemental? Mr. THOMAS. $4.6 million. Mr. JENSEN. Don't you think you could get along without that and squeeze whatever you need for these alterations and these other items out of the appropriation which you are getting for fiscal year 1962 without all of this fanfare and all of this controversy? Don't you think that would be possible, Mr. Director? Mr. THOMAS. May I interrupt here? Let us bear in mind that the GSA is purely a service agency for the courts as far as these items are concerned. They are doing just what the courts asked them to do. Most of our inquiries, after we get through with these construction costs, should go to our friend and distinguished guest, Mr. Olney. Mr. Jensen has asked you a very pertinent question. You have to take care of these judges. We know that. He is asking if you can absorb this cost in your regular $50 million alteration and repair bill for this year? Mr. KNOTT. It is $58 million. Mr. JENSEN. Do you want to answer that? Mr. SCHMIDT. It could only be done at the expense of other work. The $58 million for repair and improvement is far short of that which is really needed to reduce the backlog of needed repairs in the Federal buildings throughout the country. Mr. JENSEN. This request you are making now is about 72 percent of the total amount of your regular appropriation. It would appear to me that you could possibly squeeze 72 percent out of your regular appropriation to take care of these items. As Mr. Boland has just stated, it does not appear it will be necessary to spend between $3,000 and $4,000 to accommodate a judge for a short time. That may be a small amount, but sooner or later we will add that straw to the camel's back and it will break him down. We have a responsibility on this side of the table, as all of you do, to try to see it that we have a solvent Government. SUMMARY OF JUDGESHIPS PROVIDED FOR IN ESTIMATES Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Reporter, at this point insert in the record the table on pages 6 and 7. (The pages referred to follow :) These judgeships at Philadelphia, Denver, and Memphis will ultimately be provided for in new buildings. • Provides for visiting judge. MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Knott, do you have any information on this undetermined location in Nevada at a total cost of $42,000, $29,000 for alteration, air conditioning, $7,000, et cetera? What is this item! Where is it? It is an undetermined location in Nevada. Does anybody in the room or any of the members have any information on this item? Here is an item on Tennessee. Mr. Rooney, did you not mention this one in New Jersey a while ago? Mr. Bow, do you have any information on Cleveland? Mr. ROONEY. I mentioned the fact that the Cleveland alteration and remodeling comes to $64,000. The cost would be $122,500 for just one courtroom, jury room, judge's suite, and court reporter's office. Mr. THOMAS. How long will he be in that particular location before he gets a new building and gets permanently located or will he be permanently here? Mr. SCHMIDT. He will be permanently located in this building. Mr. THOMAS. Tell us about Memphis and Chattanooga. Mr. SCHMIDT. In the Memphis case that is an interim solution until such time as we can occupy the new building. Mr. THOMAS. At a total cost of $33,000. What about Chattanooga! Is that permanent or temporary? Mr. SCHMIDT. Chattanooga is permanent. Mr. THOMAS. Memphis is temporary. Tell us about Dallas, Tex. You have $120,000 for this item. Aren't you figuring on building a big new building there? Mr. SCHMIDT. We do have a project proposed for Dallas which would ultimately include the courts, but it has not been approved. Mr. JONAS. That has not been authorized. This Memphis one is under construction. It is similar to the case brought out by Mr. Boland at Hartford. Mr. THOMAS. What about the temporary construction of $120,000 in Dallas. How long will they be in there? Mr. Olney, can you help us out? Can't you get your judges in line and comfortable and happy for a whole lot less than what you are suggesting to these GSA boys? Mr. OLNEY. Mr. Chairman, these figures were compiled through consulation with the chief judges and the GSA. This is their best judgment of what space the judges need. Mr. THOMAS. I haven't found a judge in the contracting or construction business lately. Mr. OLNEY. That is very true. Mr. THOMAS. I have great admiration for them. Does anybody have any personal knowledge of the project at New Jersey, $42,000? How long will this be? Is this permanent? Mr. SCHMIDT. This is permanent. Mr. THOMAS. Will you go through the record and mark permanent or temporary and mark it in the record after your table? Mr. KNOTT. We will do that, sir. Mr. ROONEY. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? |