45 miles away and while he is in Detroit, he can draw up to $25 a day per diem.

Now, I think you ought to go real slow in changing this section 142 of title 28, and I would commend to your reading the Appropriation Subcommittee report, page 97 on construction of court facilities.

There is a colloquy betwen Mr. Olney, the administrator of the court and myself and Judge Campbell, the head of the northern district of Illinois, who is on the Judicial Conference.

Mr. Olney says we shouldn't build court facilities, we don't need court facilities in Flint, Mich.

Judge Campbell says we don't need court facilities in Flint, Mich. Judge Levin told me in Flint, Mich., that they didn't need them and the judges met in the morning before I met Judge Levin and decided all they needed was more bankruptcy space and an office for the judge.

This has been completely reversed and no one seems to have any authority to stop it.

Mr. CELLER. Who was guilty of that reversal?

Mr. CEDERBERG. The judges of the eastern district of Michigan. Mr. CELLER. Despite the pledge that was given?

Mr. CEDERBERG. Despite that they said they didn't need complete facilities.

Now, I think a judge should have some office space-there is a great deal of difference in my opinion between an office space and a place for his help, but if you are going to put complete facilities in there, the probation officer, assistant district attorney, court room, and other facilities at the expense of a quarter of a million dollars just to sit empty, I don't think is good economy.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have our colleague say all these things. I want to say for the record I am very happy that the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives has been looking into some of these conditions which in my opinion are not in the best interests of America.

It is my hope that the Judicial Conference in general, and judges in particular in deciding where their post of duties will be, will act as though they represented a hardheaded business corporation. Then we would not get into so many of these questions. I hope in the future we will have more time, Mr. Chairman, to look into the conditions which have been demonstrated to us by the Appropriations Committee of the House over the last 2 years. I might add that comments of the Appropriations Committee have appeared at length in the record within the last month or 6 weeks.

Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take any more of your time, but here is a news article that appears in a Michigan paper:

"State will get trio of new courtrooms" and I just want to read to you something about this Port Huron situation which is very interesting.

After talking to Levin, Airhart, who is with the administrators of the court, told this reporter there is no problem: Judge Levin says we should forget about putting a courtroom at Port Huron and just build some offices for Judge Sullivan to use when he is in town. No one objects to that.

The gist of the thing is the GSA said we are going to award itwhen Earhart made this statement the General Services Administration had already awarded a $283,000 contract to Dunn Construction Co. but work had not yet started and Earhart figured the plans and contract could be revised. Since that time Judge Levin has said the courtroom should be built and has indicated the contract will be awarded.

Then at a later release, GSA said it is too late to cancel the contract, we are going to go ahead with it.

And no one seems to be able to find out just exactly who has the authority.

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman-Mr. Cederberg, I gather from your testimony that the Appropriations Committee, the way it functions, and I presume it is the independent offices bill providing funds for GSA?

Mr. CEDERBERG. That is right.

Mr. MEADER. Does not screen these requests for courtrooms or does not have an opportunity to screen them before GSA can go ahead? Mr. CEDERBERG. No; I don't think that is right. The Appropriations Subcommittee under Albert Thomas does look into them, but it is after the committee has given a waiver or after action has been taken by the appropriate legislative committee and that is why I

you are going to change this section 142 of title 28 you are abdicating your right to look into some of these things.

In other words, if there is an existing building, they can take it out of repair and renovation funds and go right in and do this job.

Mr. MEADER. And the Appropriations Committee would not have an opportunity to screen a modification of an existing building before GSA would be able to go ahead and do the construction work.

Mr. CEDERBERG. I think the Port Huron case is an example. I can't find anything in the testimony where they said they were going into Port Huron and reactivate this courtroom. The judges of the eastern district said, "We want a court facility in Port Huron."

There had been one there that hadn't been used for years, so they are taking the money, as I understand, out of repair and renovation and going through the whole building, not only the court. There are other things in the building.

Mr. CELLER. It is your position that every time there is this change, it should be necessary to come back to Congress to get the change approved?

Mr. CEDERBERG. My contention, Mr. Chairman, is, first, that the Judiciary Committee ought to look into each case, and I understand that you are doing that.

Mr. CELLER. We granted about seven or eight

Mr. FOLEY. Seven have been granted since 1948.

Mr. CEDERBERG. I think the thing, in granting these, it is very important to determine the need.

Mr. ROGERS. That is in the area and proximity to another court that isn't used.

Mr. CELLER. We always do that on a question of a waiver.

Mr. CEDERBERG. My opinion is if this title is amended and there is an existing building here, they don't have to get a waiver. They don't need a waiver.

Mr. MEADER. It is your contention that if H.R. 10843 becomes law, there will be no control on GSA for the remodeling of existing Federal buildings for court purposes?

Mr. CEDERBERG. My contention is, if I read this correctly, it says "or became available as a result of acquisition, construction, or alteration of a building."

In other words, if these buildings are available and the judges of a given judicial district request from the administrator of the court that court be held here and court facilities be put in, then the administrator of the court goes to General Services Administration and as I understand it, General Services Administration always does what the administrator of the court desires.

I hope before you act on this-and I am not going to take any more of your time that you will read this colloquy in the Appropriations Subcommittee because it is very interesting.

Mr. CELLER. We have it.

As far as I am concerned, you have created some doubts in my own mind, I can assure you.

Mr. CEDERBERG. Well, I have a little more information here, and this means nothing to me personally at all, but I think it is a matter that you ought to look at real good before you change this.

Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest that both Mr. Cederberg and Mr. Ford be given an opportunity, after the testimony in favor of the bill has been received in our record, to make any comments they might like to, perhaps not in a further hearing but by submitting a statement after they review the testimony of the proponents. I think they should be given that opportunity.

Mr. CELLER. The record will be held open for that.

Mr. CEDERBERG. I will be glad to.

I have this information that you may want to look at.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CELLER. Good to have you.

Our next witness is Mr. J. H. Macomber, Jr., General Counsel, GSA.

STATEMENT OF J. H. MACOMBER, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM SCHMIDT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR PLANNING, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Mr. MACOMBER. Mr. Chairman, my name is J. H. Macomber, Jr., I am the General Counsel of General Services Administration.

Mr. Knott, who was to testify for General Services Administration, unfortunately turned up ill this morning so I am trying to pinch hit, and I have with me Mr. William A. Schmidt, Assistant Commissioner for Planning of the Public Buildings Service of GSA.

Mr. CELLER. All right, sir.

Mr. MACOMBER. We are very grateful, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity of appearing before your committee this morning and making a brief statement concerning H.R. 10843 and H.R. 11941.

These proposals, of course, are to amend section 142 of title 28 of the United States Code, and this is, as you have said, Mr. Chairman, a proposal that was submitted to the Congress by the General Services Administration.

If I may, I should like to review briefly a little background. Sections 18 through 131 of title 28 of the United States Code set forth the places where district courts shall be held.

Section 141 provides for the holding of special terms at other places, and section 142 provides, as has been stated, that court shall be heldonly at places where Federal quarters and accommodations are available or suitable quarters and accommodations are furnished without cost to the United States.

These bills, of course, would amend that language to provide that courts might also be held at places where quarters become available as a result of the acquisition, construction, or alteration of a building, and then there is a proviso which we conceive of primarily as a clarifying proviso that if quarters and accommodations become unavailable due to fire or other casualty or by reason of an alteration project and suitable quarters cannot be provided without cost, temporary quarters may be acquired by lease and court may be held in such leased

space.

Section 142 was adopted as part of title 28 in 1948 when that title was revised and codified.

Since that time the section has been interpreted, in the absence of special legislation waiving the applicability of section 142 to specific places, to prohibit the holding of court in leased space or in new buildings or in extensions or additions to existing buildings which are federally owned and in which court facilities were not available.

Accordingly, when it has become necessary to provide court facilities at such places where court has been authorized to be held, special legislation has been sought, prior to the leasing, construction, or acquisition of court facilities at such places, which would waive or make inapplicable the provisions of section 142 in order to permit the holding of court in such facilities.

Since World War II, the number of Federal judges has been substantially increased, resulting in a need for enlarged and new court facilities throughout the United States.

In view of the rapidly increasing population of the country, the need for additional judges will probably continue at an accelerated

pace.

Statutes have been enacted to permit the inclusion of court facilities in buildings constructed, altered, or extended at the following places; that is, acts waiving the provisions of section 142

Mr. CELLER. How many do you have a record of?

Mr. MACOMBER. I have Brunswick, Ga., Thomasville. Ga., Newnan, Ga., Rock Island, Ill., Klamath Falls, Oreg., Bryson City, N.C. and Durant, Okla.

The General Services Administration has authority and responsibility under the Public Buildings Act of 1959 and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to provide space for Federal agencies to carry on their governmental functions.

Since the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has the duty to "provide accommodations for the courts and their clerical and administrative personnel," that is from title 28, United States Code, section 604 (a) (11)-the advice of the Director of the Administrative Office is sought by the General Services Administra

tion with respect to the need for such accommodations in any public building which it proposes to acquire, construct, or alter in a place where court is authorized to be held.

The advice of the Attorney General is also sought with respect to the needs for accommodations of U.S. attorneys, marshals, and other officials of the Department of Justice in public buildings in which such court accommodations are to be provided. Prior to the appropriation of funds for any acquisition, construction, or alteration of public buildings, General Services Administration is required pursuant to section 7 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 where the construction or acquisition of any building involves an expenditure in excess of $100,000 or where the alteration of any public building involves an expenditure in excess of $200,000, to transmit to the Congress a prospectus of the proposed projects which contains a brief description of the facilities to be included in the project, including any necessary court facilities.

The foregoing procedure assures the participation of all interested parties in the planning of necessary Federal court facilities.

I might say that section 7 also requires approval by the Public Works Committees of the House and Senate before an appropriation may be made for any project in excess of $100,000 in the case of acquisition or construction and $200,000 in the case of an alteration.

The proposed bill would clarify the existing law to permit the construction of additional or renovated court facilities at places where court facilities now exist and to provide authority to include court facilities in buildings which are acquired, constructed, or altered in places where court is authorized to be held, pursuant to the sections. 81 through 131 and 141 of title 28 but where no court facilities exist at present.

Since quarters and accommodations in which Federal courts are now housed may become unavailable temporarily due to fire or other casualty or by reason of the alteration of a building or the demolition for the replacement of a building

Mr. CELLER. Could I ask this question:

If we pass this bill, H.R. 10843, would we strike a double blow in this sense, that there would be no need to come back to this committee and Congress for a waiver and, secondly, you would obviate the necessity for another committee of Congress to approve it where the alteration is $200,000 or more and a new structure is $100,000?

Mr. MACOMBER. It would be the effect of this bill that it would not be necessary to come back to this commitee with waiver legislation.

Mr. CELLER. It would be necessary to go to the Public Works Committee.

Mr. MACOMBER. But if the project involved an expenditure in excess of $100,000 in the case of new construction or acquisition or $200,000 in the case of alteration, it would be necessary to file a prospectus and have the prospectus approved by the Public Works Committee.

Mr. CELLER. Even if we passed this bill?

Mr. MACOMBER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. May I inquire, when you make your request to the Appropriations Committee, you outline what you are going to do with it, even to the $100,000 or $200,000, don't you?