STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT B. MARIS, JUDGE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

Mr. MARIS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might defer to Mr. Aubrey Gasque, the assistant director of the Administrative Office who is a little more familiar with the details and perhaps I might have a

comment.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Aubrey Gasque, we will be glad to hear you. Those are bells. I don't know how long it will take, but we are debating the school bill, and I would like to conclude the hearing this morning.

STATEMENT OF AUBREY GASQUE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS

Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Chairman, I will only take a moment.

First of all, I would like to indicate the circumstances that give rise to this legislation.

The answer turns on the question, "How are facilities initiated and approved now?"

At the present time, a local chamber of commerce or the local bar decides that they want court facilities in a given town and they start a campaign and they go to the local judge and, even though he may have some question about it, they urge him to support the need for new court facilities not necessarily a new courthouse-but to provide court facilities, and the judge then sends that request into the Administrative Office.

There have been statements here today that the Administrative Office had control over these facilities and so forth. I am afraid that I really cannot agree with that.

When the request comes into the Administrative Office, by custom, not by any policy but by custom, this request has been passed along to the General Services Administration

Mr. CELLER. Who initiates it?

Mr. GASQUE. It is passed along to the General Services Administration. We say that we have received a request from Judge X who wants court facilities, we would appreciate your getting in touch with him and moving forward with his request.

Mr. CELLER. When does it come to you?

Mr. GASQUE. It comes to us for transmission to the General Services Administration.

Mr. CELLER. At the same time that General Services receives the request you receive it also?

Mr. GASQUE. That is right, sir. But the Washington office will not move until we transmit it to them and they have always regarded our transmission as a request for the facilities."

Mr. CELLER. Is it not for practical purposes?

Mr. GASQUE. For practical purposes it is quite correct. The only thing and I know that the distinguished chairman will recognize our position-if we in the Administrative Office stood in the way of such a request, or tried to stop such a request, what is likely to happen to us in the Administrative Office.

Mr. CELLER. But you heard what the General Services distinguished counsel said, that they would not second-guess what the office of the administrator would do. They wouldn't second-guess your depart

ment.

Mr. GASQUE. That is right, sir.

Now, let me say this, that-let's take this example a little further and we have transmitted this request on to the GSA and then GSA says, "Well, we are going ahead and build Judge X the facilities he requests."

Then, the Congressman from that district generally supports that request but, then, a Congressman from another congressional district, where the headquarters of that court are located, comes in and opposes the request and then GSA is caught clearly in the middle with the judge wanting it and the Congressman from that particular area wanting it, but another Congressman here opposing it and saying, “If you do get it, the headquarters of the court are likely to shift," and so forth, and, then, the next thing we know we are before the Appropriations Committee with a Congressman on both sides, one saying that we want you to provide these court facilities and another

Mr. CELLER. I don't know where it works out that way but, if it is as you indicate, then do you want the Administrator of the courts to be the arbitrator between two Congressmen or a number of Congressmen?

Mr. GASQUE. No, sir.

What I would suggest-I might say this-is that we approve of this legislation. We think it would help and clarify the situation and the control for the Congress in this respect: to provide this legislation so you don't get all of these bills every time a reconstruction project is underway but to provide-and we so mentioned to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget when this came up; I discussed it with Judge Maris and with the General Services Administration-that such facilities shall be provided only after the circuit council has filed a certificate of necessity with the Judicial Conference of the United States, such a certificate citing statistics, other facilities in the district, the geography, the additional expense in terms of supporting personnel and a very important cost

Mr. CELLER. Of course, that all disregards, shall I say for want of a better term, the political consideration.

Mr. GASQUE. Yes, sir.

Mr. CELLER. And you can't judge that. You should not have the right to judge that.

Mr. GASQUE. Yes, sir.

Mr. CELLER. If we pass this bill then Congress would be surrendering its determination or resolution of that or those political consid

erations.

Mr. GASQUE. Well, I think that in terms of where the court is going to be held, and whether new facilities should be provided, that there would be a great deal of truth in that unless the circuit councils were going to get the reports and the recommendation from the Congress. And, of course, would be sort of putting it on the other foot. I think

that is true.

In other words, the burden of my comment is basically that I think the Judicial Conference is and would be very tough on providing facilities for holding court and, I think if the chairman were to go into some of the cases, that he would be convinced that we really need someone tough on it.

Mr. CELLER. Are you awaiting the Judicial Conference for its survey concerning the geographic organization of the circuits and the district courts.

Mr. GASQUE. Yes, sir.

Mr. CELLER. Would it not be advisable to defer this legislation until we have some recommendations from the Judicial Conference on that very important matter.

Mr. GASQUE. Well, that might be very appropriate, Mr. Chairman. In the meantime, there are several bills which would provide facilities at various places in the country at the present time.

Mr. CELLER. We could grant the waivers if there are good reasons for them?

Mr. GASQUE. I think that is quite proper.

I might say that you have requested the views of the Judicial Conference on these waivers and they will be forthcoming.

Mr. CELLER. We always do that.

Mr. GASQUE. Yes, sir.

Mr. CELLER. We have requested but we haven't had any reply as far as I know from the Judicial Conference.

Anything else you want to say?

Mr. GASQUE. That is all I have to say.

But here is Judge Maris and since I have presented this, I would appreciate if he would comment on it because actually his committee and the Conference would be the ones to make this determination. I merely point out some of the problems and some of the ways we might go about it in order to establish controls.

Mr. CELLER. Just a minute. Counsel wishes to ask Mr. Gasque one question.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Gasque, in describing how this comes about, the request coming from a local judge for court facilities that are not available, does your office advise them that the current practice is to receive a waiver of 142 by legislation?

Mr. GASQUE. Oh, yes.

We tell them that they absolutely must obtain that, that they must obtain that and we have pointed that out on occasion.

Well, and then I think there is the problem of what the statute means in terms of renovating existing Federal accommodations, even though those accommodations are not of Federal court quarters.

Mr. FOLEY. The statute is not clear as to that and, therefore, the best way would be to amend the statute to clarify this question of renovation rather than a complete waiver of everything.

Mr. GASQUE. That may be very appropriate.

I wonder what GSA would say about that, Mr. Counsel, about that suggestion you have just made.

I think the renovation causes more problems than any other question, frankly.

Mr. CELLER. Yes, Judge.

Judge MARIS. Mr. Chairman, if I might just add a word-Albert B. Maris, senior circuit judge of Philadelphia.

It seems to me that is the most difficult problem. You have a Federal building. It has facilities for all sorts of agencies but not at the moment for the courts.

Now, it has been held under this statute-I am not sure I agree with that construction, but it has been held under the statute as it now exists that the GSA is not authorized to make provision in that existing Government building by renovation of certain rooms for the courts. If, however, the courts have a toehold in the building of some kind, if there is a little court space, then the statute, it has been held, doesn't apply and they can go right ahead and expand the whole building into a courthouse.

That to me never has made sense. It is a very different situation from constructing a new building. You have a Federal building there. It is just a question of making it available if it is needed.

So I think that counsel's suggestion there is a very apt one. That is the real vice in this situation. I don't think we want to open it carte blanche to just have a judge ask to build a new U.S. court without approval from anybody. Nobody is asking for that as far as I know.

But, of course, basically your problem is the one that we continually get of the statutes that deal with the same subject under different aspects and Congress has said in other sections of title 28 the court shall be held at X, Y, and Z-specifically shall be held-and these are all places where Congress has already said that court shall be held but it isn't at the moment being held and the judge says, "Well, now, we want to hold it now and, therefore, we want facilities."

So that it involves perhaps a broader view as to the attitude of Congress toward those basic provisions which say the court shall be held here and there.

It may be, Mr. Chairman, that this comes within your suggestion of the survey which is being made of districts and circuits which would include also, I assume, places of holding court because certainly some of these places that are now designated in the statute are archaic, they have been abandoned for years.

I am thinking of Colorado. There are just as an example, there are five or six places like Grand Junction, Durango, Montrose, where the places that were originally provided for the courts have long since been given up to other agencies and the courts never met there although the statute says they shall every year.

Mr. CELLER. We have a great many places which have been designated as places for holding court and the court hasn't been sitting in those places for goodness knows how long.

Judge MARIS. Quite true. So that that list is wholly out of date and yet that is there in the statutes, specifically directing the judge

to go there and he is in a sense not doing his full duty when he doesn't go there.

It is an anomolous situation and perhaps this is only one aspect of it that we are dealing with here. It goes deeper into the problem you have referred to of the districts and the circuits.

Mr. CELLER. I think we ought to go slowly on this particular bill and if we do anything, follow the suggestion that counsel has made. Judge MARIS. That would take care of the only serious part of it. Mr. GASQUE. Mr. Chairman, there is one additional question. I wonder if counsel might give some thought to those cases where a new Federal building is going up and whether or not the GSA can provide facilities in the courts.

As it is now, they sometimes hold these buildings up for a year while a waiver is going through.

I just mention that as one of the problems involved in it.
Mr. CELLER. Thank you very much, Judge.

Thank you, Mr. Gasque.

(Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the hearing was concluded.) X

PD-77