ACCOMMODATIONS FOR FEDERAL COURTS THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1960 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 5 OF THE The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in room 346, Old House Office Building, Hon. Emanuel Celler (chairman) presiding, Present: Representatives Celler, Rogers, Meader, McCulloch, and Toll. Also present: William R. Foley, general counsel, and William H. Crabtree, associate counsel. Mr. CELLER. The committee will come to order. The hearing of this subcommittee today is divided into two subject matters: The first relates to the bill H.R. 10843, introduced by me at the request of the General Services Administration, amending section 142 of title 28, United States Code, regarding accommodations at the places for holding Federal court, and a companion bill, H.R. 11941, by Congressman Lennon, of North Carolina, our distinguished colleague. The second subject matter relates to the tenure and retirement rights of the U.S. district judges in the U.S. courts located in territories. These bills are H.R. 2980 and H.R. 2981, introduced by me at the request of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Mr. Foley, our general counsel, will you read into the record section 142 at this point. Mr. FOLEY. Section 142 of title 28 reads as follows: Court shall be held only at places where Federal quarters and accommodations are available or suitable quarters and accommodations are furnished without cost to the United States. (The bills referred to follow :) [H.R. 11941, 86th Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL To amend section 142 of title 28, United States Code, with regard to accommodations at places for holding court, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 142 of title 28, United States Code is amended to provide as follows: "Court shall be held only at places where Federal court quarters and accommodations are available, or become available as the result of the acquisition, construction, or alteration of a building, or where suitable quarters and accommodations are furnished without cost to the United States: Provided, however, That if any such quarters and accommodations become unavailable due to fire or other casualty or by reason of the alteration or the demolition for replacement of a building, and suitable quarters and accommodations cannot be provided without cost, temporary quarters and accommodations may be acquired by lease and court may be held in such leased space." 1 [H.R. 10843, 86th Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL To amend section 142 of title 28, United States Code, with regard to accommodations at places for holding court, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 142 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to provide as follows: "Court shall be held only at places where Federal court quarters and accommodations are available, or become available as the result of the acquisition, construction, or alteration of a building, or where suitable quarters and accommodations are furnished without cost to the United States: Provided, however, That if any such quarters and accomodations become unavailable due to fire or other casualty or by reason of the alteration or the demolition for replacement of a building, and suitable quarters and accommodations cannot be provided without cost, temporary quarters and accommodations may be acquired by lease and court may be held in such leased space." Mr. CELLER. The Chair will offer a statement by Representative Alton Lennon concerning H.R. 10843 and H.R. 11941. (Statement by Representative Alton Lennon :) Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement in support of H.R. 10843, Representative Celler's bill, and H.R. 11941, which I introduced. These are identical bills. As you know, these bills amend section 142 of title 28, United States Code, with regard to accommodations at places for holding Federal court. During recent discussions with officials of the General Services Administration concerning a proposed Federal building in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, N.C., which would provide space for the several Federal agencies operating in said city and county, including the Federal court, section 142 of title 28, United States Code, was brought to my attention. This section provides that "Court shall be held only at places where Federal quarters and accommodations are available or suitable quarters and accommodations are furnished without cost to the United States." The GSA officials stated that legislation would have to be passed by the U.S. Congress waiving the provision in section 142 of title 28 before they could plan and build a Federal building anywhere that would include quarters and accommodations for Federal courts. This legislation becomes more important and necessary as the number of Federal judges are increased and the workload of the Federal courts is increased. At the present time a subcommittee has approved legislation providing for additional Federal judges that are needed to relieve the present congested condition of our Federal judicial system. This will make more imperative the enactment into law of H.R. 10843 and H.R. 11941. Enactment into law of this proposed legislation will obviate the necessity for future special legislation in the nature of waivers and also expedite the availability of greatly needed space for needed Federal courts. Not being required to wait special legislation would be of a great help and timesaver to GSA in the planning and completion of the acquisition, construction, and alteration programs. Mr. CELLER. We have with us our distinguished colleague from Michigan, Representative Ford. We will be very glad to hear you. STATEMENT OF HON. GERALD R. FORD, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have a short statement which I would like to read with the Chair's permission. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity afforded me to express my views on H.R. 10843, a bill which would relax the provisions of section 142 of title 28, United States Code. As the members of the committee know, I have become interested in this legislation as a result of our recent experience in the southern division of the western judicial district of Michigan. In 1954, the Congress decided that court for the southern division should be held at Kalamazoo and Mason, as well as at Grand Rapids. During the spring of 1959, a new post office building was opened in Kalamazoo and the former facility became available for other uses. It was proposed to include a new Federal courtroom and judges' chambers in the remodeling project. General Services Administration proceeded to do this on the basis of the authority of title 28, United States Code, section 10281, which authorizes court to be held at Kalamazoo. In a subsequent review, the question was raised whether funds could be lawfully expended for the remodeling project in view of the provisions of section 142 of title 28. Representative Johansen introduced H.R. 9577 to waive the provisions of section 142 with respect to the remodeling project at Kalamazoo. H.R. 10843 apparently is designed to effect a general waiver of section 142 as it applies to additional court quarters and accommodations which "become available as the result of acquisition, construction, or alteration of a building." Had the provisions of H.R. 10843 been law, there would have been no need for H.R. 9577, but neither would the Congress have had the opportunity to pass on the question of whether upward of $148,000 should be authorized to provide complete court facilities at Kalamazoo. The chairman knows from my letter to him of March 31, 1960, that I agree that the Congress in 1954 was justified on the basis of convenience to litigants in designating Kalamazoo as a city in which court may be held. But I pointed out in the same letter that the present Congress should know that GSA reports that it will cost $148,000 to remodel the former post office building at Kalamazoo to provide complete court facilities." Because of the present provisions of section 142 of title 28, United States Code, the Congress has this information and may consider it in arriving at a final decision. Had the provisions of H.R. 10843 been law, it is most unlikely that the Congress would have had an opportunity to pass on the question of whether the expenditure of $148,000 for court facilities at Kalamazoo was justified at this time. This is merely one example, Mr. Chairman, but is does seem to me to illustrate that present law gives Congress a closer check on expenditures than the proposed amendment would do. We want sufficient court facilities to meet the needs of judges, attorneys, and litigants but we ought not to let judicial and administrative officials provide facilities without further congressional review. Let me illustrate one additional point by another example from the southern division of the western judicial district of Michigan. By the Omnibus Judgeship Act of 1954, court is authorized to be held at Mason, Mich. It would seem to me most essential that the Congress analyze further the need for a third courtroom facility in the southern division before any funds were to be expended for a courtroom at Mason, Mich. I know of no demand for a courtroom there at the present time but should such a demand arise in the future, the Congress should be able to review that request. As I understand it, if H.R. 10843 should become law, it is most unlikely, if not impossible, that the Congress will have the opportunity to review the establishment of court facilities at Mason. It seems to me that the present law as found in 28 U.S.C. 142 is not unduly restricted, that it serves a useful public purpose and there is not good reason to amend it. While I have used only the southern division of the western judicial district of Michigan for illustrative purposes, I am sure that the retention of section 142 will result in more effective control by the Congress of expenditures of Federal funds for additional court facilities throughout the Nation. This control, it seems to me is necessary and in accordance with sound principles of government. Let me put the precise case that I illustrated in a little different way. In my congressional district, we have Grand Rapids which has for a number of years been the seat of the court for the western judicial district of Michigan. In 1954, by the Omnibus Judgeship Act, it was provided that two additional places in the western district, southern division, could hold court-Kalamazoo and Mason. Mr. Johansen, who represents the Kalamazoo district offered a bill this session which would authorize GSA to provide new courtroom facilities in Kalamazoo. Some people in my district initially objected to providing these courtroom facilities on the basis that that might eventually lead to Kalamazoo, rather than Grand Rapids, being the principal seat of the court. I consulted with the two Federal judges in the western judicial district and asked them to present to me a survey to show where the litigants had come from and where the lawyers resided who had filed suits in the Grand Rapids court for the last 3 or 4 years, and Judge Star, the senior judge who was appointed about 10 years ago had the clerk of the court make a very careful analysis, and on the basis of that finding, it convinced me that the litigants and the lawyers in the Kalamazoo area did deserve to have a new courtroom facility at Kalamazoo. Mr. FOLEY. At Grand Rapids there were 67 trial days involving 27 trials. There were no trials or trial days at Kalamazoo or Mason. At Marquette you had three trials for 8 trial days. Mr. FORD. My only point is after surveying the situation with the full cooperation of the two Federal judges I came to the conclusion that I would not object to Mr. Johansen's bill providing that the Congress felt that the expenditure of $148,000 for the remodeling and the providing of those courtroom facilities was justified. I believe that this review of the individual cases as they arise is proper for the Congress. If we eliminate the proviso and permit the courts and GSA to proceed at will, then Congress has once again. lost complete control over the expenditure of funds. It seems to me. that this is a legitimate area for the Congress to take a look and if the facts justify it, I am confident that the Congress will approve the waiver and permit the expenditure of money. Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask you this question. Mr. FORD. Surely. Mr. ROGERS. In the independent office bill we just passed there was an appropriation of $58 million for maintenance and improvement. |