[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E63-E64]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 REVIEW BY CONGRESS OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF COURT FACILITIES, H.R. 
                                  254

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 30, 2001

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to 
provide for the review by Congress of proposed construction of court 
facilities.
  I am introducing this measure in response to my frustrating 
experience with a proposed Federal courthouse project for Orange 
County, New York.
  In April of this year, the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit 
voted to rescind its prior 1992 approval for construction of a Federal 
courthouse in Orange County, New York.
  This project began in 1991, when then chief judge of the U.S. 
District Court of the Southern District of New York, the Honorable 
Charles L. Brient, requested the Board of Judges to study future 
planning for court facilities west of the Hudson River. Subsequently, 
in June 1992, the Board of Judges of the Southern District found that 
there was a need for a courthouse to meet the growing demands in the 
mid-Hudson valley region of New York, and voted unanimously to 
authorize the chief judge to apply to the Judicial Council of the 
Second Circuit for approval of a Federal district courthouse west of 
the Hudson.
  Following approval of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit on 
July 28, 1992, the matter was referred to the Court Administration and 
Case Management Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United 
States. The committee reported favorably and voted unanimously in a 
March 1993 session of the Judicial Conference of the United States to 
``seek legislation on the court's behalf to amend title 28 of the U.S. 
Code, section 112(B) to establish a place for holding court in the 
Middletown/Wallkill Area of Orange County or such nearby location as 
may be deemed appropriate.''
  Accordingly, during the 104th Congress, Public Law 104-317 was 
approved designating that ``Court for the Southern District shall be 
held at New York, White Plains, and in Middletown-Wallkill area of 
Orange County or such nearby location as may be appropriate.''
  In an attempt to proceed forward in an expeditious manner the 
Administrative Office of the Courts and the U.S. General Services 
Administration, both concurring with the need for a courthouse in 
Orange County, determined that a facility could and should be 
constructed and paid through GSA's current funding.
  This project had and still has clear evidence denoting the growth 
population and economic

[[Page E64]]

activity in Dutchess, Orange, and Sullivan Counties in New York State, 
as well as steady increases in caseload from the Mid-Hudson Valley 
Region. In fact, current statistics suggests that the need is even 
greater now than previously ascertained by Congress in 1996. The number 
of cases in 1999 that could have gone to an Orange County Courthouse, 
based on the location of the litigants or the attorney's residence, 
increased to 312, up from 290 in 1996. Moreover, the population for the 
region has increased to 671,767, up from 656,740 in 1996 and the total 
labor force has risen to 309,100, up from 301,800 in 1996.
  Furthermore, it should be noted that while Congress may have 
acquiesced in the closure of some courthouses which have become 
redundant, based on considerations of economy and efficiency, I know of 
no situation where a court has refused to provide judicial services at 
a location designated by statute, where both the need exists and there 
is strong local support for the service. Such was and still is clearly 
the case with regard to the Orange County courthouse project.
  Accordingly, while it is now current practice, as denoted by title 28 
of the U.S. Code, for the U.S. Administrative Office of the Courts and 
the GSA to develop a rolling five year plan denoting the need for 
courthouse construction, I believe it is important for Congress to have 
a say in this important matter.
  The legislation which I am introducing today will require the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to 
submit for approval to the Congress a report setting forth the court's 
plans for proposed construction. Thereafter, Congress will have 30 
legislative days to disapprove of the proposed construction.
  It has become apparent to me after the experience I have had with 
both the Board of Judges of the Southern District and the Judicial 
Council of the Second Circuit that an imperialistic attitude among many 
of our Federal judges prevail.
  The decision as to whether or not to move forward with construction 
of a court facility is no longer being based upon existing evidence and 
data attesting to need, but instead on the personal thoughts of the 
judges involved.
  This legislation will end that practice by enabling Congress to 
properly assert its role in the construction of needed new courts.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit a full copy of the text of H.R. 254 to be 
included at this point in the Record:

                                H.R. 254

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

     SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR 
                   FEDERAL COURTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 462 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g)(1) Facilities for holding court may not be 
     constructed unless--
       ``(A) the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts submits to the Congress a report setting 
     forth the plans for the proposed construction; and
       ``(B) 30 days have elapsed and the Congress has not, before 
     the end of that 30-day period, enacted a provision of law 
     stating in substance that the Congress disapproved the 
     proposed construction.
       ``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), construction of 
     facilities includes the alteration, improvement, remodeling, 
     reconstruction, or enlargement of any building for purposes 
     of holding court.
       ``(3) The 30-day period referred to in paragraph (1) shall 
     be computed by excluding--
       ``(A) the days on which either House is not in session 
     because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day 
     certain or an adjournment of the Congress sine die; and
       ``(B) any Saturday and Sunday, not excluded under 
     subparagraph (A), when either House is not in session.''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 462 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, and subject to subsection (g)'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, and subject to subsection (g)''; 
     and
       (3) in subsection (f), by inserting ``subject to subsection 
     (g),'' after ``Director requests,''.

     

                          ____________________