A bill to provide for Federal court proceedings in Plano, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1720) to provide for Federal court proceedings in Plano, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1720, the Senate bill currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today when I was driving in, I followed a car that had a big bumper sticker on it that said ``Don't Mess with Texas,'' and I came to the House today with great fear and trepidation that by messing with Texas and deciding where the Federal courts will sit, I would be caught in the crossfire of a Texas cat fight, and I am happy to report that the cats are purring and the Members can mess with Texas and not get in trouble by passing this bill.

Senate 1720 implements the March, 1991, Judicial Conference proposal to designate Plano, Texas, as a place for holding court in the Eastern District of Texas. It also realigns the divisions of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to reflect the closing of the courthouse in Denton County. The Paris division is eliminated and its counties redistributed among the other divisions of this court.

Plano is the largest city in the Eastern District of Texas. Of the 93 judicial districts in the United States, the Eastern District of Texas is the only one in which its largest city cannot hold Federal court.

This is a major impediment to the efficient operations of the Federal court system in the Eastern District of Texas. Senate 1720 will greatly assist the affected citizens, litigants, lawyers, and judges and also will promote the efficient administration of justice.

The bill is identical to language in section 102 of H.R. 1302, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2003, which was introduced by the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. In addition, this Congress has passed this exact language on five previous occasions since 1991.

Following Senate passage of Senate 1720, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) expressed concern that the legislation does not ensure that the eastern district caseload will be distributed equally between Plano and Sherman. While the judges of the eastern district have unanimously agreed to split the docket between Sherman and Plano, this agreement, in a signed resolution, is nonbinding.

I share the concerns of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). Therefore, I support Senate 1720 premised on the understanding that the judges of the eastern district will do as they promised by implementing a system to assign at least 50 percent of the cases filed in or transferred to the Sherman district to a resident district judge sitting in the city of Sherman. The remaining 50 percent of the cases will be assigned to the Plano court.

Finally, in response to my request for assurance that the judges' agreement will be implemented, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has written a letter promising to do whatever is necessary to implement this plan. I will insert this letter along with the resolution signed by the judges of the Eastern District of Texas into the Record. With these assurances, I am sure that we can mess with Texas and not get caught in the crossfire.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Judicial Conference

of the United States,

Washington, DC, November 19, 2003.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that S. 1720, a bill to

designate Plano, Texas, will be considered by the House later

today. The bill would remedy a serious problem hindering

efficient judicial administration in the Eastern District of

Texas.

This bill has the strong support of the Judicial Conference

of the United States. As a provision of an omnibus court

improvement bill, it has been passed by the House in two

previous Congresses, only to remain unacted upon in the

Senate.

The judges of the Eastern District of Texas have formally

resolved that half of the Sherman Division caseload will be

docketed and tried in Sherman, Texas, and half will be

docketed and tried in Plano, Texas. A copy of an order of the

court of June 13, 2003, stating this specifically and in some

detail is enclosed hereto.

The Judicial Conference and the court in the Eastern

District of Texas are well aware of the concerns of those in

Sherman that the judicial business of the division would be

largely transferred to Plano. This is not and will not be the

case. This issue was considered by the Judicial Conference

Committee on Court Administration and Case Management when

the proposal was first considered. The resolve of the judges

to assure equity to Sherman, Texas, and other factors

relating to the great need for a court presence in Plano

caused that committee to recommend that the Judicial

Conference approve this proposal, which it did.

I congratulate you and the members of the Judiciary

Committee for taking prompt action on this bill which will

allow the court to better service the citizens of this region

of Texas.

Sincerely,

Leonidas Ralph Mecham,

Secretary.

Enclosure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary has no control over report language of bills that are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, and since the thought has been to have this statutory amendment placed in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriation bill, I can say that the Committee on the Judiciary would have no objection to this, because this codifies the agreement that has been made and the resolution that has been adopted by the judges of the Eastern District of Texas, as well as confirmed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts representing the Judicial Conference of the United States.

So I have no objection to this statutory amendment if it should find its way into an appropriation bill. But the gentleman from Texas and everybody else knows full well that what happens in appropriation bills at the end of a session of Congress is a very mysterious thing that those of us who serve on authorizing committees will never understand as long as we are here.

But rest assured that what the gentleman from Texas has said does represent the understanding of members of the Committee on the Judiciary, and if the appropriators will listen to us, for once, they will be able to make a constructive addition to an appropriation bill, whether it is the State, Justice, Commerce one or another one that mysteriously arises from the bowels of the Capitol within the next few days.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. Speaker, when I arrived at the Capitol today, I was handed the floor schedule that indicated that Senate bill 1720 had been placed on the Suspension Calendar. We have not had a lot of time to try to work out the details, but I am grateful to a lot of people for their assurance that we are going to keep the agreement that has been made between the two courts.

First, I want to thank, of course, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), Debby Lehman, Sam Garg, Blain Merritt, and Phil Kiko for their good work and for their support. I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), of the Committee on the Judiciary and Perry Applebaum. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), my friend and ranking member on the subcommittee, and Shanna Winters and Alec French. They have all worked hard during the course of the day to work out assurance, and with the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Johnson) support of assurance that this will be a 50-50 division.

I have never opposed Plano having a court. It is a huge city. It is a great city. It is a growing city. And as we move along with this 50-50 agreement and Plano grows, as it surely will, they will need more judges and more courts there. I certainly hope to help them.

For several years, efforts have been made to hold court proceedings in Plano, Texas where they have had no

court proceedings. I have no objection to such, and I only want to continue holding court in Sherman, Texas. Agreements have been made to hold 50 percent of the cases in Plano and 50 percent in Sherman, adding some counties to the Sherman district. I only want this agreement to be part of the proceedings, and I will be asking for a colloquy in a little bit with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner). I have conferred with Judge McGraw of Grayson County. I have received petitions from Judge McGraw and many of the major cities in and around Grayson County. I represent them. If I do not represent them, they will not be represented in this matter, and I want to be recorded here and now that we want an agreement of a 50-50 division of litigation to be committed to writing, both here and in the Senate.

I have spoken with Senator John Cornyn then of the Committee on the Judiciary, and I have spoken with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, subcommittee chairman, and they too want this documentation. There has been a difference of opinion as to whether or not it would be codified into the statute itself, and while this will not have that codification, there will be report language that will be with this bill, and I think will be evidence to people within the next 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 years that we still want a court in Sherman, Texas in Grayson County.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn want Grayson County protected on the 50-50 agreement and, accordingly, they are placing proper report language in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary report to be placed with the passage of Senate bill 1720.

So Mr. Speaker, first, let me place in the Record the statement of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

I also want to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner). I again thank the chairman on S. 1720, a bill to provide for the Federal court proceedings in Plano, Texas.

It is my understanding that we have reached an agreement with Members on both sides of the aisle and with Senators Cornyn and Hutchison that the passage of this legislation shall be accompanied by the following report language in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill that would indicate a sense of Congress as follows: ``Both Sherman and Plano shall have a resident United States District Judge. Fifty percent of the cases filed in or transferred to the Sherman Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas shall be assigned for trial and tried in Sherman by either the resident United States District Judge sitting in Sherman or another United States District Judge assigned to hold court in Sherman. The remaining 50 percent of the cases shall be assigned for trial and tried in Plano by either the resident United States District Judge sitting in Plano or another United States District Judge assigned to hold court in Plano. If the resident judge in Sherman or Plano retires or dies, 50 percent of the cases shall continue to be tried in Sherman and 50 percent tried in Plano while a new resident judge is being assigned. This provision shall not prevent the transfer of a case to another judge or division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas or another United States District Court for trial, if such transfer is permitted by applicable law.''

Mr. Speaker, I have long expressed my support and I have no objection to a Plano district court. The people in Plano are entitled to a court and, likewise, the people of Sherman are entitled to an assurance that an addition of a Plano court will not diminish or otherwise imperil the court in Sherman. The folks in Plano are happy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), and they should be. I want the people in Grayson County to be happy with this transaction also. I think this report language gives clarity to this amendment and would ensure the viability of both courts for the next 50 years.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have Senator Cornyn and Senator Hutchison who will place this in the report language in the Senate judiciary bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to report that, last Friday, S. 1720 was presented to the President for his consideration, after receiving the unanimous approval of both the House and Senate. I sponsored S. 1720, joined by Senator Huthinson, because I believe that this legislation is necessary to ensure that all of the citizens of North Texas have access to justice in the Federal courts.

S. 1720 authorizes the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to hold court in the City of Plano. Such legislation was first endorsed by the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Eastern District of Texas in 1991. Yet although, prior to this year, the House had already approved such legislation five times since 1991, it has never received the approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate until this year.

Federal law does not currently authorize the Eastern District of Texas to hold court in Plano--making the Eastern District, of all 93 judicial districts across the United States, the only judicial district in which its largest city cannot hold Federal court. The nearest Eastern District judge is in the city of Sherman, a 100-mile or more roundtrip drive away. As a result, Federal prosecutors, public defenders, other attorneys, and law enforcement officials must waste precious time and resources conducting even the most simple court business. The people of the Eastern District of Texas are woefully underserved as a result.

S. 1720 enjoys strong support among officials across the State of Texas. Most notably, U.S. Attorney Matthew D. Orwing, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Gregory, Chief Judge John Hannah, Jr., and Judge Richard A. Schell worked closely with my office in this effort, and I am grateful to each and every one of them for working with me to ensure that the people of North Texas enjoy adequate access to justice in the Federal courts.

The judges of the Eastern District firmly believe that this legislation is good for the citizens of Sherman as well as Plano. On June 13, 2003, on behalf of all the judges of the Eastern District, Chief Judge Hannah issued General Order No. 03-15, which resolves, ``if pending legislation passes that authorizes Plano as a place of holding court, to have half the Sherman Division caseload docketed and tried in Sherman, and the other half of the caseload docketed and tried in Plano. If Judge Brown ceases holding court in Sherman, a new resident judge shall be designated to hold court in Sherman as soon as possible, and pending the new judge's residing in Sherman, 50 percent of civil and criminal cases shall be docketed and tried in Sherman, and the clerk's office in Sherman shall remain staffed sufficiently to support a resident judge.''

Relying on this general order, the Grayson County Bar Association, which includes Sherman, and the Collin County Bar Association, which includes Plano, recently approved a joint resolution endorsing this legislation. Furthermore, consistent with the terms of the order, Congressman Ralph Hall inserted the following statement into the Congressional Record just moment before House approval of S. 1720 last Wednesday:

Both Sherman and Plano shall have a resident United States

District Judge. Fifty percent of the cases filed in or

transferred to the Sherman Division of the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas shall be

assigned for trial and tried in Sherman by either the

resident United States District Judge sitting in Sherman or

another United States District Judge assigned to hold court

in Sherman. The remaining 50 percent of the cases shall be

assigned for trial and tried in Plano by either the resident

United States District Court Judge sitting in Plano or

another United States District Judge assigned to hold court

in Plano. If the resident judge in Sherman or Plano retires

or dies, 50 percent of the cases shall continue to be tried

in Sherman and 50 percent tried in Plano while a new resident

judge is being assigned. This provision shall not prevent the

transfer of a case to another judge or division of the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas or

another United States District Court for trial, if such

transfer is permitted by applicable law.

This language reflects the intentions of the judges of the Eastern District of Texas as stated in General Order No. 03-15--as confirmed by Chief Judge Hannah last week. Accordingly, I am pleased to join Congressman Hall in inserting this statement into the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 10:30 a.m., in executive session to discuss pending military nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 23, 2003, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on Proposals for Improving the Regulation of the Housing GSEs.

The Committee will also vote on the nominations of the Hon. Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., of Massachusetts, to be Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the Hon. Ben. S. Bernanke, of New Jersey, to be a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and the Hon. Paul S. Atkins, of Virginia, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 23, 2003, on pending Committee business off the floor in the President's room, immediately after the first vote of the day.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 23 at 9:30 a.m. to consider S. 994, the Chemical Security Act of 2003, and S. 1757, the John F. Kennedy Center Act.

The business meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 2 p.m., to hear testimony on Company Owned Life Insurance.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on Post 9/11 Visa Policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Federal and State Role in Pharmacy Compounding and Reconstitution: Exploring the Right Mix to Protect Patients during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 10 a.m. in SD- 430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Agenda:

I. Nominations: Henry W. Saad to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; Dora L. Irazarry to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Dale S. Fischer to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California; Gary L. Sharpe to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of New York; and William K. Sessions III to be a Member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

II. Bills: S. 1545, Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003 (the DREAM Act) [Hatch, Durbin, Craig, DeWine, Feingold, Feinstein, Grassley, Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer]; S. 1720, A bill to provide for Federal court proceedings in Plano, Texas [Cornyn]; S. 1743, Private Security Officer Employment Authorization Act of 2003 [Levin, Schumer]; S. 1194, Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003 [DeWine, Durbin, Grassley, Hatch, Leahy]; S. Res. 239, Designating November 7, 2003, as ``National Native American Veterans Day'' to honor the service of Native Americans in the United States Armed Forces and the contribution of Native Americans to the defense of the United States [Campbell]; and S. Res. 240, A resolution designating November 2003 as ``National American Indian Heritage Month'' [Campbell, Hatch].

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine be authorized to meet on Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. Railroad Shipper Issues and S. 919, Railroad Competition Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1720 and I ask my colleagues to support the bill as well. It is a narrow bill, but a necessary one. It is identical to the provisions of the Federal Courts Improvement Act currently before the Committee on the Judiciary, and to legislation which has I think several times passed the House.

The purpose of the bill is to allow for Federal court proceedings and an additional courthouse in Plano, Texas. As a result, the bill will remedy a critical problem hindering the efficient judicial administration of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The existing courthouse is in Sherman, Texas and is overburdened by its increasing caseload. Filings over the past 5 years have grown by 100 percent. This situation mandates a solution. S. 1720 designates Plano as an additional place of holding court to help address this expanded workload.

The one substantive concern about the bill, how cases will be distributed between the two courthouses, has been resolved. As I understand it, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has agreed to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Texas in which it will become clear that S. 1720 is intended to relieve the overflow of filings in the Sherman courthouse, but not do away with the Sherman courthouse. I think the chairman has already made that clear, that that is his intention.

Furthermore, there is agreement from the Senate sponsor, the junior Senator from Texas, that the civil and criminal case filings for the Sherman division will be split 50-50 between the Plano and Sherman courthouses. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has adopted a resolution memorializing this agreement, and the Judicial Conference of the United States has sent a letter to the same effect. Finally, the Committee on the Judiciary Report on the Federal Courts Improvement Act, which currently contains identical provisions, will reflect this understanding. Through these measures, we can rest assured that the addition of this courthouse will have no negative impact on the Sherman courthouse.

I appreciate the efforts that my colleagues have made to address the concerns of those in Sherman, and I am confident that there is general agreement that the judicial business of the Sherman and Plano divisions will be shared equally.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support S. 1720.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.