[Pages H11586-H11589]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS IN PLANO, TEXAS

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the Senate bill (S. 1720) to provide for Federal court proceedings in
Plano, Texas.
The Clerk read as follows:

S. 1720

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

SECTION 1. CHANGE IN COMPOSITION OF DIVISIONS OF EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

(a) In General.--Section 124(c) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``Denton, and Grayson'' and inserting
``Delta, Denton, Fannin, Grayson, Hopkins, and Lamar''; and

[[Page H11587]]

(B) by inserting ``and Plano'' after ``held at Sherman'';
(2) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating paragraphs
(5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively;
and
(3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by inserting
``Red River,'' after ``Franklin,''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by
this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Pending cases not affected.--This section and the
amendments made by this section shall not affect any action
commenced before the effective date of this section and
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on such date.
(3) Juries not affected.--This section and the amendments
made by this section shall not affect the composition, or
preclude the service, of any grand or petit jury summoned,
impaneled, or actually serving in the Eastern Judicial
District of Texas on the effective date of this section.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).

General Leave

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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.

GENERAL ORDER NO. 03-15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

RESOLUTION REGARDING PLACES OF HOLDING COURT IN THE SHERMAN DIVISION

Since 1991, both this court and the Judicial Conference of
the United States have supported legislation authorizing
Plano as a place of holding court in the Sherman Division.
Rapid population growth in the Sherman Division over the past
decade, particularly in Collin and Denton Counties,
underscores the need for an additional court facility.
Sherman Division civil and criminal weighted filings over the
past five years have grown by 100%. Sherman now has the
second heaviest weighted caseload of the six divisions in the
Eastern District of Texas.
In the near future, two resident district judges, a
resident magistrate judge and a visiting district judge will
be hearing all Sherman Division cases in only two courtrooms.
The court has already run out of room in Sherman and needs to
acquire additional court facilities in the Division. Having
court facilities in both Sherman and Plano will enable the
court to better manage the rapidly growing caseload and
provide better service to a large population base in southern
Collin County.
It is the court's intention, when a place of holding court
in Plano is authorized, to assign the case filings as
follows:
50% civil and criminal cases docketed and tried in Sherman
(Judges Brown and Davis).
50% civil and criminal cases docketed and tried in Plano
(Judge Schell).
In light of the above, the judges of this court hereby
REAFFIRM our prior resolution to establish Plano as a place
of holding court in the Sherman Division, and RESOLVE, 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% 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.

Signed this 13th day of June, 2003.

For the Court:

John Hannah, Jr.,
Chief Judge.

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

{time} 1800

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

[[Page H11588]]

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. SENSENBRENNER. 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. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding me this time. I just want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for working
with us.
This is a bipartisan agreement. I will let my colleagues know that
Collin County is expected to increase by 73 percent in population by
the year 2020, so this is a needed court and long overdue.
Mr. Speaker, you know, the role of the Federal Government is to serve
people. And one way the government serves the people is through the
judicial system.
Well, the people of Plano, nearly 250,000 strong and the largest city
in Collin County, do not have access to a nearby Federal court. Simply
put, today's bill is good legislation that is long overdue. Anytime a
lawyer wants to file a court paper, they have to drive 48 miles to near
the Oklahoma border to Sherman, TX. Anytime a police officer needs to
sign a legal document, they have to drive nearly 100 miles round trip.
That is not time well spent.
If the role of the Federal Government is to serve the people, then
it's time to let Collin County hold court. You know, Plano consumes
more than three-fourths of the criminal cases in Sherman and nearly 4
out of 5 civil cases. Clearly there is a need in Plano for a Federal
bench. The people of Collin County and the Eastern District of Texas
are woefully underserved.
On the top of that, the population of Collin County is expected to
increase by 73 percent by the year 2020. If we don't take care of this
now, when will we?
With four judges but just two courtrooms, the Sherman division badly
needs another courtroom somewhere. That somewhere should be the city of
Plano. Important to the city of Sherman, the bill also protects the
Grayson County Courthouse Docket by expanding the Sherman Court
jurisdiction to four new counties; Fannin, Lamar, Delta, and Hopkins.
I also want to thank my friend Ralph Hall for his work on this issue.
I hope he believes we addressed many of his initial concerns.
Before I close, I'd like to thank my colleagues in the Senate,
Senators Cornyn and Hutchison, who helped get this bill through the
other body.
This measure has passed the House every Congress since 1991, only to
die in committee in the Senate. Their leadership paved the way to make
this possible for Collin County.
In the name of good government, the Federal Government started
serving the people of Collin County.

GENERAL ORDER NO. 03-15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

resolution regarding places of holding court in the sherman division

Since 1991, both this court and the Judicial Conference of
the United States have supported legislation authorizing
Plano as a place of holding court in the Sherman Division.
Rapid population growth in the Sherman Division over the past
decade, particularly in Collin and Denton Counties,
underscores the need for an additional court facility.
Sherman Division civil and criminal weighted filings over the
past five years have grown by 100%. Sherman now has the
second heaviest weighted caseload of the six divisions in the
Eastern District of Texas.
In the near future, two resident district judges, a
resident magistrate judge and a visiting district judge will
be hearing all Sherman Division cases in only two courtrooms.
The court has already run out of room in Sherman and needs to
acquire additional court facilities in the Division. Having
court facilities in both Sherman and Plano will enable the
court to better manage the rapidly growing caseload and
provide better service to a large population base in southern
Collin County.
It is the court's intention, when a place of holding court
in Plano is authorized, to assign the case filings as
follows:
50% civil and criminal cases docketed and tried in Sherman
(Judges Brown and Davis)
50% civil and criminal cases docketed and tried in Plano
(Judge Schell)
In light of the above, the judges of this court hereby
REAFFIRM our prior resolution to establish Plano as a place
of holding court in the Sherman Division, and RESOLVE, 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. The court intends to
maintain at least one resident judge in Sherman and one
resident judge 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% 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.

Signed this 13th day of June, 2003.

For the Court:

John Hannah, Jr.
Chief Judge.

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

[[Page H11589]]

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.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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. HALL. 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. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation,
which would provide greater access to Federal courts for litigants in
various counties in Texas. One provision of the bill adds the city of
Plano as a place of holding court; current residents of Plano must
travel to the city of Sherman. It is my understanding that, with
respect to the courthouses in Plano and Sherman, the courts will ensure
that the civil and criminal dockets will be divided equally.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield back the balance
of my time as well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 1720.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________