Laserfiche WebLink
Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 168 (Wednesday, November 19, 2003) Page 8 of 8 <br />and, likewise, the people of Sherman are entitled to an assurance that <br />an addition of a Plano court will not diminish or otherwise imperil the <br />court in Sherman. The folks in Plano axe happy with the gentleman from <br />Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), and they should be. I want the people in <br />Grayson County to be happy with this transaction also. I think this <br />report language gives cl.ari.ty to this amendment and would ensure the <br />viability of both Courts for the next 50 years. <br />Mr_ SENSE%- BFJMNER, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? <br />Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. <br />Mr- SENSELTBP2NNER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary has ho <br />control over report language of bills that are under the jurisdiction <br />of the Committee on Appropriations, and since the thought has been to <br />have this statutory amendment placed in the Commerce, Justice, State <br />Appropriation bill, I can say that the Committee on the Judiciary would <br />have no objection to this, because this codifies the agreement that has <br />been made and the resolution that has been adopted by the judges of the <br />Eastern District of Texas, as well as confirmed by the Administrative <br />Office of the U.S. Courts repzesenting the Judicial Conference. of the <br />United States. <br />So I have no objection to this statutory amendment if it should fii}d <br />its way into an appropriation bill. But the gentleman from Texas and <br />everybody else knows full well that what happens in appropriation bills <br />at the end of a session of Congress is a very mysterious thing that <br />those of us who serve on authorizing committees will never understand <br />as Jong as we are here. <br />But rest assured that what the gentleman from Texas has said does <br />represent the understanding of members of the Committee on the <br />Judiciary, and if the appropriators will listen to us, for once, they <br />will be able to make a constructive addition to an appropriation bill, <br />whether it is the State, Justice, Commerce one or another one that <br />mysteriously arises from the bowels of the Capitol within the next few <br />days. <br />Mr. HAIL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have Senator Cornyn and <br />Senator Hutchison who will place this in the report language in•the <br />Senate judiciary bill. <br />Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, <br />which would provide greater access to Federal courts for litigants in <br />various aounti.ea in Texas. One provision of the bill adds the city of <br />Plano as a place of holding court; current residents of Plano must <br />travel to the city of Sherman. It is my understanding that, with <br />respect to the courthouses in Plano and Sherman, the courts will ensure <br />that the civil and criminal dockets will be divided equally. <br />Mr. BERZMN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. <br />Mr. S&NSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield back the balance <br />of my time as yell, <br />The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney) . The question is on the motion <br />offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the <br />House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 1720. <br />The question was taken; and (two -- thirds having voted in favor <br />thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed. <br />A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. <br />http :llwvvw.gpo.govlfdsyslpkglCREC- 2003- 11- 19ibtcnilCRF -C- 2003 -1 I -19 -pi l -PgEl l5 86... 9120/2013 <br />