built it. we talk about plumbing, wiring, structural work, heating and air, and some security issues. now, if you look around town, many people evacuate in order to accomplish this. we chose to stay and they've had to work around us. now, there have been glitches. things were perfect, but i would characterize the resources come in the of this from my live as excellent. recognizing that they are imperfection. ..

>> or are you being nice to us because of the budget problems? or do you think you can do it with 12? >> i think -- we are not asked for budget for any increase in security personnel since 2006. and we have managed to do with what we have. or what we have. we tried to do that before we come to this committee. now, we would like, we think, the appropriate number is 24. it's a comfortable number.

it's a number that is -- gives us some leeway. but we can, have a minimum our baseline number of 12, make it work. so it would be a not a luxury, but a better, more practical, more flexible number to have the 24th. and i think most agencies would come in and ask for the 24. but as i said, we have never, in the time that i have been coming here, ever asked you for more than we needed. we have been very stringent, particularly during chief justice rehnquist in your. he was very strict about what we asked for. >> one last question on that. these 12 new officers, just curious, do you select them from an existing law enforcement force? are they trained only for the supreme court? are they totally new hires? do they get transferred from capitol police or somewhere

else? >> i think in the past we used to take quite a few people from, say, the district police force, metropolitan police, and various agencies around town. we normally now higher new people, and we send them off to federal law enforcement facility down in training facility down in georgia, which probably is excellent because it is in georgia. [laughter] >> and so is normally an entry-level job. we've had good luck with keeping them. with a very little turnover. in the early years we had quite a bit of turnover and that got to be a problem. but after we reached parity and benefits and salary and retirement, that's pretty much it. >> let me ask you one last question before turned over to ms. emerson. accord has requested 6.43 million for 2011 to finish roof repairs in the court

building. is this request part of the courts modernization project or is this something new? >> that separate. that's in the building and grounds category. that's the architect of the capitol. we will handle that, but that rove, that's the part of the maintenance. the roof is an old row. it's the original growth. and this is an ongoing project, i think .3 million is to finalize the repairs on the roof. the final phase of that. but it is not a part of the modernization project. >> i think you spoke about this in the past, forgive me if i'm wrong, but i think you said that part of what we wanted to accomplish we just have to make the building more workable for everyone, but also to make it easier for folks to visit there, the tourists that come through. do you think we've accomplished that?

>> i think we have. i think we could always be paid around the edges as to margins as to whether or not you this approach or that is a better approach. i think we all have different opinions. but i can remember my own first venture up the steps of the supreme court. i was over a and buy it. and it is a national treasure. but it is also a building where we were. and i think we have managed to maintain that balance, both as in the modernization project and into the additions that are going to be new things, such as the new film. i think there's more hard work there. i think the building is maintained, in excellent fashion. so the answer to that i would say is yes. also on the website, i think is an opportunity to see more of

the building and more of what we do. on just the ability to show what is there without actually having the physical intrusiveness or disturbances that you would have, is outstanding. so i think you're a number of opportunities to do that. and i think the building, and you've been there. it's a fabulous place. to work and to visit. so i think that we've accomplished -- justice breyer may have a different view of that. >> do you have a different view of that? >> i will wait to see what happens. i'd like to see, we had one point i think about a million people a year, through. i think that's good. i think the numbers drop a lot because of the construction probably, and i hope we get back to a million. or more. i think it's important that people go through that building. it's their building.

they have to know about it. >> thank you. ms. emerson? >> let me ask a combination, modernization, security question just backloaded to the 12 officers. given recent events, the iran's building in texas, the shooting at the loss biggest courthouse, and at the pentagon, thing, you know, that shows that we perhaps, perhaps not need to hide security at some of our federal buildings. and obviously you are a high profile building. and so, in order to try to assess whether -- i mean, you're being very kind by asking for 12 officers, what have you all had any additional security threats over the last year or so that might give us reason to think 12 new officers wouldn't be enough?

>> without getting into too much -- too many details in an open hearing, one of the reasons for the request is actually we have individuals who work on one person actually now, who actually do the work on threat assessment. and we're going to operate that because of the volume. >> okay. >> and without getting into details of it, but it is -- we understand the importance of analyzing those threats and remaining current and following up on things spent but within the new modernization project, you have a new police command center in the building, correct? >> well, that's already -- >> you haven't already. >> yes. >> what about the additional entrances to the buildings once the modernization is completed? how many of additional entrances will there be ? in other words, we have three

new entities and will have 12 to officers, is that -- >> we will have enough officers to cover. but the point is that, as i said, it would be sometimes you can have things that are adequate, that you can get through a process with. and then sometimes you can have a little more. what we tried to do is not to come here before this committee, particularly now, in this austere period and ask for more than we actually need. >> and justice breyer mention having, you know, hopefully once the modernization, modernization project is complete, more visitors will come and so that's important, too. in fiscal year 2010 we funded the 3 million-dollar building and grounds request for perimeter security. has the architect at the capitol implemented those security

improvements as of today, for example? >> we are in the final phases. we have the one side of the going to do. >> okay. >> and that will be done after the construction. >> but you think it will be on schedule and within budget? >> based on everything i've heard, yes. >> that's good. let me switch subjects. according to your budget submission, in 2009 there were 88 cases argued and 84 cases by opinion. back in his '70s, '80s, early '90s, there were well over 100 cases argued per year and dispose of by opinion of the court. so, one could ask the question then, is the court less efficient than a previous decades? or you know it could be other factors. so i'm just curious. how can you describe how the court, number one, decide what cases it will accept?

and do you consider this decrease in cases argued compared to earlier decades to be significant? just interested in your thoughts on these trends, and whether you expected to continue into two or three years or not. >> first of all, with respect to the future, i don't know. i think each of us, when i went on the court in 1991, we had about 120 cases a year. i like to that number. some members of the court may not agree with it, but i think 100, 120 would be good. but the question is what's in our pool of cases? in the 8000 petitions we get each year, each member of the court goes through those petitions. i usually do it on the weekend. you go through two or 300. you come in during the files that are received during the week, and you make an assessment. what you're looking for is

whether or not it's a federal issue that is substantial or significant. and then you have other problems, whether there's some, we call them vehicle problems. in other words, jurisdictional problem or some other reason you can't take the case. then we go to conference, and we do that individually. and we show up and we cast our votes. for votes in the case is of course, of course the petition is granted. i don't know why the number has gone down. people have had different theories. i suspect that there's been a change in our, some degree, in our mandatory jurisdictions, from virtually all discretionary now. there may be that the courts of appeals are agree more. i simply don't know. there haven't been, until recently, there hasn't been comprehensive legislation that

would produce the kinds of cases that would fill our docket. i ask that this be looked into before. and i don't know anyone yet who has more than a theory. i see nothing, no documented reason, yet, for the trend. i thought i happened upon one, but to this date i haven't had that substantiated. >> thank you. thank you, justice thomas. justice breyer, you look like you want to say something. >> i think it's a very good question. i will try to keep it to the two-minute version. the 10th graders are the ones i like to talk about this because it helps us understand what we do. and i make a couple of points. justice thomas likes to have evidence. i used to be a professor, so i don't need any evidence. i like there is. [laughter] >> i try to point out, all of it

is state law. federal law is about 3%. and that's the law passed by you in congress and the constitution. and we only handle federal cases. and justice thomas very well said which federal cases? the basic will is that we are there really to work out differences among other judges. if all the other judges in the united states handle these questions or are in agreement and what these words mean, why ask? jackson said that. he said we are not final because we're in trouble. we are and how the vote because we're final. no one knows what that means. what it means is we'll have the last word because we're so brilliant. we are of course brilliant. but only, only, only in the sense that someone has to have the last word. so if they all agree, why ask? and if they disagree though and we have to work that. so there you have the basic criteria.

now, why is that criteria ended up with fewer cases in the last few years? here's what i bring in the theory. it's a very old three. you can read it in 1584. he says the king, reverend was, he was so stupid, you could keep reduce the number of lawyers and would explain everything. does he know everywhere in the bill is the subject line argument? in court in a decision. so i think what's happened is our diet has become a wrestler. and that's because if they go back 10 years, those are the laws you pass. and now you i can have passed the law of 2400 pages. if you passed a law with 2400 pages, they probably has a lot of words. and i would predict a test of the theory can that's real for use today, no one is ever going to ask is give why we have so few? [laughter] >> that was a good answer. thank you.

>> as i always have to begin my statement, when the chairman brings up the subject i just want to begin by saying, go sox. it limits my time. >> is that white sox a red sox do? red sox. >> you have three minutes. >> you know, you've got to stick by your principles though, and it's worth it. i have a couple of questions. and looking at the requests in terms of salaries and expenses. it says some reflex an increase of 5% of the appropriation for 2010. what does that represent in terms of percentage increase of salary for staff? i did know whether 5% met a 5% salary increase or 5% was including salary and benefits, and, therefore, the salary

increase was less than 5%. >> 5% is the overall. 5% is the increase of the overall budget. and the increase of the salaries are merely -- it's less than that. it is whatever we have -- it's the cost of living increase, plus whatever natural promotions that you are required. but beyond that, they are not arbitrary increases. it's not 5%. fibers and is it the overall increase. for example, if we are required to increase benefits because of the benefit package, that goes up there if you're required to pay into, whatever you're required to pay additional it into the retirement systems, that is increased. >> justices, if you can get back to us with an indication of what to me on average in terms of the salary increase for staff. if you don't have that data

available. >> about 1.4%. >> thank you. and i appreciate that frugality. all our staff are basically facing the same kind of difficult economic challenges as well as people around the country. and appreciate your efforts to keep your budget reflective of the economic times. and i do want to say that i hope, continue to hope this year with longer-term in mind, and the broader issue of judicial salaries, that we can be the link judicial salaries from our own, which i think has been a policy that has not served us well. has not served you well. but particularly has not served judges will. but that is a topic for probably another discussion. i wanted to raise an issue that

i've been saying for some time, and recently feel more strongly about. and i think it may be a difference of opinion. i think justice breyer and i have discusses perhaps in the past and that's the issue of cameras in the courtroom. is there any, any plan in the works to change, to pilot or in any way increase the use of cameras at the supreme court? >> misdemeanor to the judicial cofidis early consider a pilot project. >> that would be a pilot project in your chrome? >> it would be in our court. it would not have additional conference is not in our court. it has to do with a lower court. >> let me raise pacific the issue of your courtroom. and i was sure my thoughts on that. i would be interested to hear your own. i would think probably of any

courtroom with a system, appellate courts, would be the best situated for cameras in the sense that you don't have the same kind of jury issues that you might have at the trial court level. you have the ability of the judges to consider whether council are playing to the cameras, and i would think particularly at the level of supreme court, that counsel would be very circumspect of about playing too much to the cameras, given that if that is the disposition of the bench it would help them in their advocacy. and i think that this is one of the few areas of public sector that remains free of cameras. we're still using sketches and audio tapes, which seems

anachronistic. i think the changes are inevitable, but i would be interested to hear whether he would contemplate a pilot in your own court, or why the dynamic is so much different with an audiotape versus a videotape. >> the answer is i think i don't know. i know perfectly well what the argument, i think i know fairly well after a long time. the arguments for and against. if you bring courtrooms into -- cameras into the oral argument, there is a big plus for the court for the public. they will see that we do our job seriously. we don't always get everything right, but we take it very seriously. people are well prepared, the lawyers are well prepared. the judges are trying to think out problems that are difficult problems. and for the public to see that, i think would be a plus. so why not do it? the concerns are not i think totally the ones you mention,

part. the concerns are, if we bring into our court, we are and assume the. and if it is in our court it is likely to be in every court in the country, including criminal procedures where there are separate problems, as you know with judges, juries, witnesses and so forth. a second problem is will understanding be promoted if you can -- you can only show the oral argument which is 1% of what goes on. and people relate to what they see. much more than what they relate to what's in writing. and we're deciding cases that we have results for 300 million people, and only six of them are in front of us. and we have to worry a lot about what our ruling will do to the 299,999,000 such that aren't there. and so will there be misunderstanding about that? and the third, which i think is

minor, but it is possibly there. it's not that the voters and judges bring but what act that. i don't think it really would. we just had the canadians in the visit, and they have it in their supreme court. and it's worked out all right. but there is some concern about what -- coming, we have a group of people in our press room who know how the court works. and when you read what they say, you know it's been written about by someone who knows how the court works. now that isn't always so. the cameras don't always have the time, and will do the best representation given? you can take those three worries i've listed and say in your own mind, they don't stack up against the plus. i can understand that. but our job are those of trustees for this institution that served america well. and there is no going back. i think there is no such thing as an experiment on this in the supreme court. you have to decide it. and that's what i think what's

needed is a comfort level that, by giving a comfort level, it may come sooner rather than what i tend to agree with you on. inevitably later. now how to get that comfort level is a long, complicated matter. i've always said it will involve studies and series of studies, not just once promoted by the press, serious studies of what happened in different places. and when i say that, everyone goes to sleep. because if you mentioned the word study. but i think something like that is necessary. so i like the pilot programs. even in the courts. i think there are things to be learned and i think eventually we will get the comfort level, but i think we are not there y yet. >> justify can engage a little bit on that, because you know, i think you mentioned three different points, probably the

most substantial being that, well, people could misunderstand because the case only ostensibly applies to the litigants in the court. but it affects millions. this, in my view, far greater chance of misunderstanding if the public isn't able to see. there's far greater i think opportunity for people to be suspicious of the outcome, or misunderstand a process or misapprehended process. they don't have the window into the courts workings that would be provide by actually watching. and so your first observation i think is the much more compelling one, which is it would be beneficial to the court because people would understand what does better. and be beneficial to the public to gain an understanding. and i think that clearly trumps any risk of misunderstanding which is on is going to be present. and i think is more present when things are done less visibly than more visibility. is that the tapping of the gavel?

>> it's a nine minute gallup's but i will wrap up, mr. chair. thank you. i know i shouldn't have commented about the red sox. i also think that the kind of slippery slope point that if you do it in the appellate court you must do in the trial courts isn't necessarily so. and there are different factors that work when you have a jury and when you don't. and, finally, the fact that the print media may be very good and very professional, and you have less control with the electronic media, that's true in our profession as well. i love that we do is in writing. what a lot of government bodies do is inviting, and i don't find that as a compelling reason not to go forward on a. at the end of the day, i think you put your finger on it when you said we just have to decide. and i don't think the studies will give you a comfort level. i think thing that will give you a comfort level is by taking the plunge. and i also think, justices, it's

inevitable. and if it is inevitable we might as well plunge forward. and i would appreciate the chairman's intelligence. thank you, mr. chairman,. >> thank you. the gentleman brings up an interesting feature. one that the chairman is facing in the state assembly has dealt with. court cameras in the courtroom. my concern, just on the record is one that will probably get me badly spoken of tonight on some talk shows. but it's precisely the fact that we're both on the left on the right there will be eating talk shows, not the news, but the talk shows have includes on and did you hear, what a jerk. j.j. thomas, oh, my gosh. >> i didn't hear. [laughter] >> did you see them there? you know. and that's my concern. i am sure that full disclosure

people say what am i for covering things up here but i just wish there was a way that we could let the people see more and not just invite people to treat the court the way they treat us. >> there is a difference. i mean, sometimes i think it's an important one in the nature of jobs. your job is to write some words on a piece of paper. and those words tell people what to do, or what not to do. but they don't tell on you on that paper, they don't say why you wrote the words. that's not the nature of the job. so obviously there is a different story that's not on that paper. a judges job is different that a good appellate judge, the ideal is you write not just the words, you write the reasons why you wrote the words. and if you're honest and good, they explain the real reasons why you wrote the words.

so in that sense, the process is quite different, and it is a process that tends to take place much more inviting and much was even in conversation among us, than, say, a job like yours. they are different, but i can see are concerned there. and, of course, it's something. >> if i can just jump in one quick point. >> mr. crenshaw here is not happy. go ahead. >> mr. crenshaw is such a gem he will allow me 30 seconds. know what is suggesting that your job is the same as ours. but i am suggesting that the public would benefit from a better understanding of your job just as it benefits from a better understanding of ours. people watcher ardent and listen to your arguments because they find the questions that you ask shed light on some time on your own thinking, issues on the case. i think the more the public has a chance to see how thoughtful and probing those questions are, i think as your original comment

indicated, what's good for the court is good for the public. and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. crenshaw? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i might make the observation that today's hearing is being televised, and one thing is a repeatable. when you put members of congress on television, they tend to talk longer than they do when they're not on television. so i don't know if that's true to the supreme court. . .

that you have done such a good job that you are invited back or is it because you draw straws and come up short every time? >> well, actually it is a combination, but if you've been with me one minutes i would like to address the question of the increases on a 5 percent increase and that is the proposed increase for 2011 for the members of the court to 1.4% as mandatory increase and that for the court personnel and is 1.4% also. in -- so it is different from the 5% overall budget that is

unrelated to. with respect to who is -- i was asked in my early years on the court to participate be a part of the budget committee and that meant that come up here as part of that and testify. i don't know how the selection was made except when the chief justice asks you to do something you normally try to be positive and be a part. i think it is good for the court and the institution to be asked to be do these things. it's like anything else, you get used to it to another process and they like that continuity especially with a new chief justice. he asked that we participate in this and i think we enjoy it. speaking for me, and i enjoy it. i have got to know the members of the committee and i think is good for both institutions. >> you do a great job and i'm

glad you're here. let me ask you a more serious question and as we get ready to kind of watched the nomination process of a new justice the discussion about diversity will, up, ethnic diversity, racial, gender diversity and you all don't have a lot to do with the selection. in its outside your hands, but you all had to select clerks and i was just looking at the list of the clerks that have served over the years and it seems to me there's a disproportionate share of clerks that come from either harvard or yale. i looked out in the audience and i see young people that might aspire to be a clerk for a supreme court justice sunday and i wondered what they think when they look at that and the kind of question becomes is the reason for that because people from harvard or yale are more

qualified to be supreme court justice clerk or disproportionate share of students from those schools apply? is that something that you all think about when the educational diversity aspect of being a clerk? >> well, that's an interesting question. the clerk -- it is predominately harvard or yale. there's no educational diversity there to speak of. in the only member of the court who is non ivy league is a member who is retiring who announced his retirement. so i don't think that's unusual. you do have excellent people, excellent candidates from those two schools, harvard and yale. i for one think there are excellent kids all over the country and i think there are excellent potential nominees to the court all over the country. and i would be concerned about

it, but i thank you have a elections for that up to the president. i would suspect the selection of law clerks, i tend to hire from a broad scope. i have a clerk from harvard and yale this. one from utah won from voter dame. i really don't see it as a negative when a kid is number one top of the class who may not be as deep as some of the other schools, but there is a pool nonetheless. in but others, you know, it's an individual thing. i hire my own clerks and i have my own criteria and am certain the other members of the court have paris. with that there may go their comfort level with moving beyond the ivy league were too far beyond them.

>> one last question and, i have to bright people in front of me, when i was reading law cases one time i read the case and i can't remember the case and the justice, but the statement was that versatility in circumstance as definitive s and does that ring a bell with you all? was that felix frankfurter? not that you'd know that but i wanted to know that. i want to look that up. >> you should google it. on your blackberry. >> i will do that. i once did a quote from jonathan swift, interestingly end of i just google that because it was based on jonathan smith -- jonathan swift who sent whenever a true genius appears on the scene you will know him by the sign, the dunce former

confederacy against him. i will google that. maybe i can find to send out. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, good morning. let me just say once again how delighted i am to see this rare opportunity that we have a chance to interact with the judiciary so thank you for being here. i want to follow-up, mr. crenshaw. he asked my question but let me follow up all little and take it deeper in terms of how i would like to see your answer a little bit more in terms of a broader answers. first of all, i started here on capitol hill as an intern in the early '70s, became the chief of staff and then went to california legislature and outback year.

it's been very difficult and i have seen some progress in terms of women and people of color in these key positions, not enough and actually to the speakers' credits we've looked at diversity on capitol hill and they're still not where we should be in terms of reflecting the diversity of our great country. now we're in the midst or the final stages of the census and, of course, we know based on the previous census looking at 15.4 percent of persons of hispanic descent, 12.8 percent african-american, 4.5 percent asian, 1 percent american indian, and so i know the courts want to strive to be representative of the american people in terms of their standing and law clerks but we have to examine i think each agency and branch of government to really look at how it does reflect the diversity of our country. harvard and yale are great law

schools, they are excellent institutions, however, we know that there are few minorities attending these law schools. and so i want to find out if you have an actual concerted effort to identify law clerks from schools like howard and r-texas southern or even in terms of regional diversity, california, and how you do this and is there a way we can look at what those numbers are currently. secondly, just in terms of -- i know your budgets relatively small, but if you do contract out any of your activity is or services in terms of a project's and if you do contracts out to you have information as relates to women and minority and how you're doing in that respect, if you do have contrasting program? i know i asked this question

last. justice thomas your response law clerks reflected in or thought they reflected -- >> the pool that is the pool for us and all of our clerks are virtually all with rare exception coming from the court so you start with the court of appeals. that's our base and you select and then its individual after that, but i know very few clerks who of not at least clerked at the court of appeals. some clerks more than once or at various levels. so the clerks that you are looking at, you look first at the court of appeals, what does that look like and then you look at what we pulled from that. now, i have to admit i have a broad base as far as the law school's probably as broad as anyone in the court with the

exception may be of justice stevens. so there are quite a few in the pool and the reality is that it is hispanics and blacks who do not show up in any great numbers. >> they don't show up? y? >> it's the pool. >> i would hope that there would be -- >> i don't think it is us -- up to us. the pool come from law schools and other judges and then there are other things that go into that, but without that aside and as far as -- i don't really, i have a good man to i don't really disaggregate by selection process that way. i just broaden its and the kids show up and have had good success in kids who have done well. >> people of color and minorities? >> yes but again that's not as

big an aspect of what i do. it happens. some show up and i don't know what their color is. >> i understand that but in a country where we have a history of discrimination to show up. >> i know that. >> we need to have a concerted effort to have a inclusiveness of population in. >> i think what you look at is what's in the pool. >> but what is in the pool has to do unfortunately with some of your decisions on the supreme court. you know that have really shot out many people of color in some of these institutions so if we go there we could really have a good healthy discussion about some of your decisions, but i would think that we would want to see a broader pool and you would find ways to help at least the the court of appeals.

>> i think that we should have the people from all over the country on the court and as i have indicated the tendency would be toward one region in the country. >> and try to figure out how do we change that because you don't want to see a supreme court as discriminatory d facto and that's what happens. >> as i said you broaden the areas that to look and many of us do that. you don't -- i don't think we have a the capacity, to change other federal judges hiring processes. >> you don't have the capacity. >> to change other federal judges. >> could you send out an e -- and be nice to have a diverse lot clerk pool their reflects this whole country. >> i think that is one -- >> they may not if you have the pool of people there to pull from, they may not know that's what you all want to see.

somehow you need to communicated to, that's what she would like to see rather than say we will take to shows up because we know who will show up especially from harvard and yale. >> i would say this conversation is not as in dade as you might think. that is, when i came to the court 15 years ago i was a little surprised at the small number of minorities and people of color and hispanic background. we were law clerks. i would say in the last 15 years there has been a sea change and i think that's it has not been as difficult as people might think. and i think once you establish credibility in the areas people might think i don't even have a chance, if you do have a chance. but i have to know people who know other people who tell other people and then gradually people begin to think maybe i do have a chance and then they begin into

this pool, whenever the pool might be like anything else when hiring people you have to do something that works in context. that's at least part of it and i have seen that change so i don't think i've had a huge problem here at this respect. not perfect, but not the kind of a problem that i thank you might be thinking of. >> well. >> there have been quite a few people in my office of diverse backgrounds and it has not -- i will tell the chairman i have even had a law clerk, i don't even know if part of it could be considered part of puerto rico and because after all if you are part of it you really are special. >> mr. chairman, i think the facts speak for themselves and out like to ask to see a report to of ethnic, gender and racial

diversity. is that possible for a current reports so we can look at that? >> this is a very important issue for us and for this committee and has been for years. i can understand what the justice is saying and maybe it is not their role to say send me this person or that person so in view of that. >> i understand that. >> this committee asks to give us a report and a report that came was pretty clear about the numbers al that level in the reports, so what this committee was two continue to try to do is apply pressure if you will with a person needs to be a. so far lower levels you need to make sure the pool is increased and our information is that's not happening in continues not to happen and i intend for this

committee to begin to decide what we do to an understanding that they can't come every. ask for a lot of support and continue to have those numbers. so they can look in a pool that's more diversified. >> i understand and i see those numbers and i hope we get them updated report also mr. chairman but i also think somehow there should be some sense of intent for the supreme court justices to make a statement that this is something you would like. you can't say send us a diverse pool but you can at least indicate in some way that it would be nice to see diversity reflected in an anything you could do would be very helpful. >> i agree with pat. >> i'm asking if somehow you could do that. >> i agree with you. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> for the record, i want to state that she asked the

question i wanted to ask. justice thomas, you and i have discussed this publicly for a while. this is still a concern and add to my concern in the past which i think is important that in a way this is not compromising the integrity of accords. the supreme court itself speak in some way, i'm not asking for a court decision, and still waiting on the one for a break in to run for president, but to make some kind of a statement that things have to change at the bottom level and when you speak to some people there is a problem and unfortunately every year when you folks, here it is the court that takes the brunt of the questions when, in fact, i agree with you that the pool is a problem but in addition to the pool of being a problem or in spite of its i think if the court was to say we need this to

change we could begin to see changed. we can begin to see change and i have nothing against our word or yale, but its -- there are different places throughout the country that can provide good folks. now, whenever we have before us we try very hard to speak only budget issues, but we can't tossup the opportunity to touch on other things. recanted into any decisions but we have important contributions of justice reasons i cannot help but notice that we lose certain unique characteristics from the democratic -- demographics of a court with his or anyone's retirements at the end of this term. justice stevens is our last remaining member of the court to serve in the military during world war ii. he is the one remaining protestant member of the courts and the last justice of the

supreme court confirmation hearing not televised among other things. as we reflect on what we use -- lose with his experience we must also begin to look for to what people want and expect of a new nominee. absent any judicial philosophy which all of us probably have a different opinion on, are there any experiences legal or otherwise that she believes the accord would be well served by any new justice? secondly, do you think having all the current justices with previous judicial experience at the federal courts of appeals helps or hinders deciding cases at the core level? do you think the court would do well to have a justice with the spirits of the state level work judicial system as justice souter did or perhaps to have experience as an elected official as other members have? without again getting into

philosophy, what necessary is in the court, in our opinion,? >> welcome to all mr. chairman i would say yes. i don't think it matters as much. what the experience is as long as it is experience making decisions and hard decisions. just as i think it helps us if someone is from a different part of the country and helps us if somebody practiced law or maybe talk a particular area or prosecuted or defended in a particular area. a judge on a lower court, a trial judge vs. an appellate judge. all of those things make a wonderful giant. in maybe if he was in a judge at all, he was a deputy attorney general in the private practice before he became on the court. just an excellent member of the

court. so i think all of the above works. what we look for, those of us who have been there a while, someone we can get along with, and honest person, a person who will be a conscientious, and a person who will realize it is a small group of us making hard decisions. i don't think we ever discussed at least during my tenure our particular person voting and that's the way we operate, but i don't have a formula for what a judge should actually have a. i like the way the court is. people come from a different -- different problems and perspectives. and with different backgrounds. i think it is helpful to have a that sort of mix. and i think that most sitting judges learned in doing this job

it is a humbling job, simply because the only people who have ready answers other people who have no authority to make the decision and no responsible -- responsibility to make the decision. those of us to have to make its have to be more cautious and have to be more humble about our ability to so i don't think any of us would come out and say we have a formula for what the next member should look like. just as long as the person is incapable, good person. >> i think in respect to what you are talking about, you should keep in mind that the job and, is a better job for an older person in a way, sitting in a room. that's how i spend my day. i spend my day -- sometimes you forget i'm all their ninth.

you're ratings and writings, i tell my son, if you do your homework well you get a job and you do homework for the rest of your life but what that means is you have to know not just what the books say, that's part of it, and all the cases say and the brief say, that's part of it but you have to have a certain kind of imagination because you have to build to think yourself be on the room into the lives of the people whom these decisions will actually affect and you have to have a realistic imagination so you'll understand what the impact of this decision is going to be on those people. i can't give you a magic time -- touchdown that tell you whether you have that kind of person and all i can tell you is nine people dare try as hard as they can and sometimes they succeed and sometimes they don't. but it's that kind of imaginative experience of others

that really i think makes a difference in terms of how you write those. >> it's interesting, justice thomas, you say it's a humbling experience. i will tell you a quick experience i had. i represent the south bronx and there are a lot of immigrants, a lot of folks with english as a second language, a lot of poor folks, a lot of those with little education, and so even explaining on a daily basis after 20 years in congress when it is a member of congress does is a daily routine for me either in the schools, community center on the street. when justice sotomayor was being considered, granted it a lot of excitement was the fact she was a woman from the bronx and she was hispanic woman, her parents from puerto rico, that there was no explanation on my part as to why she was being nominated for. everybody understood the -- it

was as if they knew this was huge. this was big, this was important, this was a coming-of-age for the community and it became something or everywhere i went you want to make sure this happens. i spoke to the senate. it is a done deal. but the importance i have told you in the past and much to the dismay of some of my friends on the left but i feel uneasy about having a hearing this supreme court because of the respect i have for the courts. i don't always agree with the decisions but i have respect so it's humbling but the public understands the importance of what you do and the future of our country. the oas 94 your service -- we always thank you for your service. >> thank you mr. chairman. did as always it's an honor to

be here. in you and i have been at this together for a decade and half of. >> i'm glad to hear you don't think there has to be a judge on court because i'm not a judge. >> you don't have to be born in the united states and you don't have to answer that question and. >> really? >> so you haven't answered whether i can serve and. >> we are debating that one. [laughter] we're giving you another option. thank you mr. chairman. >> so the last three justices appointed to the supreme court and/or 55 -- 56, and 50. in last retiree, 90. some have referred it to becoming a justice or an appellate judge is taking the veil. i'm and i am just curious, do

you all think it is good for the court to have these young bird justices serve terms -- these young kurd justices to serve terms easily 40 years in length? i am curious. >> well, you're talking to a person appointed in his 40's. i guess i'm sort of an extreme example of your example, but i can say this and let me answer it this way. and i am very pleased that i have the opportunity to work with members of the court who have long tenures. each of them brought something unique. in -- they have a view of the law and the job that is different and has more depth in into then that when those of us show up in the first two or three years. they have been there.

in to hear justice stevens talk about being mayor in the early days and with stewart and then with the decisions and having sat on so many cases that now form the presidential foundation for much of our jurisprudence. it gives you any advantage when you have people without much experience. i don't have a magic formula for how long judges should be on courts. in -- if it was 25 years i would be close to dawn. and would move on to another phase of life, but it is not that. as a lifetime appointment in this country and i see from my perspective and not necessarily for me, but i see some i advantages to it and some

disadvantages. but so far i just simply do not see in serving with members who were in their later years, i just haven't seen all the disadvantages. they have been wonderful colleagues to a person. ..

i came to this court, i've finning judge in new england. a group in san francisco. i spent a lot of time teaching and i submit that my god, i've met a lot of people who i disagree with on something come of the boys are really here. and then i think about that for five minutes and i think that's a very good team. this is a very big country. 300 million people, gave 900 billion points of view. there is every race, every religion, everybody understands in this country because they've learned how to live together under law and our greatest nfh as we get to sit there and see that. that's a very, very good to that i serve with people who don't always agree with me. who don't always agree with me. and have different points of view. i think you want to serve at least long enough to be sure you pick up a lot of the period do not i appreciate that.

i'm yesterday? they rather touchy subject. and i promise you i'm not trying to putsch won a spot, but this is a big issue given the fact that there are a lot of judicial vacancies around the country at a local. are we having a tough time retaining judges because we're not giving any cost-of-living increases and, you know -- >> via. not only are you having trouble retaining some law defense, were beginning to get pushed back for resisting by some of the best talent in the country. but that's just a part of the reality. but i'd like to just take a brief second to touch on just one or a post diversity question, because i think ms. lee had a good point.

one of the things that you run into when you visit our schools, that are not the ivy league, is among the student it doesn't matter whether their minority, female or male. there is no chance that they can be sheer at our support as law clerks or any other. that is something that i think that we certainly stand with them in saying that the possibility exists. and that spreads throughout. i also, think justice breyer is absolutely right that a lot of us do it individually. it depends on the people you know. so if you know more people, say at the university of georgia, or george mason, from -underscore

comic university of missouri, you have a tendency to rely on facts about a young person. and it's very individualized. so the broader they met is in the least resistance you have two people, the more chances you have of bringing some individuals and who are now on a large scale or significant skill. >> and i'm grateful for your same. my husband was a brilliant attorney got into two schools, university of missouri and a yale. he applied to a mite too. and he said the university of the 30 uproot it could be as good if not better than any other lawyer. and that's a terribly silly risky. and nonetheless, i just think it's important to note just beyond the ivy leagues because there's so many young people who simply can't afford to go to the

ivy league schools were brilliant and deserve to have opportunities. and i'm glad to see the sensitivity toward bringing in more diverse schools. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> that i have separate off soon and that is that we're a country, where people who love their country. we love our system and we should. it's the greatest system in the world. we love our democracy. it's the greatest democracy in the world. we love it so much that i tend to react like we're trained to impose it on other peoples in other countries because it like it so much. we don't care much for the people who own system or the people whom he could judging this is in spirit it seems like a lot of americans think this runs by itself.

you know, it was set up in a month by both. there's this incredible contradiction, but healthy i guess where we love what we have going, but somehow the road scapegoat by themselves and nobody has to prove that budget in hospitals confronted by themselves and there's no one in the court except a computer. that's not a bad idea, let me ask you just a couple more questions. there has been some confusion as to the supreme court's requirement for granting certain capital cases for that is in cases involving the death penalty. my understanding is generally the supreme court only requires four votes to grant it. which aroused that to be record by the vote. it's also my understanding the court has never made explicit policy for granting states in cases involving the death penalty, although many scholars indicate that the court made the

five person majority. this results in potential situations in which the court could grant to hear a case involving the death penalty for a particular individual for not stopping execution from going forward. would it be possible to get a firm explanation of the voting requirements that are necessary to grant the stay of execution in capital cases or do you think that cases such as those in the recent times on this article, what the supreme court decided to your case involving the death lobby, but refused to stop an execution from going forward and heard the merits of the appeal, does that present a problem and i apologize if i may be going into court decisions. i'm trying not to do that any of these hearings. >> i think it's a fair question, without discussing the actual cases involved, i think i would be inappropriate. practice have been since i've been a court to be very

sensitive to this difference between the number of members it takes to grant versus the number it takes to stay any action to be honest with you, not just the execution. and in the past, the reason i rarely comes up is because it's resolved internally with individuals casting a vote to save it even if they don't agree with it. so you don't have that inconsistency. and occasionally you might have a difference of opinion as to the underlying merit of the grant. but there are reasons in sort of these exceptional cases why you don't get to vote in the normal practices. it's rare. >> is important in things like this that it is a very important matter, that they're informal ways of working things out.

and so, the ford would like it granted also are thinking well, there's an issue here and you might have enough discussion at the other members of the quarter were you think well, it could be an issue, but it's not necessarily a winning issue. and others might test the strength of feeling and it's perhaps a little bit like you might have a caucus or something or discussion we try to get things to work out and normally it works out. and it's not always to everybody's satisfaction, but normally it works. >> the difference is always there. and just by the rarity of the occurrence you have, it works out. and i think justice breyer's key word there is informal arrangement, which we have many in the court, allow you to make

adjustments to the circumstances. >> just ending here, march 8 team, we started hosting the website, will you be keeping records of the different pages or parts within the site they get paid and how will you use that? >> i'm not aware of whether are nowhere going going to do it. let me have our web people, our i.t. people give their report and get back to you. >> it would be good to find out and also how they're going to use that. >> if you have a chance at www.supreme court.us. >> i've been there. and by the way, i apologize for the technology being a little late to me. i was putting on facebook that they were going to be on the end. and to make our c-span friends

have become my last question here is c-span aired a special series on the supreme court. other justices have agreed to be in it. they hear directly from the justices about their work. what other steps of the justices take income either individually or collectively to help inform the public about the court's operations and an important role in our democracy and in our constitutional structure? and i must say i'm a big say in before the whole situation with sotomayor of informing the whole public what it's about for the film portend. >> i think what you see, when we started that -- this conversation might informing the public, think of the things we were talking about, the briefs available. all the briefs that are now available -- a >> a short time after. >> that's right. the joint arrangement of the

aba, that's right after their file. now we have a joint arranger with c-span. you saw that wonderful presentation, every member participated. and c-span does a particularly good job because they don't have an angle other than to get it done right. and i think you're going to see that the website, the fact that we have control of it now, allows us to do more and more, to do things for example to work with our historical society, to work with other institutions, the aba and organizations like c-span, to make the court accessible to people. you know, we can talk about oral arguments. our arguments are miniscule of decision-making process in my opinion. and it's also miniscule of what we do, what happens in the court. there's so much more that's already there and more that will be accessible to the public on

the website and in other ways. so you'll see more cooperation with i think organizations like c-span and the american bar association. >> i think that such -- that may be the only single thing we can do in response to your earlier questions and that is why do people in this country not understand what it is we do? and although you, i'm sure, and i know that we do when i've seen him get into the number of speeches on the horatio alger society that any group that comes into the court, we're talking to high schoolers, were talking to grammar schools when they come in. yesterday was that duke talking to the law school and they're such a help in this beyond belief because they will put these things on. i greatly sometimes it's for insomniacs, but nonetheless, it is very helpful. >> especially when it's midnight in new york, it's nine in

california. >> justice o'connor has been devoting her retirement years as a justice souter. and what this does is trying to get teaching of civics restored to the high school and trying to get paid to you or others in the government to explain to children to a lesson plan, to a lesson plan, what it is you do so that they take it in an organized way. she has a website. the annenberg foundation has been supporting it. the other foundations, carnegie supports it and i believe in a completely and i'm sure you do, too. and i love spending time doing that. >> i know the last time i was there, to see certain people here at this hearing dressed in special type to make a presentation, that's quite historic and beautiful. and so, once again, thank you for coming before us. thank you for your service to

our country as we move forward on this budget process, we will take into consideration your request. you know that in the past we've done the right thing and we will continue to do the right thing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> steering is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> is a short-term fix and how congress works out a longer-term solution. the bill also extends over health insurance subsidies for the unemployed and higher payments for doctors who treat medicare patients. he continues national flood insurance and poverty guidelines for federal programs.

>> and our state department briefing on the situation in afghanistan and pakistan. whether from two senior state officials who recently returned from the region. jacob lew is the department of state and rajiv shah is the head of agency for national development. this is about 40 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. we've got a couple of weary travelers here. jack lew, deputy secretary of state and rajiv shah, it

secretary of u.s.a. d. cut into washington last night having visited hearst afghanistan and in pakistan. jack lew got back at 10:00 morning, you know, having visited pakistan and afghanistan. they overlapped during what's called the rock drill, the view of concepts that recently was held in kabul. jack in addition to telling me about his travels can also give you a fresh perspective on the impact -- is having on the global aviation system, having experienced a delay in dubai before he was able to make it back to washington. it was very important to bring you up-to-date on both of these leaders and what they thought on the ground during their respective visits to the two countries, the state of military and civilian cooperation and the way ahead. so we'll begin with jack and then rajiv.

>> thanks, p.j. good morning. it really shows you how global the world is when you fly from dubai to washington and you're delayed for hours because of the ash in the north atlantic. you have to reduce the weight of the plane to load more feel and you were in trouble a thing. very good over the last week. i started in pakistan and then moved on to afghanistan. and in pakistan, many meetings both with our team at the embassy and with ministers and the pakistan government, we really focused on our civilian program there, the court nation with the pakistani ministers and following up on the main streams of the dialogue of particularly the area of economic element and energy. you know, the place where rajiv and i overlapped was in

afghanistan at the rock drill, where there was an all hands meeting for the civilian military leadership go over with general petraeus and ambassador holbrooke chairing. all of the major regional and functional activities in afghanistan. i must say that it was an overwhelming sense that we've made tremendous progress in the last year putting together a truly integrated, coordinated civilian military plans. and truly coordinated means not just between the u.s. civilians in the u.s. military, but with their international partners and most importantly with the government of afghanistan participating in this rock drill, where the afghan ministers are the most important insights we got from the session were from their interaction. as with any exercise like this come in the real reason is to make sure everything is aligned and make course corrections and they will submit course corrections were things we learned at the rock drill will help us to accomplish the goal.

in addition to the rock drill, and extensive meetings our team in kabul and what the ministers they are to make sure that our systems program, though it's quite a large one, is being implemented effectively and to make sure that it's really driving the priorities of the government of afghanistan and strengthening the capacity of the government of afghanistan. in addition to the meaning, i had the opportunity to take a trip outside of kabul again and i went to marcia and he'll describe in a few minutes outside of kandahar. we had a pretty good extent of what's going on on the ground in the plays were just just had a military clearing operations in the case of marjah in a place where still shaping things the environment for clearing things. in marjah, you know, i was able to walk through the streets and see that there is the formation of civilian authorities, locally

led, prepared to distribute agricultural material to deal with the social services set up. there's an increasing sense of security that still challenges in that area and one really did have the defense from the reaction to her civilian presence there, but having civilians there at the very beginning makes all the difference in the world in terms of the effectiveness of the transition from a whole phase. and i also was able to go to iraq and we had conflict about to open later in the year, so is there partially to see if how much the government progress towards that end. but also to appear and a marvel conference for you us quite as does the deputy secretary of state footway marble conference in harat? it's kind of a sign of what the future for afghanistan looks like. they have enormous mineral wealth, marble was one of the minerals that they have, not little marbles. were talking about the marbles he put on the sides of buildings and things like that.

in their hundreds of of people from around the region coming to this marble which will help develop the natural resource economy of afghanistan. and you know, leaving the session, the governor of harat gave me a little gift, a little thing of saffron. and saffron as i think is most of you know by weight is the most expensive spice you can get. more importantly, it is way more valuable than poppies in its crop value. and it's kind of symbolic of the transition in the afghans are cultural economy. last i would like to make and then go to rajiv shah. an extraordinary dinner with a member of the ministers from afghanistan government that i was sitting between ashfaq kayani and omar thought he'd come the finance minister on the other. and it was an extraordinary interesting evening both in terms of the leadership demonstrated intellectual quality and sitting there between these two leaders of a

country that has much ground in so much ways. one was left with such a strong inception of the same time they're a very strong leaders there who frankly were on par or above the leaders of many countries that are considered highly developed. that doesn't mean there's not a lot of work to do. the leadership does not or into was very heartening. thank you, jack. >> i think it's a wonderful opportunity to see up close and work with what's going in place in both afghanistan. i came away encouraged that would like to start by thanking some of the stats in afghanistan in significant numbers. they are taking risks every day to implement an assistance package that really is an expression of the partnership with the governments of both of those places and with the people in both of those places. for taking personal risk, but

also arranging innovative efforts to be good partners and to allow this work to be as effective as possible in achieving the president strategy with a long-term, which is to have a stable and secure and cost region. in afghanistan, i would echo jack's point, but i think that the example of that dinner gives you a sense that this is a real partnership, the fact that we were able to be in a rehearsal of confed drill, listening to ministers and other leaders from the aft and government, hearing very specific feedback, positive and constructive criticism about the effort in areas where we can improve our line meant, both within our civilian and military apparatus, perhaps more importantly with the afghan strategy and the afghan owned approach to their own country developed in terms of improving security, it governments in it export dynamic development. the opportunity to travel through argonaut, which is outside kandahar william reinforced many things we were

saying. strong military cooperation, especially at the outpost combined effort of providing agricultural vouchers to local farmers, working to improve the occasion system, helping improve some of the structure. other things that have really made it different. so in an that covered about 35,000 people east of the river there, you now see a lush agricultural environment. we visited pomegranate orchards and other environments. the people are excited to be participating in a vibrant, local agricultural economy and from a security perspective, i think everyone's acknowledged that from september onwards, when this program will accelerate it, they'll feel more secure in our own military record and improvement in the security situation in that context. so it's a good example of how well we work together and how well things can work and the deathly people hopeful for a brighter future. the afghan search policy, which

is an important prior to the secretary and the president has been also an effect. it's an effort to really tried to secure services locally and to build local afghan institutions as we implement the assistance package. to give you a sense of the transformation in that area between really inside a year are usaid related assistance have comerom afghan employees in full-time jobs to hiring more than 26,000. a big part of that increases the transition to larger infrastructure investment, which are more employment rich in their execution. but nevertheless, it's been an important transition, with what i think is recognized and appreciated by the afghan people and their institutions. finally, in afghanistan at the chance to send a memorandum of understanding to establish a district delivery program which will help both improve local government in districts throughout afghanistan and just as important, the people who

leave those efforts in local district government will have the opportunity to highlight for us how we can target our assistance in a way that's clear what their priorities. sony publishing both of those objectives, try to take forward our real program. in pakistan, i would just highlight that one really got the defense of the strategic dialogue that was so visible at a very high level with secretary clint in and kareshi here in the united is just a few weeks ago is very real from their perspective and hours in pakistan. i was extraordinarily impressed being able to go to several different ministries and meet with civil society leaders and implementing partners, to which people were thinking about a shared partnership and really working to adjust our programmatic effort to align with guidance and feedback from the pakistani government and from pakistani institutions. and that they have been very

rigorous and really setting clear priorities and engaging in a different kind of conversation about what kinds of products to pursue and whether. and fundamental to that, we heard a few things were trying to act on. first and foremost a militia to the assistance program to focus more on energy, water and agriculture and a larger scare, really more transformational type of investment that could take a father would want to go so 10 or 20 years now you could look back and say you started to see these increases in agricultural value added in productivity because of unique things that were done now. second, is similarly focusing on investing in pakistani institutions and making sure we spend resources there. we're building the kinds of accountability and monitoring mechanisms so that we can track resources very, very carefully and enjoy taxpayer dollars are spent well. ..

local institutions but taking a real risk to be there and provides services and a long-term economic vision, again based on agricultural somoza resources and a range of other thoughts especially related to irrigation that can be transformative for those regions.

i will conclude by saying in both places consistent with the secretary's leadership if we took efforts to meet with leaders of women and girls who are civil society experts or parliamentarians and who will continue to take steps to holland in on it and protect and support to the capacity of women and girls in society so thank you. >> would you be interested in how the government will work in the directions to building up capacity of the government, so what were your general impressions of how that would work? where do you need to make adjustments? >> let me start with what was working. you walk through a building that was a provisional center of government. there are tens which a working

tents set up to distribute benefits under things like the agricultural programs and there is a very quickly only 60 days into the operation in marja developing capacity for local afghans to run programs. i think one of the things i took away from its was the logistical and infrastructure issues were real. if there needs to be enough capacity for people to come in and work and sleep and just live support because traveling between places is still difficult even after in the case of a marja relatively safe and secure place. i think that's going forward and there'll probably be, there was an emphasis on that an even greater emphasis on advanced planning and i regard. i think there'll be a lot of lessons learned from marja going into kandahar but kandahar is a

big city so is not going to be exactly the same in terms of the activity already going on in the kandahar area. there is and it plans a significant military undertakings of the sequence of events will be different in different places but some of the lessons learned will apply across the different areas. >> [inaudible] >> in this before i would say it's in the beginning stage and only two days into the effort so i think by any assessment marja has moved quickly and well. one ought not to expect to have final conclusions at this point. there is still have a lot of work to do and i don't want to exaggerate how far this is. i think for what one could expect to sit this point in the process it's very good but they're still a lot of work to do. >> the picture that you painted of the leadership you mad west,

at least at this dinner when you talk about them being good or better than leaders in the developed world, it doesn't really square with the perception one has outside the country or this is literally the most corrupt country on earth. where are these? do they run away and hide? >> i think that in any country in any government there are different qualities and on not going to characterize on the minister's i met with. i think we both had the experience of meeting with the members of their government who have the most interaction with us and a problematic -- programmatic basis whether the minister of finance or agriculture, minister of education, minister of local governments. they're the kind of people we met with. an important transition, ministry of mining, which used to be the most problematic ministries with leadership met

with the former route leadership of commerce who is a first-rate person. i can say there are no issues anywhere but we have to take a look and a balanced way. i think it is an overlooked the fact we have real partners to work with and that's the point i'm making. >> the question i'm asking what like to know is you feel comfortable who you're working with? the picture -- >> we have been very clear -- >> the image that exists is not one that lends to confidence. >> we've been clear our assistance through ministries was going to be only after certified ministry is to be able to meet standards of accountability and and to have the level of the programmatic capacity to handle the funding effectively. we're in the process of that. most of the ministries are not yet certified, 3r and several in the process.

the finance ministry was largely certified and as a good and positive move. we have to work as quickly as we can consistent with our responsibility to be prudent in their use of taxpayer dollars but is important to bill that capacity in the afghan minister is because there afghan programs. >> three out of how many? >> there are many ministries but not all likely to be recipients. there are a half a dozen or nine ministries that would be the biggest on solos of the ones we're concentrating certification on. >> my question is two administrator shah. i wanted to talk about your push for education for girls education in pakistan as you probably know. the 18th amendment was passed in pakistan and has made a basically mandatory. and also my second question is

about the pakistanis american efforts, just before you joined the agency there was a big meeting of the office and the focus wasn't basically getting support, them serving in pakistan and starting projects but the report was released in which still have the impression is out there that more than 92% going to pakistan and are going through the american front. so do you see any anything, any movement on that front? i think i can also say since i have the mike, quickly, mr. secretary you probably know about this court's on benazir bhutto murder and the deal between president musharaff and

a former minister in london and washington with some official support. do you see there was any lack of advice for her when she went to pakistan, washington? she did not give advisement and she decided to go to pakistan and wasn't really told about all the risk that she would face. >> have to say i got off an airplane at 10:00 o'clock, meeting at the lighthouse at 11 n. directly years are not in a position to respond to that today but we can get back separately. >> thanks for your questions. women and girls are the priority and how that intersects with education here generically we all recognize that girls education is one of the most valuable interventions that can be made to improve long-term social outcomes in a range of different types of communities against both human development, health, education, welfare indicators and fragile

sustainable inclusive growth. so we've been supporting significant gross education effort. i think as we go forward in this is part of the dialogue having with the government and foreign ministry of education is trying to find areas we can be uniquely helpful. it turns out the world bank and the u.k. through their -- they have been robust -- robust partners along with u.s. angles education so we will work in close partnership with them and the government of pakistan and really focus our education programs in places like southern plan jab where we can be uniquely helpful. i think there are opportunities to be more efficient as we do that. on other parts of education dialogue by the way about higher education we have the opportunity to visit with university is where the u.s. over decades have opportunity to build real capacity with the round table with the vice-chancellor's of the universities and pakistan major

universities and did that in a science and math building that was built by u.s. assistance to the number of years ago. it was a reminder of the students that go there see the plaques on a walk in and have the opportunity and the way they talk about the value of u.s. assistance is really deep and powerful so we look at higher education as well. terms of investing in pakistan, pakistani institutions, 92% is probably falsely high in terms of the amount of assistance that goes to u.s.-based firms are contractors but as a high number and we're trying to bring it down. it would not be accurate to say that means only 8% or 20% of resources are spent in pakistan and i even our contractors and partners spend the majority of the resources in pakistan hiring pakistani contractors or ngos to do programs but there are opportunities for efficiencies and as why the team there, there are looking very hard to do two things -- one is to focus on

investing and building pakistani institutions and over a few years you'll see that number go up quite significantly. and they are trying to do that in a way that allows for really full transparency and accountability of how the resources are spent. with fatah and the construction in the region, they spent months billing financial disbursement mechanisms that allows us to a good investment there and track for the dollars go so that we can better obligations to congress and the american people which we feel strongly about. so i give credit to the team for balancing those two perspectives and the innovative and trying to achieve that. the final point is there are real risks and i appreciate your mentioning that, across the board whenever we traveled both our direct higher staff, our foreign service nationals in particular, and are implementing partners have all really highlighted the extent to which they're taking personal risks in

doing this work. i think this was recognizing that and their courage. >> [inaudible] >> can both of you and both of your presentation so positive ion understand, can surely not everything is so rosy. can each of you identify one or two things were things are lacking and aside from just that it takes time to build up, real problems that you want to correct? >> i think the point that dr. shah was making is a serious one that i saw again as well in north pakistan and afghanistan. the general lack of security, not just in the areas we are going into makes it difficult for locals and afghans and pakistanis to travel in a normal way on the roads and our ability to get our program awfully up to the level that we have planned

an intent to get to her requires an awful lot of those partners doing things that are dangerous. whether it's the risk of ied's in the road or the risk of being identified with international efforts. i think we're making real progress there, but that's something that is a very significant issues that we have to keep our eye on. in terms of a our u.s. average, i think we are in extremely good point in terms of general level of coordination among stations use. i think his initially difficult challenge which will come up each time we have program put in place. this coordination takes time and effort and flexibility here is not the history of the way we provide assistance in the past and other places so we are in difficult environments try to bring together all the different instrumentalities to work in a coordinated way. i think we saw some places where

that work better than others and saw process use we could improve and to make even more effective and so overall both of those concerns are things we have to be very, chris -- conscious of but is in the contract of an overall assessment that the program a year into has gone quite well. >> i would add that clearly the point of going in the dialogues whether strategic dialogue in pakistan or the iraq to in afghanistan, i think both highlighted and raise a host of issues where we could be more efficient doing work going forward and do a better job. in afghanistan, for example i mentioned the considered a success story with extremely good work. we look to the unit cost of that work is quite costly on a per person basis and are afghan partners and we recognize that we want to find a way to transition that to something that is sustainable over the very long run. so that people can hold onto the

hope and economic promise of progress created their but do in a way that is more efficient and saves money. so now we'll start planning on those types of things and by highlighting those issues we can raise them and work to resolve them. another example is refunded amazing institution, the afghan vocational training institutes in kabul with 2200 students this year. for about a thousand dollars per student after two years they graduate students, they graduate students and can get technical jobs in the construction trades and electrical construction and i.t. and computer programming. those jobs pay three to $400 a month there which is a great pay off on a thousand dollar your investment. when i looked at the costs structure of what it took us to provide support i think the next round of support should be about 30 percent more efficient so we find those opportunities and worked to get there as we do

these trips. >> i would add one note on the point of sustainability that he made it, the observations that he had totally correspondent with concerns raised by the afghan minister is we met with and the advantage of having been there for the two days after the rehearsal concept i can tell you that the observations he had a very much and used the discussion of the review of all the programs i continue to conduct conversations on here is one of the values of doing these kinds of intense deep dives becoming from the outside and is not like changing things radically but just doing these kinds of corrections that are much more likely to lead to success. >> the senate report felt that contractors down -- they're not well prepared after there's a $6 million taxpayers' money spent training them and the corruption among police forces

and extortion to local communities. i was wondering if you're worried about this and if you heard complaints on the ground about these findings? >> i think that we all know that building afghan security forces both afghan national army and the afghan national police are central to the mission there, that the ability for our afghanistan to take control in the long term of its own security depends on building these forces. there have been many challenges in both regards, progress made in both regards and the afghan national police program, we are shifting strategies over this year. we have shifted strategies and i have the opportunity to visit the police training center where there really was outstanding training going on. i don't think a year ago one would have seen that training. it was a joint international efforts were a lot of the training was done by a person

who had a national police force and their world experts training national place. the training of a higher level afghan national police was going quite well. i think that there's more challenges as you go down into the kind of basic beat police and as a challenge in a country with a very low literacy rate, bringing in people more and more with literacy training into the program. there's a lot of work to do but i must say i left the visit to the training center more encouraged than i expected to be. doesn't explain the past but that's for use in the beginning of the future because that's where the training is visible. >> your fully prepared to provide security after this? >> the goal is to get to a point and today is a snapshot in time or at the beginning of this new training initiatives i think

they are gaining skills and daly, they're being deployed in places like marja and taking a lead in many of the most difficult police and security undertakings. it's with a lot of support from the u.s. and international presence there, but the question is are things in a better place now than they were quacks very much so. is there a lot of work? yes, there is. >> i am from business time. with the visit to washington d.c., the energy summit, there are humanitarian activities in afghanistan. [inaudible]

>> i think that afghanistan has a longstanding post relationship with india. india has been a big supporter of development programs in afghanistan and i think that they're well known concerns in pakistan about relationship. i think that we've encouraged all sides to look at this in terms of of what's being done, is it helping to move the area in general in developing security, and i think the observations that india has played in a poor role in pakistan continue to be true. more important than development ultimately the trade relationship is very important. we can build an air strip, but the export market, the produce going to to india. you're able to see the air strips bills over the last

couple years are now being used to export agricultural product there. it's a beginning. one has to take hope for the beginnings cannot be complacent about them because they are just for stops. >> dr. shah, hoping for your reaction to the general accounting officer for u.s. to the tribal areas. that report said the gaps in planning, performance and monitoring documentation make it impossible for the u.s. two accurately assess the status of assistance. your reaction? and how you reassure u.s. taxpayers when talking about billions of dollars? >> i appreciate that and i appreciate the report. we generally concur with the report's findings and believe we can be more effective at putting in place things that allows you track and monitor resources. that's been the work has been under way for the past seven or

eight months and especially in fatah with the reconstruction organization, the joint effort that we partner with the world bank trust fund set up with a number of other donors. is going to be important to report highlights and to make sure that we have a financial disbursement, that is clear and transparent that allows for that monitoring. i will say there are a couple of observations i had from the trip i don't think are reflected in the report it as much that the security situation there does make it harder and we have to recognize this for either our own staff or more likely actually local partners to be out there and visiting and monitoring. we know we have to do that and our staff is eager to do it. it puts them at great risk when you see what's happened in the last few weeks with some of the

unfortunate incidents. i think we have to be cognizant of how do we resolve the challenge has been articulated in a difficult security interment and there might be some unique things we can do to do that. using technology to improve its feedback and connectivity, having more structured and secure approach to monitoring with leverage so the pakistan military ability to provide security to pakistan locals and nationals that allows monitoring evaluation exercises in a coordinated way so we are working to address that but i think that's the real issue. >> [inaudible] >> well, that's exactly what we're trying to do. i have to go to the details of their part to articulate reaction to every part of that but the whole point of working through the established mechanisms and taking the time. this is an area where we frankly delayed some disbursements and simply because we didn't have

faith in the mechanism and has taken time to establish and it's still not up and running. so we expect it will be in a few weeks. i have supported the team and the team their focus on taking the time to build a prison and mechanisms that are transparent and allow for effective monitoring. >> [inaudible] >> it's a short question, if you could tell me how many state department's civilian you've had an operating in marja and the valley? >> in marja we actually have a small direct higher presence. i believe it is three or four now. i met with three, usaid. and it was quite striking house central vallarta was going on on the ground there whether talking to the local governor or the regional governor with the

military, there's a leveraging going on between them and their military partners, the local afghans, it's tremendous in terms of going to the program and making sure that is well thought through and executed. i was struck at the attachment of of the local leaders for our civilians. i've only been there for a short time. you would have thought they'd been there for years. i would just say the exact same. >> you made for the locals and members and the governor in that district and they embrace them as one of their own and that's the right kind of relationship we want to build. i would just say i'm not sure this is fairly counting the number of civilians in those foreign operating affirmance is exactly the right metric. in our case at usaid we may have a few numbers, one or two or

three people and anyone bury for position, but they are supported by hundreds of people in kabul during contacting, legal compliance worked, a significant number of foreign nationals on our staff that are often doctors and engineers. sector specific experts. most importantly we do most of our work through implementing partners and especially local partners that frankly can get around to move around about the communities far more effectively. the arab cultural program in that area, clearly is stopping by visiting farmers receiving vouchers and asking what they need in making sure things are working and doing that without significant security that a u.s. hired personnel would require. i think it's important to know our capabilities in those areas are far in excess.

>> i will tell you one of them yet, the deputy minister who came to marja to join me when i was there was a very much full praise for our senior civilians there. i don't remember his last name. his first name was marlon and at the end of this situation i said we only spend -- send our best marines. they knew each other. the ratio of civilians there has always been roughly speaking 10 to one and each civilian we have roughly 10 other surrounding them. to get any pitcher water civilians are doing have to look to the whole structure. >> how much of $1 would go to a security in terms of contracts? >> it is very high. i have to go back and check the exact number, it varies by location. security is an issue with people

not traveling in normal ways. any distance requiring helicopter security cost will be high. i think this gets back to the question of generalize stability and security. as we get to a point where the points of security become regions of security that should start to change but it is high. >> what kind of percentage? >> i will have to get back. thank you.

>> homeland security secetary napalitano was at the national press club talking about everest improves -- improve airline safety. her remarks last about an hour. [inaudible conversations] ..