d view as his legacy. so i think the normal option that the president's had thus far of just saying no may or may not be available to him. so it will be very interesting politics over the summer obviously. but i think the republicans have a relatively straightforward message that would appeal to people who think relatively low income people should get subsidies and those who think that the affordable care act goes about it in the wrong way. >> thank you. >> thanks. [ applause ] live now to house appropriations subcommittee, supreme court justices anthony kennedy and stephen breyer seated before this subcommittee to testify on the supreme court's budget on everything from salaries and expenses to how much it costs to maintain the building and the grountsdz. andrew crenshaw of florida chairing this committee.

>> well, this hearing will come to order. first of all, let me welcome justice breyer and justice kennedy. thank you for being here today. i know both of you have testified before our subcommittee in times past and we appreciate you coming back and being with us here again today. we all look forward to this time to have an exchange. not often does the legislative branch and judicial branch get to talk to each other, so we look forward to that. i think all of us know that a fair and impartial judiciary is very much a cornerstone to our democratic system of government. and so the fact that you're here today, i think is important. i think the work that you do is obviously very, very important. and not only you resolve disputes between individuals, but also between the executive

branch of the federal government as well as legislative branch. and to do that, you need the respect of the citizens. and i think you have that. i think you also give respect to the citizens and their view of what's right and what's fair. and that's important as well. so, i think today's hearing is important because we do have a chance to talk to each other about issues that are important. now, one of the things that i want to commend you all for is your work to try to help save money. everybody knows the government needs money to provide services, but of late, we're trying to make sure that every task of government is completed more efficiently and more effectively than it ever has been before. money is limited. and you are to be commended for the work that you've done to try to save the taxpayers dollars. i notice that your requestses this year, $88.2 million, is almost $1 million less than you

requested last year. and i can tell you my fellow members up here don't see that happen very often when an agency comes in and asks for less money than they received the year before. so, we thank you for that. i know you've done some cost containment initiatives dealing with technology, dealing with personnel, and it's paid off. and i know that there are some small increases a part of that overall reduction, that are basically inflationary themselves. so, justice kennedy, justice breyer, we look forward to hearing from you about the resources that you need and any other comments you might have about the judiciary in general. and we're going to pledge to you to work as best we can to make sure that you have the resources necessary to carry out your constitutional responsibility. once again, thank you for the work you've done to try to save money and be efficient and effective. and in closing, let me just say on a personal note, i'm from

jacksonville, florida, and we have something there called the chester bidell end of the court. it was one of the first in of the courts established in florida. every year they have a special occasion on law day and i wanted to let you know that they will be requesting one of the members of the supreme court to come in 2016 to be there for that celebration in jacksonville, florida. so, i hope you'll be on the lookout for that invitation. i know they would love to have you there. and i would certainly welcome the honor to introduce you to jacksonville, florida. >> the chairman has no shame. >> and that has nothing to do with your budget request. and so we look forward to hearing your testimony. first, let me turn to the acting ranking member, mr. bishop. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ranking member serrano, very much would have liked to have been here today, but he could

not and he sends his sincere apologies. i'm here in his place and i would also like to warmly welcome you both, justices kennedy and breyer, to our subcommittee. as has been said in the past years, this is one of the rare opportunities for our two branches of government to interact. because of this, our questions sometimes range beyond strict appropriations issues. and as our nation's highest court, many of us look to you for important insights and to issues affecting the federal judiciary as a whole, which can be especially critical in such a difficult and challenging budget times as we are experiencing. we have to be careful not to allow anything to affect the ability of our federal judiciary to hear cases and to dispense justice in a fair and a timely manner. we have to be sure also to

provide the supreme court, at both the final authority on our constitution and the most visible symbol of our system of justice with sufficient resources to undertake not just your judicial functions but your public information functions as well. so, we look forward to your testimony, welcome, and whatever we can do to make sure that we have a strong, independent, well-funded judiciary, we want to do that. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. bishop. let me recognize first justice kennedy for any remarks you might like to make. we'll put your written statement in the record. if you could keep your remarks in the neighborhood of five minutes, that will give us some time to ask questions. but again, the floor is yours. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. congressman bishop congressman womack. thank you for your comments and greeting to justice breyer and to me, and we bring our messages of greeting from our colleagues.

with us today i'll just go in the order of where they're seated, are jeff minier counselor to the president -- or counselor to the chief justice. and kevin kline, our budget and personnel director. and pam, the marshal of the court. scott harris, who's the clerk of the court. and we -- is patricia here with you? we have kathy and patricia from our public information office. as you indicated, mr. chairman we're always very careful, very cautious about budgetary expenditures. as you well know, as the committee well knows, the budget of the supreme court is a very small part of the budget of the courts as a whole. and the budgets for the courts of a whole is a very small part of the united states budget. and i think a day you will hear presentation from judge julia

gibbons of the sixth circuit on the budget for the judiciary as a whole. and this is of immense importance. she does a marvelous job for the judiciary. spends many days and weeks on this subject. and the budget for the federal judiciary as a whole, it's important, i think for the congress to realize, it isn't just judges. there are 7900 probation and presentencing officers. and this is cost effective because this keeps people on supervised release. so that they're not in custody, which is cost saving. and over the years in the federal system, we have a very low recidivism rate for our -- for those who are on release. it's high if you look at it as one-third but quite low compared to the state. so, this is cost effective.

and the federal courts as a whole, mr. chairman are a tangible, palpable, visible clear manifestation of our commitment to the rule of law. when people from foreign countries come as judges often come, and they see the federal judicial system and they admire it. they're inspired by it. and they go back to their countries and say that this is a nation that's committed to the rule of law. and law is the capital infrastructure. you can't have a free enterprise without a functioning legal system. so what you do is of immense importance, and we appreciate it. as to our own budget, as you indicated, mr. chairman overall, we have a decrease in our own court operations and expenditures. we have almost exactly a 1% -- a little over 1% increase. and that is for mandated

increases for inflation and salary increases that are mandated. and over half of that, we have absorbed by cost cutting in the court. so, we've absorbed over half of the mandated increases in the existing framework that we have. the court is planning to have in the year 2016, an electronic filing system so that all of the papers that are filed with the court will be on electronic filing. we waited, in part, till the district courts and circuit courts could get on that system so that we could then take it from them. but of course this includes filings from state courts and from prisoners. we think this may require an increase in personnel by one or two people. we're not sure.

the pro se petitions, of which there are -- i don't know. probably in the area of 6,000 a year. are usually handwritten, prisoner handwritten. when this is put on electronic retrievable system, you will have a database from which scholars and analysts can look at the whole criminal system both state and federal and make comparisons, how many -- what are the percentage of cases where there's a complaint on inadequate assistance of counsel or search and seizure. and so this will be a database that will give us considerable data for scholars so that we can -- so that we can study our system. we are of course prepared to answer questions about the specifics. but once again, let me thank you for the honor of being here.

and my colleague, justice breyer and i, are pleased to answer your questions. >> justice breyer, you're recognized. >> i would simply reinforce what my colleague justice kennedy said and what you said, mr. chairman. and you're here. and i think that's a very good thing. so are we because i think our biggest problem is not necessarily the budget, it's right similar to yours which is how do you get the american people to understand what their institutions are about? in our case that we're not up in some heaven somewhere where we decree things from on high communicating directly with some mysterious source. that we're part of the government of the united states. and you're actually interested in the mechanics of how we bring this about. good. it means we're not totally off on our own. and try to explain to people what we do as you try to explain what you do. and you say, we're part of you. you know, you're part of us. and that's talking to people of the united states. so, i'm glad to have even a

little opportunity to talk about our institution and how it works. and i'm glad you're interested. thank you. >> well, thank you very much. >> mr. chairman i might mention the ends of court, which you alluded to. was the idea of chief justice -- former chief justice warren burger. he loved all things english and he wanted to replicate this structure in which judges and attorneys and law professors and law students have dinner twice a month and talk about stuff. and he did it with judge sherman christiansen, the late judge christiansen of utah, and cliff wallace also assisted him. it's been remarkable -- it cost the government no money. and in jacksonville, florida in sacramento california in boston, they have inns of court. and it has made a tremendous difference. people thought this is an interesting idea. it's made a real, palpable, tangible difference in the civility that we have within our

profession. it's been a remarkable, remarkable achievement. >> that's great. it's there to promote professionalism and they're doing a great job. as we begin the questions i can't help but recall the last time you all were here, i asked you how the court decides who they're going to send over to testify before us. and i think justice kennedy you replied, it's based on merit. and so you're back again. good job. let me ask you, one of the things that i know there had been a lot of work being done the building and grounds. and over the last ten years i think this committee has spent -- or appropriated about $120 million to really the first time since 1935 a lot of things were upgraded. and so i just -- and i wanted to

ask for an update on how that work's done, the facade was redone, i guess, north and south. is that all complete? at one time there was a big hole in the ground next door, but since i've been by of late everything looks really nice. can you just give us an update on all of the work that's been done? is that completed and finished? >> $120 million appropriations for refushing of the building is completed. we came in under budget. and the project has been closed. and it's been very, very successful. incidentally, the original cost for that was -- the original estimate was $170 million. and i talked with your predecessor when i got the message, and he said i think we've got a problem. i said, i think it's too high to

me. we hired our own architect. and worked with him. in fact, my recollection is he did most of his work pro bono. from the architect we hired he was from the university of virginia, taught architecture there, we got it down to $120 million. and the building came in under that. there were some contract claims. one of the problems was the windows. if you look at our windows on the court there, these lovely windows, sort of -- to replace the windows, which we had to do they measured. they measured the bottom for the width of the window and then the height. but they didn't know that it's not a rectangle. it's a trapezoid. brilliant architecture. and so that was about a $15 million mistake. which we weren't going to pay for. but that's the kind of thing that comes up in the building. and it is finished.

we had to replace all the wires all the air conditioning. we had -- the air conditioning system from 1938 and when it broke, there was a fellow that was retired in west virginia we sent a police car to get him you know. we said, we better fix this. and so that's been done. the facade is a different project. some of the marble was actually falling off. time has not been kind to the marble on the building. so we're still in progress. the entrance the west side of the building is finished but the north and south and the east have yet to be done. >> got ya. let me ask you and we'll have time i think, for a round of questions or two, the whole security issue. you know the world is -- seems to be getting more dangerous, whether it's internationally or domestically. i know from time to time the

supreme court hears controversial casings. and i know that you spend about $18 million a year on security, i guess primarily with the supreme court police. i just wanted you to tell us is that adequate? for instance if you hear -- going to hear maybe a highly charged case do you have to increase security during the time those hearings take place? give us an overall view of how you see -- because i was just in jacksonville this morning with the folks in the federal courthouse. and they -- that's a concern to them. in these difficult economic times to make sure we have adequate security for a lot of people that are in public service. but give us a little update on how -- is that all being funded? is that all being taken care of in terms of security? >> it has been. a few years ago we projected we needed more than we ultimately

asked for but we're now satisfied that we have the right number. yes, of course in high-profile cases or when threat assessments are going up we have increased security, but we can do it all within our existing staff. >> thank you. mr. bishop is recognized. >> thank you very much. when you were last here, we discussed the very real impact of sequestration. unfortunately, we still need to discuss that. i think most people think of federal grants and programs you're able to dial back operations but it's not the case with the federal judiciary. the courts have a constitutional responsibility. and you cannot control the scope of your jurisdiction. and you've already undertaken strict cost-cutting measures prior to sequestration.

i know you can't answer for the entire judiciary, but what do you see as the continued effects of sequestration? what concerns do you have if sequestration is continued? >> i haven't heard the testimony for the other agencies that come before you. maybe they all say we're all unique, you can't have any sequester for us soy don't want to just repeat the argument you hear all the time. a few things number one we can't control our workload. it's controlled by forces and factors that are beyond our direction. number two we have a tradition as the chairman indicated, of being very prudent and very cautious. with us, if there were cutbacks it would mean delayed processing time of cases. and it could mean compromises in security. with the courts in general it's much more significant. as i indicated, we have 7900

probation officers. and if they're laid off, that means more people are in prison at a greater cost. so, sequestration actually works backwards. >> i agree at some point you cut back enough and keep going, you'll discover that, unfortunately, in the united states, there are crimes. and people are arrested. and they are supposed to be tried. and you need a judge and you need a jury and you need a courtroom. and the alternative is not to have the trial. if you don't have the trial, the person has to be released. and there we are. and so there is a minimum of -- and if you go towards that minimum and beyond, it you will deprive the country of the services that basically are needed to run the government of the united states in this area. >> thank you. i applaud the court's ability to find savings in its budget. your total fy16 request with

salaries and expenses and buildings and grounds does represent a discretionary decrease of 1.1% from fy15. it looks like this is a combination of the construction work being completed and savings from nonrecurring costs that are associated with implementation of your new financial system. are there program increases that you are delaying but you still feel would be beneficial at some point? and with regard to implementation of your new financial system, which i understand you're leveraging resources from the executive branch, probably the interior specifically in the area of payroll and financial tracking. and i understand that this move has reduced your reliance on contract employees. and it seems to be a great step towards efficiency. do you find that you're getting the same level an improved level of service? and would you recommend this to other agencies that are looking to reduce their costs?

>> well, i'm not enough of an expert to recommend it to other agencies but our staff tells us it's working very, very well. they like it. they like it better than the outside contractors and it's much cheaper. we are in partnership with an agency in the department of interior. and it -- which has some similarities to us. and it's been -- it's been the source of -- it's generated most of the savings we've had over the last few years. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> is there part of the question -- >> congressman bishop, we're not holding back on anything other than we have this projection we made need two more people due to the electronic filings we're going to put in place in 2016. >> i must remark mr. chairman the answer from our witnesses so succicint and to the point.

>> not only do we not get people requesting less money, we don't get people that speak clearly and concisely. so congratulations on both fronts. now i would like to recognize mr. womack. >> i wish they were all this way. justices, once again a great honor to have you before us. we always look forward to hearing your commentary. and specifically interested in the i.t. piece of what's going on at the supreme court. these technology changes are happening so fast. so fast that we get further and further behind i think, in trying to keep up with what technology usc to beought to be able to do for us. i am interested in how well the i.t. upgrades are going. in listening to your testimony, justice kennedy, i got to

thinking about our friends over at va and d.o.d. they're having such a difficult time coming up with a platform that can kind of serve a very special group of people to our country, our veterans. and being able to get these two systems to talk to one another. do you encounter any of that kind of conflict within the judicial realm in dealing with matters of information technology? >> my guess is, and justice breyer is well more versed in this than i am my guess is that by comparison with many other agencies, our problems are predictable. we know that there's going to be a trial with a plaintiff and defendant. we know there's going to be an appeal with an apellant. we know there may be a petition with a pareetitioner and respondent. so the universe of problems is rather well-known and rather predictable. we don't have to project for uncertainties.

to the extent -- nearly to the extent other agencies do. and our system, the legal system, lends itself very well to electronic technology. >> in my own mind, i classify three different things technology can do. one you heard about, and that's the budgeting, for example, and things that are technological. there they made advances in getting together with other agencies. the second, which is coming along and is slower to develop, is the ability to file briefs and opinions and other things electronically, which is helpful to the lawyers and it's helpful to the public, because they can get it instantaneously. that takes some time. but i think it's going along satisfactorily. and i think that most of the -- most of the other court systems you have this already in many forms, so it can plug into ours without too much trouble. the third, which is a little more open-ended and i put more weight on it, is can we use our

technology to inform the public what we're doing, particularly through our website? and i was talking to people from scotis. they do the same kind of thing. and that's not so easy to do. we put in a website, but the question is, will they use it? will people find out? will school children find out? will some teach efrz say, hey, i want to know about this case. i know how do it. i get on the web and tell my class. fabulous, if we can do that. i got some figures and it's hard to calculate what it is. we had according to this, we have in a year 271,530,580 hits but i didn't know what that meant. is that a lot? sounds like a lot to me. 75 million a month. but how do you measure it? we tried to get comparative figures. the white house is way up there maybe 1,000 whatever they are, rank 1,000 2,000. you're about you know, maybe about 8,000 or 5,000 and we're about, like, 10,000. and the inspector general is

like 2 million. so, it seemed that there is interest in getting this information. and how to develop that in a way that's usable over time and encourages the average american to find out i think that's a big project and i think it will require a lot of experiment back and forth. as i said you're in it as much as we are. >> no question. i think also congressman, it's anecdotal, it's only a tentative hypothesis, but i think electronic information has reduced the number of appeals that we have because lawyers who are trying a case can just push in who has presumption and immediately comes up an answer, the latest case if there's a conflict, it comes up. i think it's easier for lawyers and judges to find the law. >> with the time that i have

remaining, and i know i'm about out of time, at the risk of getting into a philosophical discussion, i have some very strong feelings about our capacity to deal with people with our current prison and local jail overcrowding. i mean it goes all the way from our county levels to the federal system. and it seems to me that our country is -- continues to struggle with just what to do and how to manage -- you just can't build enough incarcerating facilities to deal with the population. it's such an expensive thing. you know, and i was at an event saturday night in my own area. and one of my county judges remarked to me that there's a chance that their jail is going to be shut down and what to do. and the opportunities -- the solution to these problems seems to be fewer and fewer. so, i just kind of consider myself in the camp of, we're going to have to start

prioritizing a little bit how we deal with this. and the supervised piece that you spoke of, justice kennedy, about, you know, the probations and those kinds of programs are just a very invaluable tool to our country in helping manage just how many people we have behind bars at a given time. i'll just throw that out on the table and yield back my time. >> i think, mr. chairman that the correction system is one of the most overlooked, misunderstood institutions we have in our entire government. in law school, i never heard about corrections. lawyers are fascinated with the guilt/innocence adjudication process. once the adjudication process is over, we have no interest in corrections. doctors know more about correction system and psychiatrists than we do. nobody looks at it. california, my home state, had

187,000 people in jail at a cost of over $30,000 a prisoner. compare the amount they gave to school children, it was about 3500 a year. now, this is 24-hour care and so this is apples and oranges in a way. and this idea of total incarceration just isn't working. and it's not humane. the federal government built -- what do they call them -- super max prisons with isolation cells. prisoners, we had a case come before our court a few weeks ago. the prisoner had been in an isolation cell according to the attorney. i haven't checked it out. for 25 years. solitary confinement literally

drives men mad. even dr. minett had his cobbler's tools and he lost his mind. we have to simply look at the system we have. the europeans have systems for difficult rekals trant prisoners in which they have them in a group of three or four. and they can stay together for three and four. and they have human contact. and it seems to work -- it seems to work much better. but we haven't given nearly the study nearly enough thought, nearly enough investigateive resources to looking at our correction system. in many respects, i think it's broken. >> just one thing, because i want to focus on one word i think you said, which to my mind is the direction of an answer, and that's the word prioritize.

fine. who will do the prioritizing? you think can you do it here? you proceed crime by crime. i mean no matter what crime you chose, you will find individuals who committed it in a way that seems to deserve a little and some who deserve a lot. and you can't look at it individually. do you want to have mandatory minimums? i've said publicly many times that i think that's a terrible idea. and i've given reasons which i'll spare you. if you want individual judges to do it always completely you run the risk of nonuniformity. therefore, we've set up rule commissions, sentencing commissions, and therefore, mandatory minimums. a huge topic. is it worth your time and earth or mine, to try to work out ways of prioritizing? i think it is. i think it is a big problem for the country. and so i can't do anything more

in the next minute or 30 seconds other than say i like the word prioritize. i hope you follow it up. and i hope do you examine the variety of ways that there of trying to prioritize and then work out one that's pretty good. >> i thank the gentleman. >> thank you. mr. ridgel. >> thank you, chairman. and i join my colleagues, all my colleagues, in expressing our appreciation for the work that you do, for serving on the court and for your being here today. this is going into my fifth year serving in the house of representatives. it's my first year on appropriations. and, really, to have seen this on my calendar and to know this was coming up, i considered it as mr. womack said, just an honor to be here and have you here with us today. i'd like to visit the topic of the electronic case filing system. i would suppose now, i'm not

familiar with it, if we're going to electronic, at present it's a physical document being received by the court. can you elaborate on that, if you'd like. but then was any of this commercially available, or was this, like, written exclusively for the supreme court, the software that we'll be pivoting to? justice kennedy? >> i can't answer that. the lawyers have available to them commercial systems for filing their briefs and so forth. so, they're out there. and there's some competition. there's some competition there. so far as the court side i'm not sure if there are outside contractors or not. >> i just learned he said we developed it all in-house. >> all right. that's helpful. justice breyer i noted and was

intrigued, appreciative of your comments, discussing your desire and really the court's desire to get the work of the court out to the american people and to engage them in this. is there a designated effort a continued effort to the extent you're familiar with? by the way, i actually thought it would be your staff -- some of your staff -- i see they're here with you, but to see the two of you actually engaging the committee is laudable. i respect and appreciate that. you may not be dialed in on all the nuances of it, but the effort to revisit the website to keep it fresh and, perhaps to use the term that is so often being used now, to develop an app, you know, for the supreme court and maybe there is one, and i just need to be educated about it, but this idea of engaging the american public, i applaud you for this. it needs to be done because we only have a healthy republic if

our fellow citizens are knowledgeable about what's taking place. could you comment on that, you can run with it. >> all right. it's my favorite topic. >> okay. >> but it's particularly hard for us. you at least can say, you know, we disagree about a lot of stuff in congress. but there are elections to resolve it. we have to say, why should nine unelected people be making decisions that affect you in an important way? and by the way, half the time we're divide half we're unanimous. we're divided 5-4 20% of the time, somebody's wrong. so, decisions might not be right. and they affect you. and they're important. why should you support an institution like that? we have answers. and so did james madison so did alexander hamilton so did john marshall. so,there are answers. but people are busy. and will they take the time to listen?

annenberg foundation has a whole series of films and teaching devices. justice kennedy gave a speech about this years ago which, in part, let to justice o'connor developing icivics and icivics has millions of hits. and he's trying to do the same thing. they're frying to -- in boston at this moment n one week they'll open senator kennedy's institute. what that is a model of the senate and there are little hand-held computers which will make you the senator f you're a school kid and will then give you problems and you'll learn how the senate works. and maybe that will go out over the internet to classrooms. and they need one for the house. >> outstanding. >> and so gradually, i think and very enthusiastic, that it is possible to use the devices that we have now. >> oh yes. >> to teach -- when scalia and i have done go to texas and talk

to a large number of school kids and they get interested. and they see that we have differences of opinion that are not personal. and they see that the agreement is more important than the differences. fabulous. >> yes. >> there, you see the enthusiasm in my voice. >> i love seeing the passion. >> i think it's a great and necessary task. >> one of the things we found, congressman, is that the information revolution has put law professors back into the fore. it used to be that we relied on law reviews to comment on cases and the law review would take about a year for the law review article to come out. but now we have commentary within 24 48, 72 hours of a supreme court case by experts in skiber security law, in criminal law and constitutional law. and these are available, first

of all, to the legal profession and the academy. but second, people that are generally interested. there are blogs on the supreme court. there are -- as i indicated, blogs on different subjects. they're quite detailed. they're quite interesting. my law clerks read them a lot. i, frankly, don't read them. but the availability of information and as justice breyer indicated, the interest of the citizen and the ability of the citizen to get it is really increasingly remarkable because of the information revolution. >> yes. thank you both. mr. chairman. >> well, thank you. you know, when you talk about educating the public, the question always comes up people suggest that maybe the courts should televise oral arguments. that people could see, firsthand, what goes on. and i know the court has

historically rejected that. i think it was justice sotomayer before she went on the bench thought it would be a good idea to televise oral arguments and once she was on the bench she changed her mind and thinks it's not a good idea. so i just wondered is any -- is any -- do you sense any change? do you think there will be a day when oral arguments will be on television? do you think that's good or that's not good? in the context of educateing the folks. could you all comment on that? >> well, the question do i think there will be the day? it sounds as if we're more or less behind the times. >> no, just a matter of history perform today you'd probably reject that. >> if you had english-style debating debate and you were handed the topic and you had to be either pro or con you could make a lot of good arguments for

television in the courtroom. number one, it teaches. we teach. we teach what the institutionconstitution is. we are teachers. why don't we go on television? and it would be very good for lawyers who are preparing -- who haven't been before us before, who want to see the dynamic of an argument. and it's open. the public could see that we spend a lot of time on patent cases and railroad reorganization cases and so forth. so that we have a technical commitment. and they could see we hope an argument that's rational and respectful. when we're in disagreement, our institution -- our institutional tradition is not to make our colleagues look bad. it's to make the institution look good. and part of that is the way we conduct oral arguments.

we're concerned that the presence of a tv camera, the knowledge that we're going to be on tv, would affect the way that we behave. and it's an insidious die nam, for me to think that one of my colleagues has asked a question just so he or she could look good on tv. i don't want that dynamic. we would prefer the dynamic where we have a discussion in which we're listening to each other, in which we're listening to counsel and we think the television would detract from that. so, can you make good arguments either way. but we -- i think i can speak for most of my colleagues -- do not think television should be in the courtroom. we have audio available. and the transcripts are available. the press does a very good job

of covering us. the press has the advantage. they know three, four, six months in advance what the issue are. they can prepare the background. they can have pictures of the litigants and so forth. and then they're all ready to write the story depending on what we write. so, we have good press coverage as well. but i think cameras in the courtroom are not a good idea. >> justice breyer -- >> no, he states the problem. by the way the oral arguments, like 2%. most of what we take in, most of the decision-making, is on the basis of written briefs. the first thing if the public saw that on television, they would think that was the whole story. it's not. it's a tiny part. second thing they'd think -- because it's true of human nature. it's a good thing about human nature. we relate to people we see. we relate to them more than a word on paper or a statistic. that's nice. it's good.

but in the two people who are having their case in the court, there isn't, like, one is a bad one, one's a good one. and we're not deciding, really, on the basis for them. we are deciding a rule of law that applies to 300 million people who aren't in the courtroom. that's invisible on television. but then when you come down to it, i am fairly i guess impervious, to making myself look ridiculous to get an answer to a question. that i can best focus by giving some ridiculous example. and he knows that i do. all right, then, they do. and the reporters are used to it. and they say, oh, god. but nonetheless, i'll do it. now, my friends in the press so will of them tell me you see if you do that the first time that somebody takes that ridiculous thing out of context and puts it on the evening news particularly someone who is not one of our regulars. and doesn't really understand what's going on. now, all of that kind of thing

is the kind of thing despite the good arguments the other way, that make us cautious. and that make us conservative with this small seat. we're trustees for an institution. it had a long existence before us. and we sincerely hope we'll have a long existence after. and the worst thing that any of us feels he had or she could do is to hurt that institution. and that makes us awfully cautious. now, all that is psychology at play. and you say, well,ill it eventually happen? yeah, sure. because a generation will grow up unlike me and unlike him, that doesn't even know what it was like before things like that took place. but i think that's the best explanation that is in my mind. we both -- >> well, thank you. thank you for that. and i'm not one who's called for having tvs in the courtroom. but i know somebody wanted to

ask that question so i thought i'd just ask it. but let me ask you about the website, just real quick. you mentioned all those hits that you're getting. and i know when you have the health care arguments i understand there was -- there was just a whole lot of interest in that. did the website hold up pretty well? did it ever crash like some of these other websites, from time to time? >> we have occasional problems like anyone does, but they're not that many and few and far between. >> overloading every now and then. >> yeah. >> certainly. thank you. mr. bishop. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman for asking the question i wanted to ask about transparency in the court and televising the proceedings. and i appreciate your answer very much. as in past years our ranking member, mr. serrano and i continue to be interested in the increase in the number of

minorities that's elected for supreme court clerkships. those prized plum positions for youngsters coming out of law school. i know there's been an initiative in place at the federal judiciary to help recruit minorities into clerkship positions. do you think those efforts are beginning to bear fruit at the district and appellate levels? are some of the efforts under way at the supreme court? >> i think they're beginning to bear fruit. and we're conscious. we're conscious of it. the district courts and the courts of appeals are a little bit more open in part because they're around the country and they take from local schools. some of us tend to take from ivy league schools. and not that they're without their pool of minority applicants but we are conscious of it and it's important and

it's a valid -- and it's a valid question. >> when i started on the court i don't know the figures in lower courts, but, i mean in my own case, it might have started out i had to look especially hard. i don't now. i mean, it's just -- it's not a problem. i don't think it's -- i mean, at least in my case, i don't. maybe that's been luck. but it seems to me if it's at all -- if i'm at all typical, the problem has -- has diminished significantly. really significantly. and i could try to do some counting, but i can't in my head. i think of the individual people. but there are -- >> in 2014 we had 15% minority clerks on the supreme court. >> thank you. let me move to another subject area. i know that at previous hearings we've discussed the possibility

of applying the judicial conferences code of judicial conduct to the supreme court justices and to make recusal decisions by the justices more transparent for the public. currently, the code of judicial conduct code of judicial conduct applies to all of the federal judges but is only advisory for supreme court justices. do you have any thoughts on proposals for changes to that since we last discussed the issue i think last year. do you believe that the code of judicial conduct should apply to supreme court justices or that recusals should be more transparent? >> you promise me to go back and do some research. but my first response to your question is that recusals are largely governed by statute and by principles that are not necessarily part of the code of

conduct. there is an argument that the reason for recusals should be more i apparent. i'm not sure about that. in the rare cases when i recuse, i never tell my colleagues, oh i'm recusing because -- my son works for this company and it's a very important case for my son. why should i say that? that's almost like lobbying. the reason for recusal should never be discussed. it is obvious sometimes when company a is before the court and our public disclosure paper indicates that a judge owns stock in company a so that's fairly obvious. >> i have one thing -- two things. one is we all have or access to the volumes of the judicial code of ethics and having been there for some time now.

20 years. i'd say i have not seen an instance of recusal by me or anybody elsewhere the judge doesn't make sure it is consistent with the -- the problem is consistent with the judicial code of ethics. to say it is advisory as opposed to compulsory is words. doesn't really make a difference in practice. why? what am i nervous about. i'm nervous about this. the supreme court is different from a court of appeals and a district court. and that's true, by the way, with television too. interesting. why is it different here? because in the court of appeals if i recuse myself or in the district court, they can get another judge. judges are fungible. they're not in the supreme court. you can't get a substitute. and i wouldn't say there's any lawyer in the country who would do this, but it is logically

conceivable that a lawyer might sometime think of the idea of bring be up an issue in order to have a panel that is more favorable. i know no such lawyer but it is conceivable. and therefore i think we have to be careful because unlike those in the lower courts i can't think, well, in case of doubt, just recuse yourself if it's a close case. no. i have a duty to sit as well as a duty not to sit. and moreover i have a lot on my schedule. i have a lot to do as do you, as do others. and trying to make this into some kind of big issue, i would prefer not because i mean i would think no is the answer. i have to make those decisions. i will make them as best i can i will do it according to of ethics and so are fa i've been table to do that and i don't want it to become an issue. all that leads me to say no, i don't want to give my answers if

i don't want to. it is a personal decision. i will follow the code and that i think is the best way to run this institution. >> >> thank you, mr. womack. only one more. looking for irnnsight here. to the credit of the justices they get out in our country and they speak quite frequently around the country to different organizations. i know justice scalia's been in my district already once this year, and i think is coming back in another month for another presentation. as a guest lecturer. in many cases you gentlemen are talking to law students and people that aspire some day maybe to sit where you sit. what trends are you seeing in the medical community? i understand that we're having trouble finding private care physicians, just the generalist type family practice physician.

so most of them now are specializing because that's where a lot of the money is but what trends are you seeing in our law schools right now with regard to the new lawyer, as it were? is the legal community blessed with a pretty good crop of young talented minds or are there any trends there that you can share with me that would raise any concerns. >> i'm not sure. my own background was private practice in a small town which i was immensely rewarded. now the paradigm for most law students is they think of their career as a huge firm where they specialize and the idea of counseling and meeting with clients and taking individual cases one by one is no longer

the paradigm that they look forward to. i sense a change in this. law schools are concerned about costs. there is a big argument of whether there should be three years of law school, maybe cut it back to two years, which i would not applaud. i think that would be a bad idea. but there is a real cost factor. and i try to tell students that law can be immensely rewarding as an ethical undertaking, not just as a way to make a living. and i think these young students are beginning to be conscious of that. i hope. >> any insights, justice breyer? >> i don't have a lot of insight into that. i you have to ask the dean of the law school. according to my law clers there's no deterioration of quality. they're great. i hear the same complaints from

the deans that justice kennedy does. money. maybe in certain areas they price themselves out of the market. maybe that means that you have fewer people who are applying. and overall, things like that adjust, over time. specialization? major problem. major. so complicated. when my dad went to law school he studied contracts torts, property, the five traditional subjects and they maybe added tax and con law by the time i got there. now there is everything under the sun because there a demand for everything you should the sun. there we are. luckily i do not have the difficult job of being the dean of a law school. i have probably what's an easier job. >> one of the things that is happening in law schools is they do have almost custom-made programs so that you can take your degree in law and

astronomy, law and medicine law and the press law and music, law and the performing arts. and this is good. this enables other disciplines to influence what's being taught in law school. but it is a complicated world out there. >> oh, boy. i mean i say personally because having now grandchildren, i mean the cost of this stuff is immense. and what are we going to do about that? i don't know. i don't know. it's a problem. >> finally, mr. chairman i think i say this every year, these two gentlemen are before us with be but having a wife that's been a trial court assistant at the state level for 30 -- gosh, i don't know, 34 35 years now, i have a great amount of respect for the enterprise that these gentlemen represent and once again, it is a great honor to have you back before us here today.

i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my final question i'm going to take us back just a little bit. justice kennedy i was intrigued by your remarks early on and you referenced -- i'm not sure if it is an organization or a process like a dinner that has been -- it's really had an impact perhaps on the staff on the court itself or those who are around the court. and i don't know anything about it. but i do know that where we are as a nation that in some ways we're off the track and as much as caustic tone is often undertaken in the public square and it makes it difficult to discern and identify the facts. then to come to some common solutions for some of these challenges that we face pass a

country. so you seemed excited about it. i'd like to hear more about it. civility is not weakness. and so i'd like to hear more about it. because you were really bullish on it. >> the ins of court were the specific subject that the chairman had mentioned. and these exist in most major cities and small towns around the country. and they consist of a group of lawyers, judges law students law professors, and they get together and they put on programs, how to cross examine an expert medical -- a medical expert, how to give a closing argument in a criminal case and so forth. how to make an argument to the court of appeals. then the judges and the attorneys and the law professors and the students sit down and have dinner together so the

judge isn't some remote person. he's telling the attorneys how they can do a better job. the attorneys are telling the judge how the judge can do a better job. and it's been a remarkable influence for more civility in our profession. >> is this relatively recent development or has it been around decades and decades? >> i would say 30 years. i would say for 30 years. but it's been -- chief justice berger, i thought, it was a good. a visionary. but it took off like a rocket. but this whole idea of civility. we are judged around the world as the guardians and trustees of freedom and the verdict of freedom is still out. people are looking at us, they're looking at our democracy, they're looking at our civic discourse. they're looking at our commitment to rationality and to progress. and i'm not sure they always see the right thing.

>> i share that. >> the athenians ancient athens, took an oath. athenian citizens took an oath and the oath was that they would participate in civic affairs in a rational way so that athens will be more beautiful more splendid and more free for our children than it is for us. and athens failed because they failed to obey that oath. that's instructive. >> one, i've been there for 20 years, i've probably attended an awful lot of conferences with the court. we've had some pretty controversial cases. and i will tell the law students or whoever listens, i would say in that time i've never once heard a voice raised in anger in that conference. i have never once heard any judge in that conference say

something mean or den gradeedenegrading of somebody else. don't get emotional. you'll lose it. that's the law. that's lawyers. and maybe it's actually works better when you treat people as individuals who have different ideas. okay, so that's the general -- then the question is how do you get that across. how do you get that across. well if you're very practical i've already said, we have annenberg trying to do that through stories. we have i-civics. we have the carnegie institute for education. we have the kennedy institute. we have probably dozens of others. so you get behind them and what can you do with those films? get ken burns. say ken burns, why don't we have a set of ten films and the first is the story of the cherokee indians where contrary to law they're driven out of georgia into oklahoma. the president of the united states doing that despite the supreme court. let's have general eisenhower,

president of the united states at that moment taking those 1,000 paratroopers from ft. bragg and flying them into little rock so those black children can go into that white school. let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped stig togetherck together because tle believe in a rule of law and a rule of law means the opposite of the arbitrary, and you are part of that just as much as we are, and so are they. all right. so there is a lot that can be said and there is a lot that can be done and i could not agree with you more on the importance of doing it. >> i thank you both. my time's expired. >> we both, myself and justice

breyer, my colleagues go to events with students. we say, look. the constitution doesn't belong to a bunch of judges and lawyers and law professors. it's yours. some of the great presidents weren't lawyers. they were great guardians of the constitution. and institutions have to remember this. institutions have their own visibility, their own reputation, their own duty to inspire others to believe in this system of democracy, this three branches of government we have. and as my remarks indicated earlier, when we have disagreements, and difficult cases, our mission is to make the court look good, not to make our colleagues look bad. >> thank you very much. i do appreciate are the comments and, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> it reminds me of what

benjamin franklin supposedly said before the meetings were taking place and our country was getting started and, i understand a lady asked him said sir, what have you given us? breng benjamin franklin said i've given you a republic, if you can keep it. here we are 200 years later. let me ask a quick question. i've read, justice kennedy, from time to time -- i don't know if it is still the case, but you had expressed some concern about the increasingly politically charged issues that are now being being heard around decided by the supreme court. is that did you can you explain what that concern is and does justice breyer share that concern? >> it's not novel or new for

justices to be concerned that they are making so many decisions that affect a democracy. and we think an efficient responsive legislative and executive branch in the political system will alleviate some of that pressure. we routinely decide cases involving federal statutes and we say, well, if this is wrong the congress will fix it. but then we hear that congress can't pass a bill one way or the other. that there is gridlock. some people say that should affect the way we interpret the statutes. that seems to me a wrong proposition. we have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government government

that are committed to proceed in good faith and with good will toward one another to resolve the problems of this republic. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will hopefully be brief. i notice that the court's caseload is much lower compared to previous years that the current range of cases is literally half of what have it was ten years ago. does the court have ha target number of cases that you target each year. and let me just go back to another subject you talked about, the new crop of young lawyers coming out of law school. i went to law school because i saw the law as an effective way of promoting social change.

i came out of law school in 1971 and i was a part of the civil rights movement and interpreting the civil rights acts of 1964. and so i'm very very sensitive to the way that the law can be used to affect social change and has been in the way the constitution has evolved. but there are reports from judges all across the country that the recession has not only caused a spike in the number of pro se litigants in civil cases but has negatively affected the parties themselves and the courts. do you believe that our justice system loses its effectiveness when citizens are unable to afford legal counsel in cases with stakes involving family, shelter and livelihood. and if so can you perhaps give us some thoughts of how the

problem can be remedied with more resources being allocated to pro bono or to legal aid services services? my major piece of legislation civil rights was on behalf of 6,000 african-american inmates in the georgia state prison who were in a desegregated system occupying the same space and 4,000 white inmates. it was a certified rule 23 class action case. it was decided in the tornsouthern district of georgia back in the '70s which resulted in a total change of the criminal justice housing system and the system as a whole, the overcrowding. it was brought pro se and i happened to be a cooperating

attorney associated with the naacp legal defense fund and i hand that case and they as a pro bono firm backed it up. so it was at no charge to the litigants. but there are not that many of those kinds of opportunities with the economic recession and with pro se litigants particularly in civil cases how do we dealing with that in terms of making sure that our justice system really is not turning on the capacity and the financial resources of the litigants? >> as to just number of cases, the first part of your question, is there an optimal amount that we strive for. we take the cases where we think our guidance is needed. as you know we wait for courts of appeals or state supreme courts to be in conflict. and optimally we probably should

have about 100 cases a year. when we first came i had something like 160 180. it was just far too many. the cases we do get now, i think anecdotally -- i haven't seen studies on it -- are somewhat more difficult. patent cases. we had a case i think it was two terms ago on the patentability on dna. i tried to read up and understand it. ended up thomas wrote the opinion, a very good opinion. so i think our cases are more technical. and the 78 cases we had the last year exhausted us. but optimally i think we could handle about 100. but we wait because we wait until our guidance is needed. on a broader question of representation in civil cases i saw some numbers in which the number of unrepresented parties in civil litigation is actually increasing because of some of

the factors you mentioned. the congress has enacted bankruptcy laws which are i think well suited to the monitor the bankruptcy reform statutes are good so i don't think there's any real problem in the bankruptcy area. our bankruptcy judges are just very, very good, so i think that system is work. but in the area of standard civil litigation i think there is a problem with unrepresented parties. and law schools can and probably should do more and they should focus again on the small cases, not big firm stuff. >> your honor, >> on a number of things. on the number of cases, there is a big decline beginning really in the late '80s. now the way we select cases almost entirely -- almost. not completely but almost entirely -- is you look to see if the lower courts have come to

different conclusions on the same question of federal law. now, they do or they don't. and if they do we'll probably hear it. and if they're not we probably won't. now there are other things, but that's the main thing. so i have not noticed any tendency whatsoever to try not to take cases. rather what sandra used to sit there and say, we got to take cases. now he does this. what? can't we take some more cases? so they're not -- the conflicts are less. now why? that is -- in my own explanation -- which has no particular validity -- is that you have seen in the '70s and '80s what you saw -- from 1960s when i was a law clerk, '60s '70s '80s on, tremendous civil rights laws. statutes of all kinds. title 7. our civil rights revolution. a revolution beyond that in the way that the first ten

amendments applied to the states. well, for a lawyer, every word in a statute and every new major case is the subject of new argument. so you pass statutes with 50,000 words, you'll get 50,000 cases. now suddenly there has been in congress a kind of increased legislation. and major statutes. those statutes are law. and they have many words. so we can predict whether i'm right or not because if i am right, then -- there's lag. you see, there's a lag. five, seven years from now we will see the number of cases in the supreme court growing because those words will be capable of differing definitions and judges will have reached different conclusions. i don't know if that's right. it is a theory. okay? on the representation, when -- i did look at some numbers a few years ago. we're way beyond in compared, say, to england or to france. and part of it is in england there is an appropriation.

and i don't know where it is on your list. that's a -- and in england by the way, where they had a very good legal representation system in civil matters they're running under budget pressure. the lawyers who are in this field are all worried that there are cuts. and there are. in france they have a different idea which is sort of interesting. the bar itself provided a lot more free representation than here but there is a price to be paid. the price to be paid is that the individual lawyers and the bar will be ruthless in segregating the sheep from the goats. so if you go to a lawyer, you will get your free representation if you can't afford it at the cost of having him and/or her and his colleagues going through your case and making a ruthless decision about whether they think they really can win it. but the result of that is the people they think they have a good shot they will get the free representation.

much easier than in england. >> well, thank you. and i think it is important to recognize that the significance of the work that you all do is certainly not proportionate to the budget that you submit every year. but we do thank you for the work that you do to make sure that you are spending the money wisely. and thank you for being here. i think we all appreciate your wisdom and your insight. i know i always learn something, and on a personal note i want to thank you publicly. couple of years ago when we had concluded most of the business i was troubled by a quote that i had read in law school that i never know who -- i didn't know who the author of the statement. it always struck me as interesting because it went like this. versatility of circumstance often mocks the natural desire

for definitiveness. and i asked -- since we didn't ask anything else to do i asked you two gentlemen who said that and where. and i think justice breyer said, why don't you google it. and i said, i already did. but when you think about that statement, i think bob dylan might have said it differently. he wrote a song called "things have changed." and i can understand that a little bit better. but the good news is, because of the cooperation of you two gentlemen, i now know that felix frankfurter said that. and he said that in a case u.s. versus wiener or wiener versus u.s. i think president eisenhower was the president and he wasn't supposed to do something but he did it any way. therefore felix frankfurt techlt

r said it very well things have changed. it was an honor to have you before us. thank you for the work that you do for this current and this meeting is now adjourned. >> thank you.

. if you missed any of this hearing with justice breyer, justice kennedy, the supreme court's budget we'll have it up online, c-span.org. check out the video library. also today texas senator ted cruz opening the first major campaign of the 2016 presidential season announcing his candidacy for the republican nomination at a speech at liberty university. it is a college founded by the late reverend jerry fallwell. >> i believe in you. i believe in the power of millions of courageous young conservatives rising up to re-ignite the promise of america. and that is why today, i am announcing that i'm running for president of the united states.

>> tonight on "the communicators," we met up with "wired" magazine report tim moynihan at the consumer electronics shows in las vegas who gave us a tour in the latest in tv technology. >> what's o.l.e. 2ke6789d. stand for? >> it refers to the back light system. used l.e.d. back lights to color liquid crystal display and then this one is actually using the individual o.l.e.d. particles as a source of light so they can be turned on and turned off independently. with an l.e.d. set you'll also see some sort of light slipping through there. to my eyes this is pretty amazing. right? i mean this is 4k and o.l.e.d. which is sort of the two big bud

words at this show and have been for a few years. this is sort of the holy grail of tvs. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2 here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. on weekends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf with the best known american history writers. the presidency. looking at the policies and legacies of our nations commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. our new series -- reel america featuring archival government and educational films through

the '30s through the '70s. c-span3 created by the cable industry and funded by your local cable and satellite provider. watch us on hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. fcc commissioners were on capitol hill three times last week to of it t abouttestify about the new open internet rules to prohibit internet service providers from being baltimoring or discriminating against legal content that moves through their networks. members of the commission explained their vote before a house energy and commerce subcommittee which ran about three hours. >> if everyone could take their seats. while they are i'm going to -- before we start the clock, i just, as many of you know, i'm

going to exert a little chairman's prerogative here because mr. wheeler and i have not always gotten along and my opening statement here, but i'm just sick and tired of sort of your third string approach to winning and the way you're willing to tackle and run over the top of people and score points just for scoring points. now, now that the u of oou game is over in the national football championship, i want everybody to know i have kept my promise and worn the ohio state tie. so -- >> mr. chairman -- >> no, you're out of order. i'm just going to say that right now. mute the mikes. >> i hope we are on the record because i just want to say two things. number one you wereare an honorable man. >> thank you. >> you had the wrong side and we were pleased to beat you with our back-up to the back-up quarterback. >> you think this is going to go better for you. >> but i do think that the color is very becoming on you. >> now just so you know i've

now filled my bet that i would wear the ohio state tie if they beat my ducks. visa versa. i also want you to know there is a pending matter to be settled. i did offer updates for lunch which i will buy and i suggest february 26th might have been a wonderful day for the chairman to have lunch with plea. he suggested he had other matters to attend to. all right. enough fun and frivolity. i know this is a "go away" day. we'll probably be interrupted by votes and we'll try to move through this but this is really important business we're going to take up as we always do in this this committee, so on to the serious matters. it was just over two weeks ago that we had the commission's managing director present us with his rationale for the largest budget request in history for the federal communications commission. we were able to discuss with him whether the funding levels requested would actually yield an effective and credible agency. today we have the opportunity to ask the commissioners themselves

whether this agency is functioning as it should, whether its a he producing the high caliber policy making that american society requires and deserves, and i, for one, have to confess, i'm skeptical. i think i have a good reason for my skepticism. the federal communications commission was once a transparent predictable agency residing with a light touch over an explosion of mobile and internet investment and innovation that has greatly benefited consumers. today that agency in ooh mymy opinion has desolved to where statutory obligations are left to languish in favor of scoring points. agency's capitulation at the president's demands comes at the end of a proceeding mired in procedural failure around the white house's behind the scenes imtluns on the fcc process has been well documented. its responsibility of an expert independent agency to issue detailed notice to the public when it intends to act and to apply expertise to resolve hard

questions of law and policy. this procession should be transparent and every effort should be made to resist calls to politicize the outcome. in this respect the fcc should learn a thing or two from the federal trade commission an agency, the fcc recently rendered moot in protecting isp consumers. the commission doesn't work behind closed door with the president to bypass the administrative process and a properly functioning commission doesn't make decisions based on the number of click and bait e-mails interest groups generate. properly functioning commission focuses on law and facts to generate thoughtly sound analysis remember than being carried away by politically generated pop lsu furor. open internet proceeding is not where the fcc seems to have abandoned good process. i'm also concerned about delegated authority. commissioners have responsibility to deal with matters that are controversial or make new policy and should not simply delegate a decision to bury the result. i'm concerned transparency has

suffered between the commissioners. documents should not be kept from other commissioners until the 11th hour. i'm concerned that an excessive number of practical proceedings remain unresolved and thousands of businesses wait in the wings while the commission focuses on extending its regulatory reach. but mostly i am concerned that the fcc's overstepped its jurisdiction too regularly. net neutrality the obvious example here. but there are others. an agency only has the authority given to it by statute. i can't see how any reading of the communications act would give the impression that congress granted the fcc authority to be the ultimate arbiter of the use of personal information. i cannot see how the telecommunications act could be read to gut the tenth amendment and place the fcc in the position of deciding how states will spend their tax dollars. i can't see how the fcc could possibly interpret its governing statutes and mandate its presentation on the internet. but for the fact i only have five minutes for my statement, we could keep going. government researchers in news

rooms adopting treble damages without notice, excessive and unfunded merger conditions last minute data dumps into the record. the fcc appears to believe it's authorized to take the potter stewart approach to authority. i no he it when i see it. to be fair some of the responsibility lies right here in congress. we have not updated the communications act for decades. technology is out of all of its regulatory framework. the fcc does not have the tools to do its job. but this doesn't mean the agency should distort or ignore the current law or worse threaten to manufacture authority out of whole cloth, should regulated industries voohave the timerity to resist the commission's demands. it is not clear to me that the objections to our legislation are based on policy. but if we could work together on fixing the net neutrality situation i think we could chalk up a victory for all of us and

all of the american consumers around the american economy. it starts today trying to fix the agency ourself. it is our job to do our due diligence and reauthorize this agency for the first time since 1995. i thank our commissioners and chairman wheeler for their attendance today and i look forward to our productive session ahead. i would yield the remaining 30 seconds to the vice chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you for yielding holding today's hearing. i thank the commissioners for being here. the success and productivity of the communications and technology industry never ceases to amaze me. as it has been, and is, a constrantcon constant bright spot in our economy meeting consumer demands. it is critical the fcc is critical and accountable. i'm concerned with their decision to reclassify broadband service as a telecommunication service under title 2 despite the fact the order goes against a light touch regulatory approach fundamental with

providing the industry with flexibility it needed to invest, innovate and create jobs. the orders process was transparent. it will have lasting negative consequences. today's hearing is a step in the right direction in an effort to make the agency more efficient and effective by reviewing the conditions policy, decisions and processes. i look forward to the hearing from the commissioner. i yield back with a point of personal privilege from an ohio ohioan, i think your tie yields great. >> sure glad i yielded with time to you. with that, i'll turn to my friend from california part of the pac-12. >> thank you bl chairmanmr. chairman. i don't have any sports analogies. and obviously i hold a much different view. so i want to express that view with an intensity that i think needs to be brought to really what this issue is all about and

i appreciate having the hearing. but i think that the main point is that on february 26th, the american people finally won one. and it was big. the regular guys and gals across our country part of the beleaguered middle class were hurt. it was a historic day when the fcc voted for a bright wide open internet rules to protect the ability of consumers, students and entrepreneurs to learn and explore, create and market all on equal footing. this is about net equality. the fcc decision ensures that the internet remains open and accessible to everyone. a source of intellectual enrichment and an engine for economic growth and prosperity in our country. the internet is the public

library of our time, a laboratory in the most robust marketplace imaginable. and the fcc declared it open to all and for all. i think this is nothing short of extraordinary. it was a day when the average person witnessed something very rare -- the big shots in washington, d.c. sided with them. decision makers actually took in and considered the advice of over 4 million americans. i remember watching tv when dr. king addressed 1 million people on the mall. it was a sea of humanity. well put a multiplier on that. it's over 4 million people that weighed in. and i think that kind of public engagement with our government should be celebrated and not

rolled over and disrespected. today the majority has offered a legislative discussion draft intended to reauthorize the fcc. i've reviewed the draft legislation and concluded that, in effect, it is meant to squeeze an agency that's already operating at the lowest number of full-time staff in 30 years. the fcc has to have the means to fulfill its mission to protect consumers, promote competition and advance innovation. that's their mission. this includes huge issues, and they are huge. like freeing up additional spectrum. promoting the municipal broadband deployment and enhancing 191enhance ing 911 services. any attempt to overhaul the fcc funding structure should be fully analyzed and the implications of these changes should be fully understood. we shouldn't be horsing around with it, in plain english.

and a 48-hour review is simply insufficient. so i find myself wondering why are we having this hearing today? i hope it isn't a fishing expedition by compelling the fcc chairman and commissioners to testify five times over the course of eight days, it seems to me that the majority seems to have chosen to ignore a glaring fact. 4 million -- over 4 million americans did something. they and countless more contacted their members of congress to say we don't want to pay more for less. we don't think any kind of discrimination, blocking or throttling, is good or fair. we're tired of poor service from providers. confusing bills. and having to wait for a half-hour or more on hold to try and talk to a human being. and we don't want negate keepers.

so i think that's really what this is all about. i welcome the debate. i welcome the discussion with the commissioners and i yield the remainder of my time to congresswoman matsui. >> thank you very much ranking member. i would also like to welcome the chairman and the commissioners here today. we know over the last year the debate over the future of the internet has not been an easy one. there's been many twists and turns. but in the end, i'm specifically pleased at the fcc's net neutrality rules ensure pay prioritization schemes or so-called internet fast lanes never see the light of day in our economy. americans will not experience internet slow lanes or gate keepers hindering traffic. we know, however, the fight to preserve net neutrality is not over. that said, it is time for us to really get back to working on issues and advance our internet economy. i think spectrum should be at the top of that list. the aws3 option demonstrated the massive appetite for spectrum.

i look forward to reintroducing bipartisan legislation with congressman guthrie that would create the first ever incentive auction for federal agencies. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentle lady yields back. chair recognizes the vice chair of the full committee, miss blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to the commission, i want to say thank you for being here and offering your testimony. as you all know we've got questions and we want to move right on to them. i think that the recent actions taken by the fcc have really raised more questions about your scope and your reach and your authority and i will also say about transparency. chairman wheeler, i will tell you, i do not think it is acceptable for the commission to pass a net neutrality rule before the american people have the opportunity to find out what is in it. and that was disappointing to us

releasing a draft final order should have been a part of the rule making process. anddisappointing that it was not. every dollar that you spend is a taxpayer dollar. every sacks that you take affects the american taxpayer. so that many lack of transparency is incredibly disappointing. i'm sure that also you're hearing from netflix and some of the other stakeholders who have been very disappointed. and what they found out once they started to read the 322-word-filled pages. i will tell you also as a former state senator from tennessee and someone that worked on the telecommunications and interactive technology issues there, i was terribly disappointed to see the action of the commission to choose -- to choose!

to take a vote and choose to preempt state laws in tennessee and north carolina that restrict municipal broadband entry. these are decisions that should be made by their state legislators. your actions there are disappointing and we have questions about them. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> anyone else on the republican side seeking time? gentle lady yields back. chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you bl chairmanmr. chairman. over the pafst few days we've heard a lot about transparency and just heard it again from my previous colleague. given what's transpired in the subcommittee in the last 48 hours, we have to make sure our own house is in order. the republican released with no notice a partisan discussion draft that would completely overhaul the fcc's funding.

and this maneuvers is unfair to the witnesses and unfair to the members of the subcommittee, mr. chairman. unfortunately -- >> will you yield? >> yes. >> if so, the discussion draft was put out at least an hour and half before any testimony came in. i realize that's still not enough time. but we served that -- this isn't a mark-up. this is a hearing. we followed all the committee rules. we vphave circulated and always try to be open and transparent. we continue to be. we're not marking up a bill. >> mr. chairman unfortunately in this congress we seem to have halted a tradition. . i'm not sure it is in the rules but we've had a long tradition of sharing text with all members of subcommittee at least a week prior to a legislative hearing and weaver's seen these same partisan tactics -- >> will the gentleman yield on that point? >> sure. >> because actually when you all were in charge, i have a list here of examples where that wasn't the case. i agree we should be more transparent. >> let's just say if i can take back my time, that i'd like to

see us go back to a tradition process, whatever it was, we have at least a week prior to legislative hearing. i mean the same thing happened in the consumer manufacturing and trade subcommittee in the last couple of days. it just -- i understand you can maybe give examples of things that were done in the past by us, but i just think that, no upton, yourself the subcommittee chairs have all said that they want to act in a biway, they want bipartisan bills. and i appreciate that. but if you're going to do that then we need more time than just the 48 hours that occurred here today and we had the same thing yesterday and the other subcommittee. if we're going to really move forward, we're trying to do bill on a bipartisan basis, we need to have more than the 48 hours. in addition to that, i have yet to hear a convincing explanation for why this legislation is a

good idea given what we just went through with the department of homeland security. i doubt our constituents are clamoring for us to create another funding cliff, especially for an agency that just netted $41 billion for public safety and deficit reduction without raising a dime in taxes. i just think this agency is too important to play these types of games with its funding. now nonetheless, i'm grateful that we're having the hearing today. it gives us the opportunity to show our appreciation in person and public to the fcc for its work. so thank you, chairman wheeler -- and to the fell lowerow commissioners for all you have accomplished. the fcc has certainly received more than its fair share of attention and also an unprecedented level of civic engagement. 4 million americans weighed in overwhelmingly calling for strong network neutrality rules. 140 members of congress engaged in the process and the president

expressed his opinion as well which is not something that we should be embarrassed about by the way. yet despite the withering glare of the spotlight the commission stood tall and the entire staff the fcc served the public interest. you showed everyone who wrote in and came to support net neutrality that the fcc and the rest of washington know how to listen so thank you. now i have repeatedly said that i welcome the majority's change of heart and their offer to legislate on this issue of net neutrality. i remain open to looking for truly bipartisan ways to enshrine the fcc's network neutrality protections into law. but after what has taken place over the past few days, i wonder if bipartisanship may only be in the eye of the beholder. if we're able to find a real partner in this process, we must make sure that our efforts do not come at the expense of all the other work the commission does. the fcc must remain an effective cop on the beat to protect consumers. the fcc must continue to promote

universal service to all americans. the fcc must ensure that the telecommunications and media markets are competitive. and the fcc must maintain the vitality of our public safety communications. that's why i look forward to hearing today how the fcc can continue to serve an important role in the broadband age and so to the commissioners, thank you for coming here today and thank you for your public service. may i just ask -- i know because i yielded time to you, mr. chairman, i wanted to yield a minute of my time to mr. luhon now. >> without objection. >> thank you, ranking member. let me second your comments about the need for us to work together. telecommunications policy has a long history of being made on a bibasis. i would hate to see the polarization that defines so many of our policy debates dominate our efforts on this subcommittee. before us are real challenges. we still have 77% of new

mexicans living if rural areas that lack access to high-speed broadband. if we can have internet access at 30,000 feet on an airplane, we should be a ibl to have internet access all across rural america, including new mexico. i am anxious to hear the potential for unlicensed spectrum. and also commission kerer clyburn's ideas to modernize the program. i want to hear how we can strengthen the information technology systems that collapsed under the weight of millions of comments generated last year when a friend of ours john oliver, and 4 million others filed comment to the fcc which crashed its servers. 4 million comments is a lot but surely the agency charged with overseeing internet should be able to handle the traffic. with that, i thank everyone for being here today and i look forward to this important conversation today. >> we go now to the chairman of

the fcc for an opening statement. mr. wheeler, thank you for being here. we know you have a tough job and we look forward to your comments. >> thank you very much, mr. clarm chairman. it is a privilege to be here with all of my colleagues. there's been some reference up here about the open internet. i'm sure we will discuss it more today. clearly the decision that we made was a watershed. you in your legislation, mr. chairman, and we in our regulation, identify a challenge, a problem that needs to be solved. we take different approaches, to be sure. and no doubt, we're going to be discussing those. now and in the future. but there's common agreement that the internet is too important to ignore, and too important to not have a set of yardsticks and rules. we've completed our work now. open internet rules will be in

place. let me move on to another couple kf issues that i think are important to the committee and one is that there is a national emergency in emergency services. congress holds the key to the solution. the vast majority of the calls to 911 --, the vast majority of calls to 911 come from mobile devices. in a unanimous decision of this entire commission we have established rules for wireless carriers to provide location information as to where that call is coming from. carriers are stepping up. but delivering that information is only the front end of the challenge. mr. shimkus about 15 years ago led legislation making 911 a national number. amazing it had never been that.

the calls now go through, but many times it's like a tree falling in the forest. and there was a recent tragic example in georgia when a lady by the name of chanel anderson lady called and she was drowning in her car. and the signal was received by an antenna that happened to be an adjacent public -- it decided not to have maps of the area next door. and i've listened to the call. it's heartbreaking she keeps saying here's where i am, here's where i am. i can't find it on the map, i don't know where you are. and didn't know where to send somebody. there are 6500 different places in this country staffed by dedicated individuals, there

needs to be some kind of set of standards, and only congress can deal with it. we've dealt with the front end now it's necessary to do something about the back end. this is not a power grab i don't care what gets done. we really need -- the second quick issue that i like to raise is, i know both you and i want a commission that works openly, fairly and efficiently. while 3 to 2 votes always get the attention about 90% of our decisions during my tenure have been unanimous. about 2% have been 4 to 1. and there have been 21 out of 253 votes that have been 3 to 2. we also have during my tenure, the best record of any full commission this century for getting decisions out quickly. 73% of our decisions are

released in one business day or less. the last measure of that is the last republican led commission. it took a week before they could hit that number. we also have the lowest number and percentage of actions made in the last 15 years. but regardless of this. we should be constantly striving for improvement. commissioner o'reilly has raised some really good questions about longstanding processes. he and i were in the same position, we walked in the door at the same time and we found processes in place that have been typical for both republican and democratic administrations. as i say you raise some really good questions. to address these questions i am

going to be asking each commissioner to appoint one staff person to work on a task force, to be headed by diane cornell who ran our process reform task force, and i'm asking diane -- i already asked her to begin a review of all similarly situated independent agencies so that we know what the procedures are for those agencies. that can be a baseline and move forward to address what are some of the legitimate issues that commissioner o'reilly has raised. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we'll move to the commissioner of the federal communications commission. former chair woman we're delighted to have you here. please go ahead. >> chairman walden. thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective with you this morning. in my recent -- in my written

testimony for the record i discuss the commission's work in several policy areas. this morning i will focus on spectrum options and inmate calling services reform. in march of 2014, we unanimously adopted a licensing and service rules to auction 65 megahertz of spectrum in the aws-3 bands. this was not even important on their networks but critical for the motion of more competitive options. my colleagues and i agreed on a plan with smaller licensed blocks and geographic license areas. we also agreed on the need for interoperatability for the aws-1 and aws-3 bands. such rules encourage participation, promote competition and local markers and ensure the auction allocates

spectrum to the highest and best use. most experts predicted intense bidding, but no one forecasted that the total amount would be $44.89 billion. the success of this option was due in large part to a painstaking effort to pair the aws-3 spectrum bands that involved the broadcast and wireless industries, federal agencies and members of this committee. and for that i thank you. we should follow a similar collaborative approach in the voluntary incentive option. robust participation by small and large wireless carriers in the nords auction will encourage broadcast television stations to take part in the reverse auction. a unanimously adopted notice of proposed rule making seeks to strike a proper balance between license and unlicensed services. we also initiated a proceeding

to reform our competitive bidding rules in advance of the incentive option. we bro pose comprehensive reforms, so small businesses can compete more effectively in auctions and sought comment on how to deter unjust enrichment. an example of how the markets do not always work, and a regulatory back stop is sometimes necessary is inmate calling services. while the petition requested the relief from egregious inmate calling race remained pending at the fcc for nearly decades. calls made by deaf and hard of hearing inmates have topped 2:26 per minute. add to that an endless array of fees, 3.95 to initiate a call. a fee to set up an account. another fee to close an account. there is even a fee charged to

users to get a refund from their own money. these fees are posing devastating societal impacts that should concern us all. there are 2.7 million children with at least one parent incarcerated. they are most likely to do poorly in school, exacerbated by an unreasonable rate regime. studies consistently show that meaningful contact beyond prison walls, can make a real difference in maintaining community ties, promoting rehabilitation successful reintegration back into society and reducing recidivism. ultimately the downstream costs of these inequalities are born by us all. we have had caps on interstate inmate calling rates since february of last year, and despite dire predictions of losing phone service and lapses

in security. we have witnessed nothing of the sort. what we have seen is increased call volumes, ranging from 70% to as high as 300% and letters expressing how this relief has impacted lives. i look forward to working with the chairman and my leagues to finally bring this issue over the finish line my sports reference, the best i'm going to do this morning. by performing all rates while taking into account robust security protections. mr. chairman and ranking members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and i look forward to any questions you may have. >> i think you have a winner there. >> we're going to go now to commissioner wertz el. we're delighted to have you back before the sub commit, look forward to your comments as well. thank you commissioner.

>> today communications technologies account for 1/6 of the economy, and they are changing at a breathtaking pace. how fast? well consider this. it took the telephone 75 years before it reached 50 million users, to reach the same number of users it took television 13 years and the internet four years. more recently, to reach the same number of users it took angry birds 35 days. so we know the future is coming at us faster than ever before. we also know the future involves the internet. and our internet economy is the envy of the world. it was built on a foundation of openness, that is why open internet policies matter and that is why i support network nutrality. as you have undoubtedly heard,

four million americans wrote the fcc to make known their ideas thoughts and deeply held opinions about internet openness, they lit up our phone lines, clogged our e-mail inboxes and jammed our online comments system. that might be messy, but whatever our disagreements are on network neutrality, i hope we can agree that's democracy in action, and something we can all support. now, with an eye to the future, i want to talk about two other things today the need for more wifi, and the need to bridge the homework gap. first, wifi. few of us go anywhere today without mobil devices in our palms, pockets or purses. every day in countless ways our lives are dependent on wireless connectivity. the demand for our airwaves grows, the bulling of