telecommunications union. there are different bodies that exist out there that are global organizations that have global participation. i have a feeling that -- i sense that a lot of what might have historically lived in internet- only or telecommunications-only bodies will now become matters of deliberation in places like the u.n. one thing the secretary announced in her internet freedom address for example was that the united states was now going to elevate some of these issues at the un it is increasingly now going to be examined and engaged in multilateral human-rights bodies. it remains to be seen what the multilateral forums are for this to play out. .

another is to invest in training films. so a lot is to give resources to bloggers, to help people understand what they can do to protect themselves. and digital environment. so we're not looking at this from a technology only perspective. but we've got a very holistic

approach to how we approach internet freedom. >> a-like ross is a senior advisor for innovation at the state department. we look forward to seeing the results of your work. alea sternstein, thank you for being on "the communicators." >> thank you. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. and you can also connect with us on twitter. facebook, and youtube. and sign up for our schedule alert emails at cspan.org. >> this is c-span's "america and the courts." up next, supreme court justices stephen breyer and clarence thomas on the court's budget request for 2011. they spoke before a house appropriations subcommittee thursday about the budget and a number of other issues including cameras in the court and the diversity of supreme court law clerks.

the court's budget request for fiscal year 2011 is $78 million. it's a 5% increase over last year. that's the day that a man named jack roosevelt robinson stepped on a baseball field for the first time and in my opinion, in the process, integrated not only baseball but integrated america. and we honor him today throughout major league baseball. and i thought it would be fitting to honor number 42. by the way, a good story in "the new york times" today about mariano rivera of the yankees being the last player to wear number 42, and your favorite committee chairman is quoted in this story. >> and what is the -- if i may ask, the yankees' record so far? mr. chairman? >> you're out of order. [laughter]

also, i would like to note before we begin this hearing that there has been a change at the court which has special meaning to the court, to the american society in general, and to me personally because sonya sotomayor comes from the south bronx, squat that i represent, the area that -- from the area that i represent, the area that i was born in, the island of puerto rico. so of course it's -- it was a special time to see her become part of the very procedures and very honorable court. this morning, we gather to hear about the fiscal year 201 budget request for the supreme court -- 2011 budget request for the supreme court. we are joined by two distinguished justices of the supreme court regarding its appropriations request for the upcoming fiscal year. as we do so at a time when the court's longest serving member, justice john paul stevens, has recently announced that he will retire when the court finishes the work for the summer.

i know that i speak for every member of this committee when i ask the justices here today to pass along this subcommittee's appreciation and thanks to justice stevens for his decades of service to our country. these annual hearings are a rare and important tunalt for our two branches of government to interact. congress of course has constitutional responsibility over federal spending which includes appropriations for the supreme court and the rest of the judiciary. although i always have some concern about asking the third branch to come and testify before us, these hearings provide a valuable chance not just to help us understand the supreme court's budgetary needs but for the nation's highest court to discuss issues affecting the judiciary as a whole. hopefully our two branches get to know one another a little better as well. meeting the needs of the judicial branch is a priority

of the subcommittee. the courts have a vital role to play in our society where the rule of law is a core principle. we need to be sure that the courts have the resources they need to dispense justice with reasonable speed and care as well as proper regard for the rights of defendants and litigants and the needs of society. and at the same time, we must also exercise due diligence in spending matters and balance competing needs. in some years, the percentage increases requested by the court have been substantial. as have those of many agencies. as we put together our plans for fiscal 2011, we face a more austere environment for nonemergency spending. we look forward today to a discussion of the budget needs of the supreme court as well as a broader conversation about the federal judiciary. as a whole. our witnesses are justice clarence thomas. and justice stephen breyer. both of whom have appeared before the subcommittee previously. in fact, i think justice thomas

may be on his way to setting a record for appearances before the committee. we'll have to put up your number. [laughter] justice thomas was nominated to the court in 1991 by the first president bush after serving as assistant secretary of education for sism rights, chairman of the equal employment opportunity commission, and as a judge on the court of appeals for the district of columbia, among other positions and we welcome you again to the committee. and i say that with great admiration when i say that you've been here so many times before us. to share with us. justice breyer joined the court in 1994. as a nominee of president clinton. before that, he was a professor at harvard law school, staff member, for the senate judiciary committee, and judge and then chief judge on the court of appeals for the first circuit. we welcome both of you today. we're glad that your previous appearances before the subcommittee were plenty enough that you agreed to return for repeat performances. thank you for joining us today.

and now i would like to turn to my colleague and my ranking member. >> thank you. welcome, justices thomas and breyer. i really appreciate so much that you've come before us today. an independent judiciary trusted and respected by all citizens and committed fairly and expeditiously resolving difficult and controversial questions is a fundamental institution for our nation. although the supreme court budget is not large in comparison to other federal programs, i'm pleased you're here today. and recognize the importance of your testimony and appearance before the subcommittee. outside of the confirmation process, which we have no opportunity to participate in, which should be quite interesting this year, today's hearing is one. few instances when the supreme court and the legislative branch interact. and it is in my opinion a worthy interaction as we recognize and appreciate and

respect the prerogatives of each branch. i look forward to hearing from you both about the resources necessary for the operation of our nation's highest court as well as any thoughts you all might have regarding our judiciary system as a whole. as a -- as the witnesses are aware the federal deficit is projected to be $1.6 trillion this year. and the congress is going to have some difficult spending decisions to make, not only this year but for many years to come. but please note that i'll work with chairman serrano to make sure you all have the necessary resources to fulfill your constitutional duties. thank you all. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you. by the way, that question about the yankee record, is that because the cardinals are having a better start? >> the cardinals are doing phenomenally well. knock on wood. >> there is always september. >> that's what happened last year. so but for now, i'm enjoying it, you know? >> justice thomas and justice breyer, the floor is yours. your written testimony will be

presented in the written record and proceed to make whatever oral statements you want to make and then we'll have some quells. >> good morning, chairman serrano, mrs. emerson, members of the committee. justice breyer and i are pleased to return. we will pass along your kind wishes to our colleague, justice stevens, and we will certainly miss him. a wonderful man. we have with us today a number of members of the supreme court staff. we have the clerk of the court, mr. bill souter. we have marshall pamela talkin. and the counselor to the chief justice, jeffrey maneer. and make sure i'm looking in the right direction. and we have our public information officer, kathy arberg. and our acting budget manager, bonita akers.

as i said, we are pleached to be here -- pleased to be here. we have submitted a statement for the record as is our custom. and you're right, mr. chairman. i may well be the longest serving member of this committee. i think it like 15 years now. and maybe i'll get off for a good time or good behavior. but the court's budgetary needs, as you've indicated, arear alluded to, are tiny but we understand this is a period of austerity. and we have as in previous years, been very serious about our responsibility to review our budget needs. and i family size the word "needs." we do not look at this as wants or a wish list. and in the years i've been before the committee, we have only asked for what the court has needed. in some years, in my opinion, we haven't even asked for that. the largest request as you

remember was actually had to do with the modernization project which is simply a matter of keeping the building from falling down around us. the budget request as in previous years is in two parts. it's the salary -- we have the salary and expenses, which we will -- justice breyer and i will address. and we have the building and grounds, which the acting architect of the capitol, steven ayers, will address. but on that, on that latter category, let me make a couple of comments. one, and i'll be brief, the modernization commenced in 2003, fiscal year 2003. and there's some confusion about the year simply because the first portion of the modernization actually had to do with the construction of an annex which is an underground facility. and that was necessary to handle the portions of the

building that were going to be occupied with construction. initially, or changed. with respect to the completion date, we had some initial slippage in the early part of the modernization project. since then, it has been timely. it is scheduled to be completed this summer. and with the closeout tists finishing early next calendar year. with respect to our salaries and expenses requests, that portion -- our total budget this year, request, is $77, 758,000 for fiscal year 2010. that's an increase of $3,724,000. 5% increase. now, 70% of that increase is nondiscretionary.

it's mandatory. it is basically what is required to continue operating at our current level as we call this, it's an adjustment to our base. it's increases in salary, mandatory, and increases in benefits, that are mandatory. and there's an additional $173,000 that's simply in there for inflation to cover inflationary increase. last year, we asked for an increase of $799,000. in addition to those base adjustments. and we did that to hire personnel and to get the appropriate equipment to bring the -- our website in house. that has been an early success. in the first two weeks, that system, that the website has been up. we have had 25 million hits from around the world. as you remember, from our early discussions in the early years, we were ecstatic about one

million hits in a month. and we only see -- it's been well received. and universally praised. and this allows us now to make adjustments. the things that we talked about early on. and if you visit it, you'll see it's a much better site. things that used to take several hours to get on-site changes that could only be made within a matter of hours or not made at all, are now made in a matter of minutes. three to five minutes to put something there. as i indicated last year, though, there's one area where we would probably come back this year to ask for some increase. and we do this again with some reluctance. but recognizing that in all candor that this is a need. it involves the security area. i think in parting last year, i was asked whether there was one area in which i thought we

would have additional needs beyond the technical area. and i said it would be security. what we did is we had our security personnel do a complete review of our needs. and flair suggestion or their request which was pretty well documented was that we needed 24 additional police officers. and the reason that you need the additional police officers is the opening of the building after the construction, we will have more pedestrian traffic. and in addition to that, we will have in the entrance to the building, an underground entrance, that was closed and did not need to be policed in the way that the other entrance was policed. that will require additional police officers. we've also have additional needs at our command center. now, rather than coming here

with a request as required or the personnel or security people ask for, we're going to ask for half of that. we're going to ask for 12 rather than the 24. and make due with that. but as i indicated, that is a request that our security personnel feel pretty strongly about. that again will result in an $886,000 increase in our nonadjustment to the base request. with that, mr. chairman, i will just simply respond to your questions at the appropriate time. >> that's fine. >> that's the first time he's ever agreed with me. [laughter] well, that's not the first time. >> i agree with him all the time.

>> my first question would be one that you touched on but i just wanted to get a clarified, so you believe that the amount of the modernization project will be completed on time this summer. >> well, on time, as is currently projected. not from the initial -- we are a year behind. >> yes. i'm talking about based on last year's testimony where you would said -- you said summer. >> it's expected to be done this summer with the closeout activities drifting into the early part of next year. >> and what would those closeout activities be? >> i think it's basically we've got some grounds on perimeter work to do. we also have some cleanup to do. removal of construction trailers, etc. those sorts of things. >> overall, how would you characterize the court's experience with the modernization project in terms of adequate budget, resources, disruption, if any, to the

court's operation? >> from my perspective, i think it's been spectacular. there's -- on any big projects, we have a choice. we could move out of the building as in essence rebuilt it. and you're talking about plumbing and wiring, structural work. heating and air. and some security issues. now, on any -- if you look around town, many people evacuate the building in order to accomplish this. we chose to stay. and they've had to work around us. now, there have been glitches. there are -- things weren't perfect. but i would characterize the resources, the handling of this, from my perspective, is excellent. recognizing that there are imperfections. >> as ditch as it must have been -- difficult as it must have been to have this work going on while you were there, i felt it was very important and symbolic that you would

stay. if i was a bad standup comic, if you move, where would the protesters know where to go, right? >> they would figure it out. >> but there was definitely a need for the continuation and i'm glad you've -- you chose to do it that way. a question -- you said you could really use 24 officers but you're going to ask for 12. will that -- you aren't going to get too many committees asking you why you're asking for the lesser number. they actually applaud that. so you feel that the 24 was maybe too much of an ask or are you being nice to us because of the budget problems? and you actually think you could do with 12? >> we've managed to -- we've not asked for any increase in security personnel since 2006. and we have managed to do with what we had. or what we have.

we try to do that before we come to this committee. now, we would like, we think the appropriate number is 24. it's a comfortable number. it's a number that is -- gives us some leeway. but we can have a minimum or baseline number of 12, make it work. so it would be not a luxury but a better and more practical and more flexible number to have the 24. and i think most agencies would come in and ask for the 24. but as i've said, we have never, in the time that i've been coming here, ever asked you for more than we've needed. we've been very stringent. particularly during chief justice republican quist's tenure -- rehnquist's tenure. he was very strict about what we asked for. >> one last question. these 12 new officers, just curious, do you select them

from an existing lawen format force -- law enforcement force? are they totally new hires or get transferred from capitol police or somewhere else? >> i think in the past, we used to take quite a few people from -- say the district police force. metropolitan police, and from various agencies around town. we normally now hire new people. and we send them off to our federal law enforcement facility down -- and training facility down in brunswick, georgia, which probably is excellent. merely because it's in georgia. and so it's normally an entry level job. and we've had good luck with keeping them. we've had very little turnover. in the early years we had quite a bit of turnover and that got to be a problem. but after you reach parity and benefits and salary, and

retirement, that's pretty much ended. >> let me ask you one last question before i turn it over to ms. emerson. the court has requested $6.3 million for 2011 to finish roof repairs to the court building. is this request part of the court's modernization project or is this something new? >> that's separate. that's on the buildings and grounds category. that's on the architect of the capitol. and we'll handle that. but that roof, that's a part of the maintenance, the roof is an old roof. it's the original roof. and this has been an ongoing project. and this -- i think .3 million is to finalize the repairs on the roof. it's the final phase of that. but it is not a part of the modernization project. >> i think you spoke about this in the past. forgive me if i'm wrong. but i think you said that part of what we wanted to

accomplish, not just to make the building more workable for everyone, but also to make it easier for folks to visit there. the tourists that come to. do you think we accomplished that? >> i think we have. we could always debate around the edges as to margins as to whether or not this approach or that is the better approach. i think we all have different opinions about that. but i can remember my own first venture up the steps of the supreme court. and i was overawed by it. and it is a national treasure. but it is also a building where we work. and i think we have managed to maintain that balance. both as -- in the modernization project and into the additions. there are going to be new things such as the new film -- i think there's more art work

there. i think the building is maintained in an excellent fashion. so the answer to that, i would say, is yes. also on the website, i think is an opportunity to see more of the building and more of what we do on just the ability to show what's there without actually having the physical intrusiveness or disturbances that you would have. is outstanding. so i think there are a number of opportunities to do that. and i think the building, and you've been there. and it's a fabulous place. to work and to visit. so i think that we've accomplished that. justice breyer may have a different view of that. >> do you have a different view of that? >> i'll wait to see what happens. i would like to see -- we had at one point, i think, about a million people a year coming through. i think that's good. i think the numbers dropped a

lot because of the construction probably. and i hope we get back to a million. or more. i think it's important that people go through that building. it's their building. they ought to know about it. >> thank you. ms. emerson. >> let me ask a combination, modernization-security question, just back related to the 12 officers. given the recent events, the i.r.s. building in texas, the shootings at the las vegas courthouse, and at the pentagon, think that shows that we perhaps -- perhaps not need heightened security at some of our federal buildings, and obviously you all are high-profile. building. and so in order to try to assess -- you're being very kind by asking for 12 officers. but have you all had any

additional security threats over the last year or so that might give us reason to think 12 new officers wouldn't be enough? >> without getting into too much -- too many details in an open hearing, one of the reasons for the request is actually to -- we have individuals who work on one person, actually, now, who actually do the -- work on threat assessment. and we are going to upgrade that because of the volume. >> ok. >> and without getting into the details of it. but it is -- we understand the importance of analyzing those threats. and remaining current and following up on that. >> so -- but within the new modernization project, you have -- you'll have a new police command center in the building, correct? >> well, that's already -- we have -- >> you have that already. >> yes. >> and what about the additional entrances to the buildings once the

modernization is completed? how many additional entrances will there be for purposes of security? you know, in other words, we have three new entrances and we only have 12 new officers. is that -- >> we'll have enough officers to cover the entrances. >> ok. >> but the point is that as i said, it would be sometimes you can have things that are adequate. >> right. >> that you can get through the process with. and then sometimes you can have a little more. and what we try to do is not to come here before this committee, particularly now, in this austere period, and ask for more than we actually need. >> and justice breyer mentioned having -- hopefully once the modernization -- modernization project is complete, more visitors will come. and so that's important, too. in fiscal year 2010 we funded

the $3 million building and grounds request for perimeter security. has the architect of the capitol implemented those security improvements as of today? >> we are in the final phases. we have one side of the building to do. >> ok. >> and that will be done after the construction. >> all right. >> is done. >> but you think it will be on schedule and within budget? >> based on everything i've heard, yes. >> ok. that's good. let me switch subjects. according to your budget submission, in 2009, there were 88 cases argued and 84 cases disposed of by opinion. back in the 1970's, 1980's, early 1990's, there were well over 100 cases arc you'd per year and disposed of -- argued per year and disposed of by opinion of the court. so one could ask the question, then, is the court less efficient than in previous

decades? or it could be other factors. so i'm just curious, can you describe how the court, number one, decides what cases it will accept and do you consider this decrease in cases argued compared to earlier decades to be significant? just interested in your thoughts on these trends. and whether you expect it to continue in future years or not. >> well, first of all, with respect to the future, i don't know. i think each of us, when i went on the court in 1991, we had about 120 cases a year. i like that number. some members of the court may not agree with it. but i think 100 to 120 will be good. but the question is, what's in our pool of cases? and the 8,000 petitions we get each year, each member of the court goes through those

petitions, i do it usually on the weekend. you go through 200 or 300 that come in that are filed or that are received during the week. and you make an assessment. and what you're looking for is whether or not it's a federal issue that is substantial or significant. and then you have other problems, whether there's some -- we call them vehicle problems. in other words, there's a jurisdictional problem or some other reasons you can't take the case. then we go to conference. and we do that individually. and we show up, and we cast our votes. four votes in the case is of course the cert petition is granted. i don't know why the number has gone down. people have had different theories. i suspect that there's been a change in our -- to some degree in our mandatory jurisdiction. it's verlly all discretionary now.

-- virtually all discretionary now. there may be courts of appeals are agreeing more. i simply don't know. there haven't been until recently or hasn't been comprehensive legislation. that would produce the kinds of cases that would fill our docket. i asked that this be looked into before. and i don't know anyone yet who has more than a theory. i see nothing, no documented reason yet for the trend. and i thought i happened to find one but to this date i haven't had that substantiated. >> thank you, justice thomas. justice breyer, you look like you want to say something. >> i think it's a very good question. i'll try to keep it to the two-minute version. the 10th graders i like to talk about this because it helps them understand what we do. and i make a couple of points. justice thomas likes to have evidence.

i used to be a professor. and so i don't need any evidence. i like theories. [laughter] i try to point out most law in the united states almost all of it is state law. federal law is about 3%. and that's the law of house by you in congress and the constitution. and we only handle federal cases. and justice thomas very well said which federal cases? the basic rule is that we're there really to work out differences among other judges. if all the other judges in the united states that handle these questions are in agreement on what these words mean, why us? jackson said that. he said we're not final because we're infallible. we're infallible because we're final. and no one knows what that means. and we don't have the last word because we're so brilliant. we are of course brilliant. [laughter] but only in the sense that someone has to have the last

word. so if they all agree, why us? and if they disagree, then we have to work it out. so there you have the basic criteria. now, why is that criteria ended up with fewer cases in the last few years? here's where i bring in the theory. and it's a very old theory. you can read it in 1584. in montain, this king was so stupid he thought by writing a lot of laws he was going to reduce the number of lawyers because he explains everything. doesn't he know every word in a bill is a subject for an argument? in court and a decision? so i think what's happened is our diet has become like edpa, erisa, and that's because if we go back 10 years, those are the laws you passed. and now i gather have passed a law with 2,400 pages. and if you have passed a law with 2,400 pages, they probably has a lot of words. and i would predict as a test of the theory, that three or

four years today, no one is ever going to ask us again why we have so few cases. >> that was a good answer. thank you. >> mr. chairman, i always begin my statement, when the chairman brings up the subject, i just want to begin by saying go sox. that limits my time. >> is that white sox or red sox? >> red sox. >> red sox. you have three minutes. [laughter] >> you got to stick by your principles. and it's worth it. i have a couple questions. in looking at the request in terms of salaries and expenses, it says the sum reflects an increase of 5% over the appropriation for 2010. what does that represent in terms of percentage increase of

salary? for staff? i didn't know whether the 5% meant a 5% increase was 5% was including salary and benefits and the increase was less than 5%? >> 5% is the increase of the overall budget. and the increase of the salaries are merely -- it's less than that. it's whatever we have, cost of living increase, plus whatever in-grade natural promotions that are required. but beyond that, they're not arbitrary increases. and it's not 5%. 5% is the overall increase. that's the -- for example, if we are required to increase benefits, because of the benefit package, the -- that goes up. if you're required to pay into whatever you're required to pay and additionally into

retirement systems, that is increase. >> justices, if you could get back to us on what that means in average in terms of the salary increase for staff, if you don't have that figure available. >> he says it's about 1.4%. >> thank you. and i appreciate that frugality. all our staff are facing the same kind of difficult economic challenges as well as people around the crinlt. and appreciate your efforts to keep your budget reflective of the economic times. i do want to say that i hope, continue to hope this year with the longer term in mind and the broader issue of judicial salaries that we can delink judicial salaries from our own which i think has been -- and also has not served us we'll or you well and particularly

hasn't served judges well. but that is a topic for probably another discussion. i wanted to raise an issue that i've been stud egg for some time -- studying for some time and feel increasingly strongly about and it may be a difference of opinion. justice breyer and i have perhaps discussed that in the past and that's the issue of cameras in the courtroom. is there any -- any plan in the works to change the pilot or in any way increase the use of cameras at the supreme court? >> mr. maneer says the judicial conference is considering a pilot project. i guess i'm favorably disposed toward. >> and that would be a pilot project in your courtroom? >> it wouldn't be in our court. >> what's that? >> the judicial conference is not -- does -- our court, has

to do with the lower court. >> let me raise the issue your courtroom. and i'll share my thoughts on that and be interested to hear your own. i would think probably of any courtroom within the system, appellate courts, both the court of appeals and the supreme court, would be probably the best situated for cameras in the sense that you don't have the same kind of jury issues that you might have at the trial court level. you have the ability of the judges to consider whether counsel are playing to the cameras. and i would think particularly at the level of the supreme court, that counsel would be very circumspect about playing too much to the cameras given that if that's not the disposition of the bench, it wouldn't help them in their advocacy. and i think that this is one of the few areas of public sector

that remains free of cameras. and we're still using sketches and audio tapes, which seems anachronistic. i think the change is inevitable. but i would be interested to hear whether you would contemplate a pilot in your own court or why the dynamic is so much different with an audio tape versus a videotape? >> the answer is i think i don't know. i know perfectly well what the arguments -- i think i know fairly well. a long time. the arguments for and against, if you bring courtrooms into the -- cameras into the oral argument, there's a big plus for the court and for the public. i think they'll see that we do our job seriously. we don't always get everything right. but we take it very seriously. people are well prepared. the lawyers are well prepared. the judges are trying to think out problems.

they're difficult problems. and for the public to see that, i think would be a plus. so why not do it? the concerns are not i think totally the ones you've mentioned but the concerns are if we bring it into our court, we are -- and if it's in our court it is likely to be in every court including criminal procedure where there are separate problems raised as you know. juries, judges, witnesses and so forth. a second problem is will understanding be promoted if you can only show the oral argument which is 1% of what goes on? and people relate to what they see. much more than what they relate to what's in writing. and we're deciding cases that we have results for 300 million people and only six of them are in front of us. and we have to worry a lot about what our ruling will do to the 299 million, etc., that

aren't there. and so will there be misunderstanding about that? and the third, which i think is minor, but it's possibly there, it's not that the lawyers and judges are anybody would act up. i don't think they really would. we just had the canadians in a visit to us. and they have it in their supreme court. it's worked out all right. but there's some concern about what -- we have a group of people in our press room who know how the court works. and when you read what they say, you know it's being written about by someone who knows how the court works. that isn't always so. the cameras don't always have the time. and will there be misperception given? you can take those three worries i've listed and say in your own mind, they don't stack up against the plus. i can understand that. but our jobs are those of trustees for this institution

that served america well. and there is no going back. i think there is no such thing as an experiment on this in the supreme court. you have to decide it. and that's why i think what's needed is a comfort level that by giving a comfort level, it may come sooner rather than what i tend to agree with you on. inevitably later. now, how to get that comfort level is a long, complicated matter. i've always said it will involve studies and serious studies, not just one's promoted by the press. serious studies of what's happened in different plachese. and when i say that, everyone goes to sleep because if you mention the word "study" that's a good somnorific. but i think something like that is necessary. i like these pilot programs. even in other courts. i think there are things to be learned. and i think eventually we'll get the comfort level but i think we're not there yet.

>> if i can engage a little bit on that. because i think -- you mentioned three different points, probably the most substantial being that, well, people could misunderstand because the case only ostensibly applies to the litigants in the court but it affects millions. there's in my view far greater chance of misunderstanding if the public isn't able to see. there's far greater i think opportunity for people to be suspicious. outcome or misunderstand the process or misapprehend the process. they don't have the window into the court's workings that would be provided by actually watching. and so your first observation i think is the much more compelling one. which is -- it would be beneficial to the court because people would understand what it does better. it would be beneficial to the public to gain that understanding. and i think that clearly trumps any risk of misunderstanding

which is always going to be present and is more present when things are done less visibly than with more visibility. is that the tapping of the gavel? >> the nine-minute gavel. >> ok. i'll wrap up. i shouldn't have made the comment about the red sox. i also think that the slippery slope point that if you do it in the appellate courts you must do it in the trial courts isn't necessarily so. and there are different factors that work when you have a jury and when you don't. and finally, the fact that the print media may be very good and very professional and you have less control with the electronic media, that's true in our profession as well. a lot of what we do is in writing. a lot of what all government bodies do is in writing. and i don't find that a compelling reason not to go forward. at the end of the day, i think you put your finger out and said, we just have to decide.

and i don't think a study will give you a comfort level. i think the only thing that's going to give you a comfort level is by taking the plunge. and i also think justices, this is inevitable. and if it is inevitable, we might as well plunge forward. and i appreciate the chairman's indulgence. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman brings up an interesting issue. one that the chairman since his days in the state assembly has dealt with. cameras in the courtroom. my concern, just on the record, is one that will probably get me badly spoken of tonight on some talk shows. but it's precisely the fact that both on the left and on the right, it will be evening talk shows, not the news, but the talk shows, grabbing clips from that day's supreme court proceedings and saying did you hear breyer? what a jerk. did you hear the question he has?

did you hear thomas? oh, my god. >> you didn't hear me. [laughter] >> did you see them there? and that's my concern. and i'm sure that the desires for full disclosure people are going to say tonight that what am he for covering things up? but i wish there was a way that we could -- let the public see more and not just invite people to treat the court the way they treat us. >> there is a difference, and -- >> sure. >> and sometimes overlooked. but i think it's an important one in the nature of the jobs. your job is to -- write some words on a piece of paper. those words tell people what to do. or what not to do. but they don't tell you on that paper. they don't say why you wrote the words. that's not the nature of the job. so obviously there's an inside story that's not on that paper. a judge's job is different.

a good appellate judge, the ideal is you write not just the words. you write the reasons why you wrote the words. and if you're honest and good, they explain the real reasons why you wrote the words. so in that sense, the process is quite different. and it's a process that does take place much more in writing and much less even in conversation among us. than say a job like yours. they are different. but i can see your concern there. and of course it's something that worries us. >> mr. chairman, if i could jump in with one quick point. >> go ahead. >> mr. crenshaw is just a gentleman he'll allow me 30 seconds, please. no one is suggesting that your job is the same as ours. but i am suggesting that the public would benefit from a better understanding of your job just as it benefits from a better understanding of ours. people watch your arguments and listen to your arguments because they -- they find the questions that you ask shed

light on sometimes your on thinking and shed light on the issues in the case. and i think the more the public has a chance to see how thoughtful and probing those questions are, i think as you -- as your original comments indicated, it's good for the court and good for the public. and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. crenshaw. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i might make the observation that today's hearing is being televised. and one thing is irrefutable. when you put members of congress on television, they tend to talk longer than they do when they're not on television. so i don't know if that's true to the supreme court. but we've kind of seen that over the years. let me just say that i've looked at the numbers, listened to your testimony. the budget requests are certainly reasonable, modest increase. the building is pretty much on time and on budget. you're asking for 12 instead of

24 additional security folks. so i don't have a lot to quarrel with in terms of the budget request. i just have a couple of questions that i'm curious about. number one, how does the court decide who comes here to testify? is that an opportunity that everyone seeks and that you have done such a good job that you are invited back? or is it because you draw strauss and you come up short -- draw straws and you come up short every time? >> well, actually, it's probably a combination. but if you bear with me one minute, i would like to just address the question of the increases on the 5% increase that mr. schiff asked for. and that is they -- the proposed increase for 2011 the members of the court is 1.4%. that's the mandatory increase. and for the court personnel, it's 1.4% also.

so that shows that it's different from the 5%. that's the overall budget. and they're unrelated. with respect to who is -- i was asked when i -- in my early years on the court to participate, be part of the budget committee. and that meant that i came up here as a part of that and testified. i don't know how that selection was made. except when the chief justice asks you to do something, you normally try to be positive and be a part and help him out. i think it's good for the courts and good for the institution to be asked to do these things. and i think it's like anything else. you get used to it. and you know the process. and they like that continuity. especially with a new chief justice. and he asked that we participate in this. and i think it's -- we -- i think i speaking for me, i enjoy this.

i know -- gotten to know the members of the committee. and i think it's good for both institutions. >> you do a great job. and i'm glad you're here. let me ask you a more serious question. that is, as we get ready to kind of watch the nomination process of a new justice, the discussion about diversity will come up. ethnic diversity, racial, gender diversity and you all don't have a whole lot to do with the selection. that's something outside your hands. but you all do select clerks. and i was just looking at the kind of list of the clerks that are served on the years. and it seems to me there's a disproportionate share of clerks that come from either harvard or yale. and i look out in the audience and i see some young people that might aspire to be a clerk for a supreme court justice someday and i wonder what they think when they look and the

kind of question becomes, is the reason for that because people from harvard and yale are more qualified to be supreme court justice clerks? or do a disproportionate share of students from those schools apply? and is that something that you all think about when -- the educational diversity aspect of being a clerk? >> well, that's an interesting question. the court is predominantly harvard and yale. there's no educational diversity there to speak of. the only member of the court who is nonivy league is the member who is retiring and announced his retirement. so i don't think that's unusual. you do have excellent -- excellent candidates from those two schools, from harvard and yale. i for one think that there are excellent kids all over the country. and i think they're excellent

on potential nominees to the court all over the country. and i would be concerned about it. but i'm not -- think you have elections for that. that's up to the president. with respect to the selection of the law clerks, i tend to hire from a very broad pool. i have a clerk from harvard and one from yale this year. and one from utah and one from notre dame. i really donalt -- don't see it as a negative when a kid's number one or the top of the class, the pool may not be as deep at some of the other schools. but there is a pool nonetheless. but others, it's an individual thing. i hire my own clerks. and i have my own criteria. and i'm certain the or members of the court have their. -- have theirs.

and with that may go their comfort league moving beyond the ivy leagues or too far beyond them. >> one last question. i've always got two bright people in front of me today. and when i was reading -- i read a case and i can't remember the case and i can't remember the justice. but the statement was that versatility of circumstance often marks definitiveness. does that ring a bell with you and was that felix frankfurt and i wondered who said that. i need to go back and look that up. >> google. you should google it, yeah. you can google on your blackberry. >> i'll do that. i once googled a quote by jonathan swift. and there was a book called "confederacy of dunces." and interestingly enough, i just googled that. because it was based on a quote by jonathan swift who mr. schiff knows who said whenever

a true genius appears on the scene, you will know him by the sign, the dunces all form a confederacy against him. so i'll go google that quote. and maybe i can find out who said that. [laughter] ms. emerson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. ms. lee. >> thank you very much. good morning. let me just say -- once again, how delighted i am to see -- it's a rare opportunity that we have a chance to interact with the judiciary. so thank you for being here. i want to follow up, and mr. crenshaw, boy, he asked my question. but let me just follow up a little bit and take a little bit -- in terms of how i would like to see this -- your answer a little bit more in terms of broader answer. first of all, i started here on capitol hill as an intern in the early 1970's.

became chief of staff. then went to california and ran for the legislature. and now i'm back here. and it's been very difficult. and i've seen some progress in terms of women and people of color. in these key positions. not enough. actually, we have -- and to the speaker's credit we looked at diversity on capitol hill and we're not where we should be in terms of reflecting the diversity of our great country. now we're in the midst or in the final stages of the census. and of course we know based on the previous census, we're looking at 15.4% persons of hispanic descent, 12.8% african-american, 4.5% asian, 1% american indian. and so i know that the courts want to strife -- to strive to be representative of the american people in terms of your staffing and law clerks. but we have to ask i think each agency and each branch of government to really look at

how it does reflect the diversity of our country. and harvard and yale are great law schools. they're excellent institutions. however, we know that there are few minorities attending these law schools. and so i want to find out if you have an actual concerted effort to identify law clerks from schools like howard or texas southern or even in terms of regional diversity, bolt hall in california. how do you do this and is there a way we can look at what those numbers are currently? and secondly, just in terms of -- i know your budget is a relatively small budget. but if you do contract out any of your activities or services, in terms of vendors and projects, and if you do contract these out, do you have any information as it relates to women and minority-owned

vendors and how you're doing in that respect if you do have contracting program? i know i asked this question last year. and justice thomas, your response was the law clerks reflected or you thought they reflected -- >> the pool that we -- that's the pool for us, all of our clerks are virtually all with rare exception come from the court of appeal. so you start with the court of appeals. that's our base. and you select -- and then it's individuals after that. but i know of very few clerks who have not at least clerked at the court of appeal. some clerk more than once or clerk at various levels. so the clerks that you're looking at, you should -- you look first at the court of appeals, what does that look like? then you look at what we pull from that. now, i have to admit,av