FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL 

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York, Chairman 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

LEE PRICE, BOB BONNER, ANGELA OHM, and ARIANA SARAR

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 6 

Page 

Judiciary .................................................................................... 1 

U.S. Supreme Court ................................................................. 83 

General Services Administration ........................................ 123 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
PART 6—FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL 

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York, Chairman 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

LEE PRICE, BOB BONNER, ANGELA OHM, and ARIANA SARAR

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 6 

Page 

Judiciary .................................................................................... 1 

U.S. Supreme Court ................................................................. 83 

General Services Administration ........................................ 123 

( 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

62–204 WASHINGTON : 2010 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(1) 

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010. 

FY 2011 BUDGET HEARING FOR THE JUDICIARY 

WITNESSES 

HON. JULIA S. GIBBONS, CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET OF THE 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JAMES C. DUFF, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. 

COURTS 

CHAIRMAN SERRANO’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. SERRANO. Subcommittee will come to order. Before we start 

I would like to take a moment to remember the attack that occurred outside the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse and Federal 

Building in Las Vegas this past January, which took the life of one 

court security officer and wounded a deputy U.S. Marshal. I know 

that I speak on behalf of this whole Congress, and Mrs. Emerson 

will have her own comments. Our hearts go out to the deputy, the 

court security officer, and their families. 

Court security is addressed in your budget’s submission, and this 

subcommittee will work closely with you to do all that we can to 

protect employees and members of the public in and around Federal facilities. And as we said to the IRS Commissioner and to Secretary Geithner, there is no difference of any kind, no difference of 

opinion of any kind by any member of our society that justifies any 

action against any Federal employee or any other human being for 

that matter. So please rest assured that we will do what we have 

to do to be protective, and at the same time we offer to you our 

condolences to the families and coworkers. 

Today we will hear testimony on the fiscal year 2011 budget request of the Federal judiciary. The judiciary as an independent 

branch of government submits its funding request to Congress 

rather than having the Office of Management and Budget vet it 

first. An independent Federal judiciary plays an important role in 

our constitutional system. Like other government institutions, the 

judiciary needs sufficient resources to properly function and perform its constitutional duties. Unlike other institutions, the workload of the judiciary is to some extent determined by the direct actions of certain parts of the executive branch, such as the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, by the numbers and types 

of cases they prosecute. 

Also, as I am sure will be addressed in this hearing at some 

point, the judiciary’s caseload has also been affected by the downVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

turn in the economy, which is reflected in the increase of bankruptcy filings. This subcommittee has made it a priority to try to 

ensure sufficient funding for the proper functioning of the courts 

and their related functions included in the judicial budget, such as 

probation, and pretrial services, and public defenders. 

For fiscal year 2011 the judiciary is requesting $6.9 billion in discretionary funding, an increase of $453 million above fiscal year 

2010. I look forward to the discussion of this request today. 

Joining us to testify in support of the budget request is Judge 

Julia Gibbons of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. 

Since 2004 Judge Gibbons has also served as Chair of the Budget 

Committee of the Judicial Conference. Judge Gibbons has testified 

before this subcommittee for the last few years, and we are pleased 

to have you here again. 

Also appearing before the subcommittee today is James Duff, the 

Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Mr. Duff 

was appointed to this position in 2006 by Chief Justice John Roberts. In the late 1990s he served for 4 years as Administrative Assistant and Chief of Staff for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. 

We welcome you both today, and we very much look forward to 

hearing from you about the resources that are needed by the Federal judiciary. We certainly do like to see you. Our conversations 

are always lively, and you are probably the envy of so many not 

having to vet your budget with that other place. But that is not 

your comment, that is my comment. 

And now my colleague, Mrs. Emerson. 

MRS. EMERSON’S OPENING REMARKS

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Gibbons, Director Duff, thank you so much for appearing before us today. Let me 

also add my sincere condolences to those of Mr. Serrano for the loss 

of Court Security Officer Stanley Cooper in Las Vegas. His death 

is a real tragedy and it really does remind us of how important the 

security that these officers provide is to the operations of our Nation’s courts. His family and all of the Las Vegas court’s employees 

remain in our thoughts and our prayers. 

An independent judiciary that holds the trust and respect of all 

of our citizens and can resolve criminal, civil and bankruptcy disputes in a fair and expeditious manner is a fundamental tenet of 

our Nation. In addition, the judiciary’s probation and pretrial service officers perform a critical public safety mission by supervising 

more than 200,000 offenders and defendants living in our community. 

We will try to ensure that you all have the resources needed to 

accomplish your important mission, especially since your criminal 

bankruptcy and probation workload is growing. However, your 

budget request proposes an overall increase of $469 million, or 6.8 

percent, above the fiscal year 2010 level. And I know, as you all 

are aware, our Federal deficit is approaching $1.6 trillion and we 

are going to have some difficult spending decisions to make. Let me 

assure you I am going to work very, very hard with Chairman 

Serrano to make sure that you all have at the Federal judiciary the 

resources to fulfill your constitutional duties. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

Thank you all for being here. I greatly appreciate the very, very 

important work you do. Thanks, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. You know the drill, each one of you is 

asked to do 5 minutes and no more than that so that we can then 

use 5 hours to just put you over the coals. Thank you and please 

proceed. 

JUDGE GIBBONS’ OPENING REMARKS

Judge GIBBONS. Chairman Serrano, Representative Emerson, I 

am Julia Gibbons, a judge on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and 

Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget. With 

me today is Jim Duff, Director of the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts. 

First, let me say how much all of us in the judiciary appreciate 

your words about the death of Court Security Officer Stanley Cooper and the wounding of Deputy Marshal Joe Gardner. That tragedy serves as a poignant reminder to us of the fact that those who 

strive to protect us may indeed give their lives or their health for 

our protection. And of course these workers are there not only to 

protect judges and the people who work in the courts, but also all 

the citizens who have some occasion to come before the United 

States courts. And so I think it is a very sobering reminder to all 

of us of the serious nature of security concerns and the work that 

these individuals do on our behalf. 

Let me begin by thanking you and your colleagues for making 

the judiciary a funding priority in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations cycle. Because of the funding provided by Congress, along 

with our aggressive cost containment initiatives, the courts are in 

sound financial shape for 2010. The funding you have provided will 

allow us to finance continuing operations of the courts and to meet 

our growing workload needs. 

We are also grateful for several legislative provisions in the om- nibus bill, most notably an increase to $125 per hour in the hourly 

rate for private panel attorneys who represent indigent defendants 

in non-capital cases and the extension of three temporary district 

judgeships that were about to expire. 

All of us in the Third Branch, Mr. Chairman, remain concerned 

about the economic problems facing the country and understand 

the need to rein in Federal spending in the face of historic budget 

deficits. In fact, this concern prompted the Judicial Conference’s decision to transmit a fiscal year 2011 request that reflects the lowest 

percentage increase sought by the judiciary in more than 20 years. 

We are not only judges and staff supporting the Third Branch; we 

are also citizens and taxpayers and we recognize fully the need for 

fiscal austerity in a period of mounting Federal debt. 

We are very much aware that the President’s 2011 budget proposes freezing overall discretionary non-security spending for the 

next 3 years. We note, however, that within that overall freeze the 

President has requested increases for several executive branch 

agencies’ programs that directly impact the judiciary’s workload. 

Our request for a 6.8 percent increase may appear high in a tight 

budget environment, but I assure the subcommittee that we are 

only seeking the resources we believe are needed to carry out the 

work of the courts. In the salaries and expenses account our reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

quested staff increases are based only on projected caseload 

growth, and our workload is increasing nearly across the board. 

And if Congress approves the President’s request for the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, our 

criminal and probation workload will continue to grow. 

Our bankruptcy workload continues to grow as well. In 2008, 

bankruptcy filings grew 29 percent followed by a 35 percent increase in 2009. We expect to see another 20 percent increase in filings in 2010 to nearly 1.6 million. Most of these are filings by individuals, but there are a growing number of Chapter 11 business filings, some of which are large, complex cases such as Lehman 

Brothers, General Motors, and Chrysler. 

Many economists expect the unemployment rate to remain high 

for several years, and if that prediction materializes, we will continue to see workload growth in the bankruptcy courts that will necessitate funding for additional court staff. For the details of the 2011 request, we request $7.3 billion, an increase of $469 million over the 2010 enacted appropriations level. 

Of the request before you, $385 million, or 82 percent of the increase, is for standard pay and non-pay inflationary adjustments 

and for adjustments to base reflecting increases in our space, information technology, defender services, and court security programs. 

The remaining $84 million is for new court support staff positions 

largely in the bankruptcy clerks’ offices, program improvements in 

our information technology program and an enhancement in our 

defender services program to increase the hourly rate for private 

panel attorneys representing indigent defendants in criminal cases 

to the statutorily authorized rate of $141 per hour. We are very appreciative of the $125 rate you provided for panel attorneys this 

year, and especially appreciative of the $139 that this subcommittee recommended for 2010, but we believe that the increase 

to $141 per hour is warranted to ensure qualified representation 

for these defendants. 

Our budget reflects our continued efforts to contain cost. We are 

now more than 5 years into an intensive effort to reduce cost 

throughout the judiciary, and our cost containment program is producing results. To date we have achieved the most significant cost 

savings in our space and facilities program, and GSA has been very 

cooperative with us in the cost containment efforts in this area. 

There is a much more detailed statement about cost containment 

in my written testimony. Containing cost is a top priority for us. 

I would ask that my entire statement be placed in the record 

along with the statements of the Administrative Office, the Federal 

Judicial Center, the Sentencing Commission, the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit, and the Court of International Trade. And 

of course I am available to answer fully your questions. 

[The statement of Judge Gibbons follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
5 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 11 here 62204A.001
6 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 12 here 62204A.002
7 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 13 here 62204A.003
8 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 14 here 62204A.004
9 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 15 here 62204A.005
10 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 16 here 62204A.006
11 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 17 here 62204A.007
12 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here 62204A.008
13 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 19 here 62204A.009
14 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 20 here 62204A.010
15 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 21 here 62204A.011
16 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 22 here 62204A.012
17 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 23 here 62204A.013
18 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 24 here 62204A.014
19 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 25 here 62204A.015
20 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 26 here 62204A.016
21 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 27 here 62204A.017
22 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. 

DIRECTOR DUFF’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. DUFF. Good morning, Chairman Serrano and Representative 

Emerson. I am Jim Duff, Director of Administrative Office of the 

Courts. It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning. 

I know the families of Stanley Cooper and Joe Gardner will very 

much appreciate your kind remarks this morning. Thank you. 

I echo Judge Gibbons’ remarks and thank you for making the judiciary a funding priority for the 2010 appropriations cycle. I would 

add we are also grateful for the funding the subcommittee provided 

to GSA for four courthouse construction projects even though they 

were not included in the President’s budget for 2010. You honored 

the request that we made for those through the funding you provided to GSA. 

The 2010 funding you provided will allow the Administrative Office to continue to fulfill its mission providing a broad range of support to the Federal courts nationwide. It is a mission that we have 

been dedicated to since 1939 when the office was created. We have 

evolved over the years to meet the changing needs of the judicial 

branch, but service to the courts has been and remains our basic 

mission. 

Turning to our fiscal year 2011 budget request, the Administra- tive Office seeks $87.3 million for the upcoming fiscal year; that is 

a 5 percent increase over 2010. Our requested increase is primarily 

comprised of pay and non-pay inflationary adjustments that are 

needed to maintain current services. The request also includes 

funding for four new positions to address high priority program requirements that are critical to the operation of the courts. 

Specifically, two positions are requested to support a comprehensive modernization and consolidation of the judiciary’s nationwide 

accounting system. It is a multi-year effort that will provide the judiciary with significant improvements in its accounting of appropriated funds. A third position is for a database manager to oversee 

the replacement of the primary information technology system in 

probation and pretrial services, and the fourth position is to address the very pressing workload demands in what are very high 

profile and complex facilities and securities functions at the AO. 

I will note that this is our first request to fund additional staff 

at the AO in 6 years. When I arrived at the AO we imposed a hiring freeze and haven’t requested any funding for new staff in the 

time I have been there, and now that the budget is tightening up 

we are coming back and asking for four additional positions. So I 

am very popular with my staff. They say, we told you so. But this 

is our first request in 6 years for additional staffing. 

Before I close, let me return briefly to funding for courthouse 

construction. For the second year in a row, the President’s budget 

for the GSA does not request funding for new courthouse construction projects that reflect the priorities of the judiciary as detailed 

in the Judicial Conference’s 5-year courthouse construction plan. 

But for 2011 the judiciary’s courthouse priorities are in Mobile, 

Alabama; Nashville, Tennessee; Savannah, Georgia; and San Jose, 

California. Each of those is critically needed to address major operational deficiencies at those locations, and I have included our 5- 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
23 

year plan as an attachment to my prepared testimony. I urge the 

subcommittee to consider the priorities of the Judicial Conference, 

with regard to courthouse projects and include funding in your 

2011 bill for the four projects I just mentioned. 

That concludes my oral remarks and I would be happy to respond to any questions and ask that my written statement be included in the record. 

[The statement of Mr. Duff follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
24 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 31 62204A.018
25 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 32 62204A.019
26 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 33 62204A.020
27 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 34 62204A.021
28 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 35 62204A.022
29 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 36 62204A.023
30 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 37 62204A.024
31 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 38 62204A.025
32 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 39 62204A.026
33 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 40 62204A.027
34 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 41 62204A.028
35 

Mr. SERRANO. Without objection, both statements will be included in the record. We thank you for your testimony. Obviously 

during the questioning period you can both decide to answer. 

BANKRUPTCY FILINGS

The fiscal year 2011 Federal judiciary budget request is $7.3 billion, which would include funding for an additional 1,137 full time 

equivalent employees, an increase of 3.3 percent over the 34,663 

FTEs provided for last year. The largest of these increases is for 

bankruptcy staff, 483 FTEs. According to CRS, in 2009 total bankruptcy filings in Federal courts increased by 31.9 percent to about 

1.4 million from 1.1 million in 2008. Bankruptcy filings due to nonbusiness debts total 1,412,838, a 32 percent increase from 2008. 

Business filings in 2009 total 60,837, an increase of 40 percent 

from 2008. 

So my questions are do you anticipate that bankruptcy filings 

will increase at a similar rate for this year and in 2011? Secondly, 

can you talk in more detail how your requested increase in funding 

for 2011 specifically addresses the possible continuing upward 

trend of bankruptcy cases? And lastly, are bankruptcy courts doing 

anything to promote financial literacy? 

Judge GIBBONS. I will address first the filing situation and then 

address the financial literacy piece of it. Our projections, which are 

arrived at by means that are understandable fully only to the people who do these statistical projections, but we are thinking 20 percent growth for 2010, which is still a very substantial increase, although somewhat less than we saw in 2008 and 2009. I think you 

and I are noting slightly different percentages, but that is probably 

because our figures are from June to June and you may have fiscal 

year figures. We have 29 percent and 35 percent growth for 2008 

and 2009, and 20 percent for 2010. 

One thing that is worth noting about the bankruptcy situation is 

that it is not just the increase in filings that we have experienced. 

As you know, after the passage of the new bankruptcy legislation 

in 2005 our filings declined substantially, but the workload required to process an individual bankruptcy case did not decline, but 

in fact increased. 

We now have data showing that, after the passage of that statute, the typical Chapter 7 case required 12 percent more processing 

time, and Chapter 13 cases required double the time. The number 

of docket entries nationwide at the end of 2007, at a time when the 

filings were quite depressed, was actually about the same as it was 

prior to the passage of the statute, and the number of motions filed 

and the number of orders that judges were required to generate increased. So this increase in filings comes in addition to the increase 

in per case workload that was precipitated by the passage of the 

2005 statute. 

So that is all a part of the background of why we feel that we 

really must have the increase in staffing in the bankruptcy courts. 

FINANCIAL LITERACY

With respect to financial literacy, the most prevalent program is 

one called CARE, or Credit Abuse Resistance Education program 

and it was started by a bankruptcy judge in the Western District 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
36 

of New York and now is in all 50 States. It is directed at high 

school seniors and college freshman. Bankruptcy judges, attorneys, 

court staff, and bankruptcy trustees all participate, and they engage in outreach to the targeted group, explaining to them the wise 

use of consumer credit, and this is a group that of course is most 

at risk for credit abuse. 

Our judiciary web site also contains a couple of tools that are 

available to the public. I brought demonstrative evidence. This 

DVD is Bankruptcy Basics, Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 for Individuals. It is on our web site. It gets about 4,000 to 5,000 hits per 

month. The Spanish language version will be posted this spring. It 

has basic information about bankruptcy. 

Then there is another program that is more directed toward financial literacy, Your Day in Bankruptcy Court, that is on the web 

site and it is designed actually for young people, principally high 

school students, and it leads them through a series of scenarios 

that illustrate common financial pitfalls, the consequences of bankruptcy, and so on. 

So we are doing work in that area. 

Mr. SERRANO. Any comments? 

Mr. DUFF. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to compliment our 

staff in the courts, particularly on the bankruptcy courts for the 

work they have done this past year. I visited them after the massive filings in New York. They handled it wonderfully. They worked 

hard and prepared very well for it. And it is some measure I think 

of how well they handled the matters in that it received very little 

publicity, the big bankruptcy filings. 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes. 

Just one side comment, one added comment, part of my personal 

agenda is to make sure that our language changes. When we say 

the 50 States, we always say and the Territories. And so I would 

hope—— 

Judge GIBBONS. Oh, I am so sorry, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. It is not going to cost you a penny, trust me, trust 

me. It is not you, it is the whole Congress, the Senate, the staffs, 

you know. I am not going to get into it, but if you look at the 

health care bill there is health care for 50 States and there is a 

little addition for the Territories. The education bill is for the 50 

States and then there is a little addition to the Territories. Only 

sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan is there equality across the 

spectrum where everybody gets treated equally. 

So I would be interested in knowing what units of the CARE program could be available in the Territories, especially as you move 

into the Spanish version, it certainly could be used in other places. 

Judge GIBBONS. I, of course, unfortunately have no reason to 

know—obviously to the extent the other programs I talked about 

are on the web site, they are available. I don’t know about the 

CARE program, but I will certainly find out and suggest that if we 

have not addressed the need in the Territories, we do so promptly. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. 

[CLERK’S NOTE: Subsequent to the hearing, the Judiciary provided the following additional information:] 

The Credit Abuse Resistance Education (CARE) program is a free financial literacy initiative that makes experienced members of the bankruptcy community 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
37 

available to teach the importance of financial education. CARE’s primary target audience is high school seniors and college freshmen who are most at risk because, 

as active consumers, they are aggressively marketed by the credit card industry at 

a time when they are not financially savvy. 

CARE was founded in 2002 by Judge John C. Ninfo, II, a federal judge in Rochester, New York. CARE is not a national federal Judiciary program, rather it is a 

grassroots effort that depends on professionals in local bankruptcy communities to 

sponsor financial literacy programs. Many bankruptcy judges and court staff are active participants who teach in the program. While Judge Ninfo strongly encourages 

establishing a CARE program in as many locations as possible, it is up to the local 

bankruptcy community to sponsor a CARE program. CARE has a presence in all 

50 states and the District of Columbia but there is not currently a CARE program 

in any of the U.S. territories. Judge Ninfo has indicated he will continue to reach 

out to the bankruptcy community in Puerto Rico to encourage them to establish a 

CARE propgram there. Puerto Rico led the territories in bankruptcy filings in calendar year 2009 with 11,342 filings. (Guam had 221 bankruptcy filings, the Virgin 

Islands had 29 filings, and the Northern Mariana Islands had 8 filings.) 

There is also a broad range of CARE program materials available online 

(www.careprogram.us) in the form of handouts, videos, Powerpoint presentations, 

and games that can be used by parents, teachers, and others to teach financial literacy. Some of the materials are available in English and Spanish. 

PANEL ATTORNEY NON-CAPITAL HOURLY RATE

Let me ask one more question before I turn to Mrs. Emerson. For 

2010 the non-capital panel attorney rate was increased to $125, as 

you mentioned, as we know. The 2011 request for these attorneys 

would increase to $141, which is $2 above what we hoped, this 

committee hoped last year you would receive. Has the increase had 

a positive affect on attracting and retaining panel attorneys? Other 

than increasing the pay for panel attorneys, what efforts are being 

pursued to recruit the best attorneys in the Federal courts? And 

lastly, what do you anticipate would be the effect of not receiving 

funding for an increase in an hourly rate? 

That is a softball question. You could tell me the system will fall 

apart. 

Judge GIBBONS. Well, you know of course we hope and believe 

that the increase will have some positive effect, but it is really too 

early for us to be able to evaluate that and to tell because there 

is a delay in the submission of vouchers. There is a delay in knowing what the representation is, but certainly I think we have to assume it would have a positive impact. At the same time, we have 

long had the ultimate goal of taking the panel attorney rate to the 

statutorily authorized maximum, which was $139 last year, now 

would be $141. 

Our feeling is that we are going to continue to have some recruitment issues with respect to attracting the qualified counsel and 

that, even at the statutorily authorized maximum, this is a pretty 

modest hourly rate for attorneys who are called upon to represent 

criminal defendants in a complex, fairly specialized area of practice, particularly when you consider, one, the important rights at 

stake and, two, the complexities of the Federal sentencing system. 

For retained counsel the average hourly rate is $246 an hour, almost twice the $125. When you consider that overhead averages 

$70 an hour, your panel attorney at $125 is left with $55 an hour 

in compensation, while your average retained counsel is left with 

$176. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
38 

So while we are very appreciative of the increase, and of course 

we believe it will help, we do believe that there is a real need for 

a greater rate. 

You asked about attracting qualified attorneys into the Federal 

court. Yes, there are some efforts that are made, but they are generally not made on a national level. They are generally made on 

the individual court level where a court, in communication with the 

lawyers, local lawyers who are available, seeks to recruit a highly 

qualified panel of attorneys. I was in the district court for 19 years 

before I went to the Court of Appeals, and over the years we did 

a good bit to make sure that the lawyers on our panel were indeed 

qualified. If somebody called up and said, I want to be on the panel 

that didn’t appear appropriate for the panel, we didn’t add them 

to the panel. And then we tried to encourage the very best lawyers 

to stay on the panel even when they came to us and said, judge, 

we just can’t afford to do this anymore. We weren’t always successful, but yes, we did try. And I feel sure most courts make similar 

efforts. 

Now, was there another part of that that I forgot? 

Mr. SERRANO. I might have forgotten the question right now. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I am trying to stop laughing. 

COURTHOUSE SECURITY

Judge Gibbons, we mentioned the terrible tragedy that happened 

in the courthouse in Las Vegas. We have had the plane crash in 

the IRS building in Austin, Texas. We have had the shootings at 

the Pentagon and all of it highlights the need for more security or 

some other form of security at our Federal facilities. I know that 

you all within the judiciary operate a lot of older buildings, having 

had an office in one of those in previous years, and I think that 

obviously there are many courthouses that don’t meet today’s security standards. 

So if you could just fill me in a little bit on whether you are 

working with the Marshals Service or with GSA to, number one, 

identify all of those facilities that don’t meet the security standards 

and then how you are addressing those security shortfalls, and can 

we do that without building entirely new buildings? 

Thank you. 

Judge GIBBONS. Because the Administrative Office has been extensively involved in that work, I believe Jim might be the more 

natural person to answer that question. So I will turn to him. 

Mr. DUFF. Thank you, Judge Gibbons. What we have done, Representative Emerson, is to adjust our priorities on courthouse construction projects. In a sense security remains a very important 

element obviously in protecting our judges and the public who go 

to our courthouses, but security was an aspect of new courthouse 

construction projects. It fueled the formula that determined which 

new courthouses we sought. When the budget started constricting 

and the money became tighter for courthouse construction, we 

haven’t shifted priorities on security, but we are creating a new security priority list for courthouses that need security upgrades. And 

we haven’t taken it entirely out of the courthouse construction criteria for funding, but it is a reduced proportion, I guess, in the forVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
39 

mula we use in seeking new courthouse construction projects. But 

we have created a new list for security priorities and we are focusing on the courthouses that need security the most, and there are 

a lot. Many of the buildings are outdated in that regard, and we 

have been very aggressive about identifying those and seeking 

funding for security upgrades. 

Mrs. EMERSON. You know, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it might 

not be something worth looking into, the idea of perhaps designating a certain fund within the General Services Administration 

that would be designated just for this sort of thing as opposed to 

having to duke it out with everybody else who is trying to get those 

sorts of funds. But it seems to me that we seem to have increasing 

number of incidents here. It might be something just to explore. I 

don’t know. As long as you all get the money to do it, it doesn’t 

matter which pot but I am just thinking it might be something that 

is worth pursuing anyway. 

Mr. DUFF. Thank you for that idea. 

Mrs. EMERSON. We will try to have a discussion about it. 

Mr. SERRANO. I am listening, I am listening. 

IMPACT OF HIGH THREAT TRIALS IN FEDERAL COURT

Mrs. EMERSON. Let me turn to the Gitmo detainee trials if I 

might. I know that the budget request includes a $22 million increase for high threat trials. I also understand that this is an estimate of your costs for defender services, for jurors, for security requirements associated with potential trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 coconspirators. It is also obvious that it is 

going to be an enormous cost, not only at the Federal level, but also 

at the State and the local level as well. 

Now the chairman and I may disagree about where they think 

these trial should be. I personally don’t think they should be in 

U.S. Federal courts, but that is not your decision and it is probably 

not my decision either. But nonetheless, I do know that if these terrorists are tried in the U.S. Federal courts the judiciary and the 

Marshals Service is going to have to do everything possible to perform these in a safe and efficient manner. 

So I would like to hear from you on how high threat terrorism 

trials impact the operations of a court and other litigants; for example, on days when there is a high threat case, what happens to 

the other cases and what other security concerns might come into 

play? 

Answer that and then I have got a couple of follow-ons. 

Judge GIBBONS. Well, your question really recognizes, I think, 

that you understand that of course the $22 million is our guess, because of course we don’t know what the situation will be, and there 

are many, many variables that affect the cost depending on what 

location we are talking about. For example, if you are talking about 

a district court, among the things that could be involved from a 

cost perspective are what kind of technology is already available in 

the court and what sort of technological needs there might be for 

the trial. There is a public information function. I mean the courts 

aren’t normally in the business of going out and telling folks what 

they are doing because there is usually plenty of room for the press 

in the courtroom. But a big trial, a high security trial raises some 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
40 

issues in how you are going to make information about what is 

going on available and how you are going to accommodate the news 

media and the public interest. There are case management issues, 

high numbers of filings, there may be more court personnel required to handle the case than normal. There will be additional 

jury costs, there will be costs and issues to be considered concerning jury selection, are the jurors at risk, sequestration issues 

possibly. Just what do we need to do with respect to the jurors? 

Are there extra viewing areas, are we going to set up remote locations? Is the defendant demanding his speedy trial rights promptly? Are we going to have a situation where there is a protracted 

time for preparation because everybody wants time to get ready or 

are we going to have a more compressed time? 

Defenders are another potential cost. Is the defendant going to 

need court appointed counsel? What sort of security clearances may 

defense counsel need to obtain? Is this a death eligible crime and 

what expenses will be associated with the process of determining 

whether the Justice Department will seek the death penalty? 

Security is another cost. Additional equipment perhaps, additional areas; for example, the coordination issue you talked about 

with folks entering for this trial versus folks entering for a normal 

court proceeding. And how do you ensure that the people aren’t 

mixed up and that you get people where they need to be in order 

to be properly screened. Personnel to conduct the screening and the 

security exercises is another cost. How high risk is the defendant? 

What risk is there to witnesses or what risk do witnesses pose? Are 

there external threats coming in involving the people involved in 

the proceedings because it is high risk trial? Is somebody threatening to disrupt or harm? 

So many, many, many things. 

Mrs. EMERSON. What about the impact on the surrounding community? 

Judge GIBBONS. Well, that is another thing, and that is a part 

of the assessment obviously that the marshals would have to do 

presumably in conjunction with local law enforcement. 

So there are just many things to consider in connection with this, 

many variables. Our expense figures represent our best estimate, 

but obviously without a great deal of knowledge. No, I don’t mean 

knowledge, we don’t lack knowledge about how to do it, we just 

lack knowledge as—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. As to whether or not. 

Judge GIBBONS. As to whether or not we are going to have to do 

it. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Believe me I got it, I understood what you were 

saying. 

DEFENSE COSTS IN HIGH-THREAT TRIALS

You also include $15 million of an increase for the defender services costs for these types of trials, and I understand that in many 

cases it is less expensive to use a Federal public defender to provide representation instead of a private panel attorney, but that in 

multi-defendant cases the Federal defender can only represent one 

person. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
41 

So how would you manage the cost of representing KSM and the 

other 9/11 coconspirators, defendants if these cases go to Federal 

court, one? And do you know what the representational costs were 

for other high profile people like Timothy McVeigh or Ted 

Kaczynski or Moussaoui? 

Judge GIBBONS. I do not have specific figures for either the 

Kaczynski or McVeigh trials. I don’t have the specific figures for 

the Moussaoui situation either, but I do know that our $15.6 million estimate was based in part at least on the defense costs for 

him. 

As far as getting a handle on the cost, there are things that 

courts can do, that we often do in death penalty cases, case budgeting where the lawyer essentially prepares a budget and then it 

is subject to court approval, not just at the level of the judge who 

is going to be trying the case, but sometimes involving a circuit approval in advance. There are a number of tools that can be used 

to try to get an advance view of how costly it is going to be, but 

I am sure that you recognize that in the course of representation 

it would be a little hard to predict what is going to happen in these 

cases if you only look at the course of the Moussaoui trial and all 

the various things that happened. Neither defense counsel nor the 

court could have predicted that. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I appreciate that. If there is any way you could 

get your hands on at least the cost of the Moussaoui situation I 

would be grateful to you. 

Judge GIBBONS. I think we can provide that and I think we also 

can probably provide the costs associated with earlier proceedings. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you, Judge. 

Mr. DUFF. I am told that the McVeigh trial was about $16 million, but we will get the other figures for the record. 

Mr. EMERSON. Thank you. 

[CLERK’S NOTE: Subsequent to the hearing, the Judiciary provided the following additional information:] 

The information in the table below provides defense representation costs for the 

McVeigh, Kaczynski, and Moussaoui cases. The information provided below for defense representation costs in the McVeigh case ($13.8 million) refines the $16.0 million figure quoted by Director Duff in his testimony. 

Defendant Case 

Defense representation 

costs 

(millions) 

Charged with death penaltyeligible offense? Case disposition 

Timothy McVeigh ............. Oklahoma City Bombing $13.8 Yes ................................. Convicted and sentenced 

to death. Executed 

June 11, 2001. 

Theodore Kaczynski ......... Unabomber ..................... 2.5 Yes ................................. Pled guilty and was sentenced in May 1998 

to life in prison without the possibility of 

parole. 

Zacarias Moussaoui ........ September 11th Co-Conspirator.9.7 Yes ................................. Pled guilty and was sentenced in May 2006 

to life in prison without the possibility of 

parole. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
42 

HIGH-THREAT TRIALS

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. Let me just pick up on that. 

You just painted a very bleak picture if we do this in Federal 

court, and I am not suggesting that you did it purposely. You just 

told us what your feelings are. But we have had, my understanding, over 100 of these trials in this country already. Is it that 

everybody reacted to New York City, that wonderful town, and that 

somehow every media outlet in the world would show up and the 

tourists from Times Square would want to see the trial? 

For the record, I am the last standing New York City elected official who supports the idea of having the trials in New York. That 

train left the station. On that issue I am probably the most unpopular of any party in New York. But my feeling is that the terrorists have different ways of winning or trying to win, and one of 

the ways that we cannot win is if we run away from our own system and hide them somewhere because we are afraid to take them 

on in open court. 

One of the things they did on September 11th that nobody wrote 

about, people forget, we know certainly the most important part is 

the lives they took and the destruction they caused and the disease 

condition of the workers that are still being felt in New York. But 

if you were writing a book about the impact and the symbolism of 

attacking the financial center of our country, the military center of 

our country, and then they were either heading for the White 

House or for the Capitol as a legislative branch or the executive 

branch. They also did something else that nobody has ever written 

about. It was election day in New York and that election was canceled or stopped about 11 o’clock in the morning. So they disrupted 

our electoral system, which is at the center of our democracy. 

I may be wacko on this, but I continue to think there is nothing 

wrong with trying them openly in front of everybody in our courts 

and showing them that we don’t run away from ourselves or run 

away from our system. 

However, my question really is if we have had all these trials 

why all a sudden the feeling that we can’t afford it, that we can’t 

handle it, that we can’t accommodate, the people will show up, the 

security? And lastly, there is $73 million for part of these trials already in the Justice Department’s budget set aside? And lastly, 

why do I suspect, and this part we probably agree on, that if we 

do it in a military base the Department of Defense with all the 

money they have will come back to us and say guess what, you 

know those $1,700 trillion you give us every month? It is not 

enough. We need much more in our supplemental budgets to pay 

for those trials. 

Am I wrong on all this? I don’t want you to answer to the fact 

that I am the only New Yorker who still says it is okay in New 

York. 

Judge GIBBONS. You can understand of course that the judiciary 

is neutral on this issue. I mean, we are not taking a position and 

would not take a position—— 

Mr. SERRANO. But with all due respect, you may be neutral, but 

the picture you just painted—— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
43 

Judge GIBBONS. I know. I am about to get to that. I certainly did 

not mean to paint a bleak picture, and that is why I said at the 

end of my answer to Representative Emerson’s question that I was 

not trying in any way to say that we could not do it. And yes, you 

are quite right, there are many high threat trials that have been 

handled in the Federal courts. 

One of the points we make frequently with this subcommittee is 

that if it comes in the door we handle it because we are courts and 

that is what we do. And so none of that should be interpreted as 

a statement on my part that we can’t do it, that we can’t afford 

it. My only purpose was to try to communicate to this subcommittee the indefiniteness of our estimate about the cost because 

of all the variables. It does not have any other connotations and 

should not be interpreted as having any other connotations. 

It is probably best that I not go into a little song and dance about 

the wonders of the Federal courts at this point, but I certainly have 

the greatest confidence in our judicial system and in all my colleagues in the system, and also great confidence in our employees 

and the folks who when they are presented with a situation handle 

it appropriately and are very much up to the task. 

So please don’t read more in that than I intended. It was just intended to be a listing of the variables that will come into play in 

terms of how one would handle such a situation when presented 

with it. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I did not assume 

in any case whatsoever that Judge Gibbons was making a judgment one way or the other. I just was curious as to all of the different pieces that went in and whether $15 million would possibly 

cover even one high risk—so I did not interpret you as being anti 

at all, I just want you to know. 

Mr. SERRANO. And again for the record, you are highly respected 

by this subcommittee and everybody in this Congress. We didn’t intend to say that either. It is just that you almost painted a picture 

of we can’t handle it. 

Judge GIBBONS. Oh, no, no, no, not intended to be the message 

at all. 

Mr. SERRANO. I know you can handle it if we had to do it that 

way. 

NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES

Let me bring you to a happier issue, an issue which for many 

people is a problem at the beginning but ends up being very happy, 

and that is when people take their oath of allegiance to become citizens. During last year’s hearing we discussed a report from the ombudsman for the Citizenship and Immigration Services that criticized the judiciary for delaying ceremonies and have recommendations for improving the process. I know that you strongly disagree 

with both the results of the report and how it was conducted. That 

aside, I understand there were some delays in the process from 

time to time. 

Have there been any changes in the handling and scheduling of 

these ceremonies since last year? 

Judge GIBBONS. To the extent there was a problem then, and you 

know we do quibble about that to some extent, we believe that any 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
44 

problem has been resolved. Staff from the AO met with staff of the 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services several times, invited 

those folks to meet with our District Court’s advisory group. That 

meeting went well. We offered to set up a focus group of clerks 

from courts that have a high number of citizens to be naturalized 

to deal with ongoing issues, but we were never taken up on that 

offer, and we believe that the relationship between the court that 

was the main subject of the ombudsman complaint and the regional office for the Citizenship and Immigration Service, we believe that the issues pertaining to that relationship have improved 

greatly, that their relationship has improved greatly. 

Mr. SERRANO. I must say I will make an announcement here that 

it is not official yet, and I will make it here and it is open to both 

of my colleagues to join me. I am going to try to lighten the burden 

on the courts. To me there is nothing better than going to a citizenship ceremony. So I put in a bill yesterday that will allow Members 

of Congress and Senators to swear in, to give the oath of allegiance 

to new citizens. And I am just tired of seeing all those other folks 

have all that fun. I want to be able to give the oath to people in 

my district because that is a great day and you see those American 

flags waving and you see all the different folks of different cultures 

and different communities. It is just wonderful. So I am going to 

try to alleviate the burden by having some of us do the swearingin. 

Judge GIBBONS. As an experience I highly recommend it. It is 

really one of those lump in the throat moments. 

Mr. SERRANO. It happened because a lady in my district who became a citizen, very active person, said I want you to swear me in. 

I said, gee, what a great thing. Then I called up and said oops, 

oops, you can’t do it, it is not allowed. 

Speaking of that, I now turn to a man who comes from a State 

that has a lot of swearing-in ceremonies, Mr. Boyd. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You are right 

we do have a lot of swearing-in ceremonies. 

First, let me apologize for being late to the witnesses and to you, 

Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Emerson. You know how these schedules 

are, but I appreciate—— 

Mr. SERRANO. Besides there is another little issue being discussed these days around here that takes time. 

Mr. BOYD. Yes. 

Mr. Chairman, I was interested in your comments about your 

legislation. I take part in a swearing-in ceremony every 4th of July 

that is done in our City of Tallahassee, and I have always enjoyed 

that. It is a great honor to be there. So now we won’t have to have 

the Federal judge do it, I understand, I can do it myself. 

Mr. SERRANO. My bill, if you care to cosponsor, was introduced 

yesterday, would allow you to give that oath. 

Mr. BOYD. Only if I could cosponsor it though, right? 

Mr. SERRANO. No, no, my bill covers you even if you vote against 

it. 

Mrs. EMERSON. We could attach it to the appropriations bill and 

make sure it gets through and not have to hassle around with omnibus. 

Mr. SERRANO. You don’t legislate on an appropriations bill. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
45 

PANAMA CITY COURTHOUSE

Mr. BOYD. Judge Gibbons and Mr. Duff, thank you for being 

here. I will be very brief, and I know this is not part of your budget. The construction part is GSA. 

I represent the Northern District of Florida, including Panama 

City, and we have been trying desperately, myself and the people 

in that community for the 14 years that I served in Congress, to 

build a new Federal building because that one there is a leased 

building and, according to your folks, it is very inadequate. And we 

think we have gotten close sometimes but gotten on the list, and 

then it drops back and so on and so forth. My question really to 

you is if you would care to share with us your thoughts on the pace 

of the courthouse and Federal building funding and whether or not 

you believe it is keeping pace and how far behind are we falling? 

Judge GIBBONS. Do you want me to try? 

Mr. DUFF. You go ahead and start and I will wrap it up. 

Judge GIBBONS. You know certainly I think within the judiciary 

from time to time we have wished that the execution of our 5-year 

plan was more within our control, but of course it is not only a 

matter of getting an appropriation, but it is not an appropriation 

to us directly for it. We do have a very controlled process for assessing needs for new courthouse construction. It is called Asset 

Management Planning. We adopted it as a part of our cost containment initiative and it replaced our earlier methodology for determining courthouse needs. Cost is more of a driver now than it was 

previously. 

And so I don’t know anything about your specific situation, perhaps Jim does, but sometimes localities do think they need a courthouse and sometimes they do have a real need, but sometimes that 

need doesn’t quite get the courthouse to the top of the list. 

Mr. DUFF. And I would just add—— 

Mr. BOYD. If you could when you address it, the list, I know we 

have been on the list, we have slipped back and those kinds of 

things. I understand you are trying to strengthen the process you 

are involved in, but can we strengthen the whole process? 

Mr. DUFF. Well, Representative Boyd, I think it is a function of 

the overall budget of the country, too, trying to be tightened. We 

are seeing some more restrictions placed on projects that we would 

like to see move that have been on the list before. 

One clarification for Federal buildings, not just courthouses, but 

for Federal buildings, GSA really takes the laboring oar on that 

and requests money for Federal buildings. Our 5-year plan really 

only provides for stand-alone courthouses. But we certainly participate in and inform the GSA decisions. 

Mr. BOYD. Just to clarify, and to make sure we are on the same 

track, this is a courthouse. 

Mr. DUFF. Stand-alone courthouse? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes. 

Mr. DUFF. We would like more, too, but I think it is a function 

of the overall effort to hold the budget in check as best the government can. 

Mr. BOYD. So I assume from that answer that you think the 

building, the funding of the buildings that we have been doing is 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
46 

not adequate, it is slipping us further behind as we go? And can 

you speak to how you can strengthen that process? I understand 

that you can point to us rightfully so, but how can we solve this 

problem? 

Mr. DUFF. Well, we have been very aggressive in our cost containment efforts to try to reduce the costs of the courthouses. We 

have done studies on space. We are doing some courtroom sharing 

now, and our magistrate judges and senior judges are sharing 

courtrooms. We have been very vigilant as stewards of public funds 

to try to find ways to reduce the overall cost of building courthouses and thereby advance other projects and move them along 

more quickly than perhaps they could have been moved before. But 

the ultimate funding decision of course rests with all of you. 

Mr. BOYD. In your experience does solving the location and site 

purchase problem? I even had a situation where we had the location, we had the location donated to us, and we still weren’t making the kind of progress we needed to make, slipped back instead 

of up. 

Mr. DUFF. There are a number of factors that go into the priority 

list, and some become more urgent than others, some are very critical. It is hard to explain to those in line waiting for it because everyone’s needs are great, but we do the best we can with leveling 

the playing field and treating all equally with limited funding. We 

do the best we can with it. 

Judge GIBBONS. I was just going to say it is a very difficult thing 

because there are many, many good, sometimes even compelling arguments with respect to courthouses that end up not being built for 

a very long time. 

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Duff, I see you were just passed a note. Do you 

have something to add? 

Mr. DUFF. Well, I could read it. I don’t think I can absorb it yet. 

The 2004 moratorium only went forward with 15 projects that already had money for site and design. In the meantime we have 

been reassessing all the others, and that process is almost completed. That is just off the top of my head. 

Mr. BOYD. No, off the top of her head. So that reprioritization 

process is underway and will be completed soon? 

Mr. DUFF. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. 

[CLERK’S NOTE: Subsequent to the hearing, the Judiciary provided the following additional information:] 

The court in question is currently located in a leased building in downtown Panama City, FL. Constructed in 1977, this leased courthouse has been renovated multiple times. The building cannot be renovated any further to accommodate growth. 

In 1997, the Judicial Conference approved Panama City, FL for inclusion in its 

FY 1998–2002 Five-Year Courthouse Project Plan for site and design funding in FY 

2002. Because sufficient funding was not provided to support the projects preceding 

it on the FY 1998–2002 Five-Year Plan, the Panama City project slipped into subsequent years until a moratorium on all projects was imposed by the Judicial Conference in FY 2004. 

In a move to control costs, 35 courthouse projects that had not yet received appropriated funding for site, design, or construction, including the Panama City project, 

were subject to the moratorium and underwent a thorough reevaluation. A separate 

15 courthouse projects that had received some Congressional funding, many of 

which were shovel ready, have been allowed to proceed since 2004. The Judiciary’s 

FY 2011 Five-Year Courthouse Project Plan includes funding through FY 2014 to 

complete these projects currently on the Plan. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
47 

The reevaluation of the space needs associated with districts where the 35 

projects are located has been completed and a list of courthouse projects ranked in 

order of urgency has been compiled. The entire list will be considered by the Judicial Conference Committee on Space and Facilities at its June 2010 meeting. The 

Urgency Rank Evaluation places the Panama City project at number 12 on that list. 

However, the Judiciary has been hesitant to add new projects to the Five-Year 

Courthouse Project Plan until more of the projects currently on the Plan receive appropriated funding. Therefore, despite the reaffirmed need for a new facility in Panama City, it is unlikely it will be added to the Judiciary’s Five-Year Plan for several 

years. 

CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Under the Judicial Conference policy 

each Court of Appeals may permit television and other electronic 

media coverage of its proceedings, but only two of 13 courts of appeals, the 2nd and 9th Circuit Court of appeals have chosen to do 

so. Has there been any data collected on the two circuits’ decisions 

to allow electronic coverage and any associated costs? If so, what 

has been learned about cost and potential savings? Also do the 2nd 

and 9th Circuits have limits on the types of cases that they allow 

television coverage for? Have other circuits indicated that they are 

considering coverage of court proceedings? 

Judge GIBBONS. I am not aware of any data that the 2nd and 9th 

Circuits have collected. I do know that with respect to broadcasting 

proceedings in appellate courts I would be surprised if there were 

any significant costs one way or another given the growing technology that is available in courts. So I think that from the Conference’s standpoint it has really not been a cost issue, but more 

of a policy issue. 

Mr. SERRANO. Now, I don’t know if you answered this part, do 

you know of any other districts that are thinking of doing the same 

thing? 

Mr. DUFF. Of having a pilot project with cameras? 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes. 

Mr. DUFF. We do know other districts that are considering it. We 

are trying to come up with a uniform approach to it, and we are 

on the verge, I think, of doing so. We still have a Judicial Conference policy with regard to cameras in the courtroom. The Conference itself is opposed to cameras at trial court level for a variety 

of reasons, for example in criminal trials where witnesses can be 

intimidated. There are elements of the trial that if, we think, were 

put on television, could change the course of a trial. It could change 

even the fact that a matter would go to trial. If witnesses are intimidated, if plaintiffs don’t want the vast public exposure that 

comes with television in the courtroom, it might intimidate plaintiffs who have civil rights claims or sexual assault claims not to 

feel like they could or would want to proceed. 

So we have been very cautious about it, Mr. Chairman, and to 

answer your question more directly, I think there are types of matters that certainly the Judicial Conference feels it wouldn’t be a 

problem. 

Mr. SERRANO. So tell me how these two districts are doing this, 

because I am getting a little confused here. If the Judicial Conference has problems with it, why are these two districts doing it 

anyway? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
48 

Judge GIBBONS. The Conference has a different policy for the appellate courts than for the district courts. The Conference policy is 

that trials in district courts should not be broadcast. The Conference policy permits appellate courts to do it. The 2nd and 9th 

are the only ones that have adopted a courtwide policy permitting 

the broadcasting of arguments. I have a feeling, just based on nothing other than my own experience, that probably there is other 

broadcasting going on and certainly other requests to broadcast 

that are not occurring as a result of a court policy. 

I know that I was a member of a panel within the last couple 

of years and I can’t even remember what the case was, but we were 

presented with a request to broadcast a particular argument. And 

so I am sure that I was not on the only panel within the United 

States courts where that has ever happened. But I think we know 

only when there is a court policy of permitting it across the board, 

which is the case in the 2nd and the 9th. 

IMPACT OF TRIAL PUBLICITY ON YOUTH CRIME

Mr. SERRANO. All right. I remember a long, long time ago when 

I was in the State Assembly in New York that I opposed cameras 

in the courtroom and I did it based—that was the era of the beginning of the hip-hop generation, the hip-hop culture. And a lot of 

people think hip-hop is rap music, it was also dance and graffiti art 

form, and so on. And folks who were allegedly or supposedly, Jo 

Ann, smarter than I said that the kids were drawing their name 

on the walls as a form of identification, of being somebody or having people notice them. If that was the case, I wondered out loud 

then in my opposition if seeing a local thug on TV being tried for 

a crime that pretty much anybody knew he had committed because 

there were witnesses and everything, that would inspire people to 

say look at that publicity he is getting for that negative act. 

Fast forward to now, there are plenty of other ways unfortunately for young people to be invited into doing the wrong thing. 

So has anyone ever done a study on the effect on young people of 

having—because we have many ways in this country of being famous and well-known, you know. You could hold this hearing and 

be famous tonight on webcast to the dismay of half the Nation 

maybe or you could do something terrible and get all that publicity 

for it. Do you know if there are any studies that show the link between that? And by the way, to me those trials are totally different 

from Supreme Court proceedings. That I may also have problems 

with because I think to reach a great decision sometimes people 

have to bicker or something amongst themselves and the public 

wouldn’t understand maybe how that happens. Anyway any 

thoughts on that? 

Judge GIBBONS. I am not aware of any studies. I will say that 

I think that over time folks have begun to think about obviously 

the broadcasting of anything. I mean we live in an age in which 

communications have been entirely revolutionized in our lifetime, 

but among the reasons that still remain and I think are most compelling in support of the Conference policy are the security concerns, which seem more relevant today than they ever were. If you 

broadcast trials and you have concerns about safety of jurors, safety of witnesses, just many, many things, it would be undesirable 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
49 

to raise the profile of people who are participants in trials within 

the community. 

So I think those are among the gravest concerns that exist today. 

Mr. SERRANO. I am reminded of those old black and white movies 

where the accused, the defendant is giving dirty looks to the jury 

and intimidating half of them. I can just imagine if that is being 

seen by everybody. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. You know, ever since we put cameras in the 

House of Representatives we don’t have real debate anymore. Everybody does their talking points and they are totally on message 

because heaven forbid if a constituent would see you. And so I 

think it actually diminishes our ability to have good dialogue in the 

House of Representatives. So I tend to agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not a good idea. 

PROBATION AND PRETRIAL SERVICES

Let me ask a few questions about probation and pretrial services 

if I could. You all project that in fiscal year 2010 there will be 

105,000 charged defendants awaiting trial and 127,000 convicted 

offenders being supervised in our communities by probation and 

pretrial service officers. You request an increase of $7 million and 

154 additional positions for probation and pretrial services. 

So my first question is how will these additional resources help 

ensure that people serving under supervised release are not posing 

a risk to the communities in which they are living? And perhaps 

I will add one more question with this series? How will the additional resources help offenders released from Federal prison become productive members of society and particularly those who 

have substance abuse and some mental health problems? 

Judge GIBBONS. The numbers that we are requesting in terms of 

staff increases are driven by the workload increases we have seen, 

but there are some very, really very exciting things happening in 

our probation offices in terms of real progress in effective supervision. The Federal probation offices have always been in my judgment highly professional, but success in supervision was always 

tied to frequency of contact and to the threat of violation involving 

proceedings before a judge. 

We now, as a result of some more modern research, are moving 

to the utilization of what are called evidence-based practices in supervision. We have a lot of research that we believe will help us 

in reducing recidivism. Probation officers have available to them 

data from the States, and I hope the Territories. 

[CLERK’S NOTE: Subsequent to the hearing, the Judiciary provided the following additional information:] 

While the Judiciary is able to access recidivism data for the 50 states as part of 

its evidence-based practices initiative, the Judiciary is unable to access recidivism 

data for offenders in the U.S. territories because those jurisdictions lack automated 

criminal history records accessible through NLETS. NLETS is a service that links 

together state, local, and federal law enforcement and justice agencies for the purpose of information exchange and is the Judiciary’s primary source for accessing and 

analyzing recidivism data. 

Mr. SERRANO. That will make me happy. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
50 

Judge GIBBONS. And they also have data that examines the cases 

of 100,000 Federal offenders to determine—some of the data shows 

recidivism patterns of Federal offenders, as I understand it—what 

has been effective with particular individuals. Now the probation 

officers are using this data to individualize their approach to the 

offender. They first look at this data in light of a number of factors 

involving the defendant. And the four areas they examine are antisocial or criminal thinking and values, whether the individual has 

a dysfunctional social network, whether his primary issues are lack 

of employment and education, and whether there is substance 

abuse, and they can determine which one of these areas they 

should focus on initially and determine whether the person is most 

in need of treatment, for example, of some kind, whether mental 

health or substance abuse, whether the person might be in need of 

education or job training, just whatever it is. It is a much more individualized and we hope a very effective approach. 

Mrs. EMERSON. It is very interesting. Sometimes treating mental 

health and substance abuse issues are best done in a different kind 

of a setting. 

SUPERVISING SEX OFFENDERS

Tell me then, once we pass the Adam Walsh Act and we have 

been able to increase the apprehension of sex offenders, it is a different situation in many cases, do your probation officers have sufficient resources to effectively supervise sex offenders and protect 

the citizens in the surrounding communities from them? 

Judge GIBBONS. I don’t think we would complain about the lack 

of resources, particularly in light of the adequacy of our funding, 

for which we are once again most grateful. I will say that supervising sex offenders and helping to prevent that person from reoffending, that is one of the most challenging tasks a probation officer faces. If you get into all—and I am certainly no expert on this, 

but if you get into the data about sexual offenders and the difficulty of rehabilitation and that sort of thing, it is really a difficult 

task. 

They do have a lot of tools at their disposal. There is not only 

treatment, but they also do testing and polygraphs. There is another test that they use to ascertain whether the individual is succeeding with treatment and whether the sexual thought patterns 

have been altered. They can do GPS or other location monitoring 

technology to make sure the person is staying away from schools 

and other locations where children would be present. If the person 

has been an offender against children, they make sure there is 

compliance with various registration laws. 

Child pornography is a very common offense seen in the Federal 

courts, and it is usually accessed by the individual via the Internet. 

So the person may be prohibited from working around computers 

and often personal use of computers. So there is that sort of monitoring they are able to do not only for sexual offenders, but they 

are able to do in appropriate cases things like surveillance or 

searches to make sure there is compliance. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you very much, Judge. 

Mr. SERRANO. Let me ask a question having to do with Mrs. Emerson’s favorite Federal agency, GSA. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
51 

Mrs. EMERSON. No doubt. 

GSA RENT AND GREEN TECHNOLOGY

Mr. SERRANO. The judiciary is working with GSA on a memorandum of agreement on rent calculation to limit rental costs. In 

your testimony, Judge Gibbons, you indicate that the 2011 rent is 

expected to be $300 million less, 23 percent of the amount projected, in 2005. Is the 2010 projected payment for rent on target? 

Your cost projection for 2011 is $1 billion, what savings are you 

taking into account with that projection and does the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts work with GSA in efforts to explore 

and implement policy and practices to make the court facilities 

more energy efficient and more green? 

Judge GIBBONS. Well, that sort of touches a number of areas and 

let me try to address the rent savings first, and then I will probably turn to Jim to talk about our relationship with GSA, the 

memorandum of understanding and the green technology issue. 

Really our progress in containing our rent cost is attributable to 

a number of steps we took as a part of our cost containment effort. 

We do believe that we are on target in saying what we have saved 

in terms of rent costs that were projected in 2005. First, you know 

we had that moratorium on courthouse construction, but then we 

followed up with a number of steps. We had our rent validation effort in which we worked with GSA to identify areas where we were 

not being charged properly. We believe that we saved and had cost 

avoidances of about $50 million as a result of that effort. We have 

had changes in the Design Guide, we instituted a rent cap of 4.9 

percent to contain the rate of growth in rent. We have instituted 

a new circuit-based program of managing the funds available for 

space improvement where the cap is a major player in restraining 

the cost. We have the new Asset Management Planning process, 

which we have referred to previously, and then the Memorandum 

of Understanding. 

All of those things have contributed to this savings we have seen 

in rent. For the future obviously the courtroom sharing as new construction comes online will help us avoid costs that we otherwise 

might have incurred. 

Mr. DUFF. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would just add the two things 

we started when I was appointed. One was trying to improve relations with GSA and two, get the rent under control, and I think 

we made great progress in that regard with this Memorandum of 

Understanding. We have taken the play out of rent projections as 

much as we could. They used to use a market-based rent calculation, and we were finding that it was inconsistent and it was above 

market rate in many instances. So this new memorandum of understanding we entered into took the play out of it and provided 

some definition to our rent so we can project it more accurately 

going forward, we think. 

And with regard to the green issue, GSA is really responsible for 

that, but we certainly encourage it and work with them in any way 

we can to promote that. 

I met with the new Administrator of GSA about 2 weeks ago, 

Martha Johnson, and was very impressed with her, and I think we 

are going to have a good working relationship with them going forVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
52 

ward. She was certainly very mindful of our needs and called us 

her biggest customer, which we like to hear, and wanted to work 

with us. So I was encouraged by the meeting. 

Mr. SERRANO. You realize that if you get rents reduced it would 

be revolutionary. It is just improper use of the language in this 

country to think that rents can be reduced. Why do I know Mrs. 

Emerson has something to say? 

Mrs. EMERSON. Because I was able to negotiate my rent at GSA 

at my new office building and told them that I would only pay 

what I paid my old Federal building. They wanted to charge me 

double, I said then we are not going to move in, and so they caved 

in. What can I tell you? So it was a negotiation, right? 

Mr. SERRANO. It is her way of reminding me that I don’t have 

a Federal office building in my district. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, it was not. I didn’t know that you 

didn’t. 

Mr. SERRANO. No, I don’t. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, we will have to get you one. 

Mr. SERRANO. There you go. Please write it up. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Instead of a portrait you can get a building. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thanks a lot. 

With that, let me turn to our colleague the distinguished gentlewoman from the great State of California, Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late, 

but as you can imagine, it is a pretty busy time. 

Mr. SERRANO. If you need me, let me know. 

WORKFORCE DIVERSITY

Ms. LEE. Welcome, I am glad to see you both. I appreciate the 

efforts of the Judicial Conference in its commitment to reduce costs 

and especially during these very difficult times, but I want to make 

sure that we find the right balance between of course cost savings 

and that we continue to ensure everyone access to the courts and 

timely decisions in the court system for all Americans. 

Let me ask you, because I asked you last time and I appreciate 

you submitting the information as it relates to diversity. And I am 

looking at the numbers here, you know, some areas in terms of the 

workforce you are progressing, in other categories you are not. I 

think you have a lot of room for improvement, and I am wondering 

if you do recruitment at minority serving institutions, Hispanic 

serving institutions, African American, tribal colleges to boost diversity numbers on this. 

Judge GIBBONS. Our Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial 

Resources has an Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Diversity that grew out 

of a recognition that we perhaps needed to do a better job in the 

area of recruitment, and through the efforts of this subcommittee 

and through that committee we are identifying minority law students—this is particularly for law clerk positions and staff attorney 

positions obviously, but that has been an area in which we feel we 

have been particularly lacking in racial and ethnic diversity. But 

we have been identifying minority law students and other minority 

organizations and bar associations in hopes of creating pipelines 

there. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
53 

We are in the process or have been, I am uncertain as to the status of sending correspondence to law school deans, we are preparing correspondence to hiring partners at the Nation’s top law 

firms. All that goes largely toward addressing the law clerk/staff 

attorney piece of this. Of course, that is only a small part of the 

courts’ overall workforce. 

I will leave it to Jim to address anything that has been done on 

a national level, but I do know that local courts typically elect how 

and where to advertise their vacancies, and I know that many of 

them have become increasingly aware of the need to make sure 

that they are advertising in places where their advertisements will 

be seen by folks of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. 

Mr. DUFF. Yes, I would just add to that the local court hiring 

practices, we have encouraged reaching out and diversifying the 

best we can. The hiring at the courts is done locally for staffing 

purposes, not nationally. But from a national standpoint we certainly encourage that. 

Ms. LEE. It is one thing to encourage and post, but it is another 

to do really do the outreach. I don’t know if you have the resources 

to really establish a good outreach recruitment effort, and that is 

something, if it makes sense, you should let us know. 

Mr. DUFF. Yes. 

Ms. LEE. Do you think that makes sense? 

Mr. DUFF. Yes, we are committed to that. 

Ms. LEE. But do you have the resources? 

Mr. DUFF. I think we probably have the resources now to—I will 

look at it more closely, but as we have said from the outset, we 

have been very pleased with the funding that we have been receiving. If we need more in that regard, we would certainly seek it. 

[CLERK’S NOTE: Subsequent to the hearing, the Judiciary provided the following additional information:] 

The Judiciary believes it has received sufficient funding from Congress in order 

to continue implementation of its workforce diversity initiative. The Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources’ Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Diversity was 

established in 2004 to examine diversity within the federal judicial workforce and 

to consider programs, policies, and training on fair employment practices that would 

benefit the federal Judiciary. The goal of this initiative is (1) to expand the Judiciary’s job applicant pool in terms of diversity, and (2) to allow individuals to better 

understand the role and mission of the federal courts. 

As part of the Judiciary’s workforce diversity initiative, Committee members attended and made diversity presentations at all circuit judicial conferences during 

fiscal years 2007 through 2009, with the emphasis that new judges be made aware 

of the issue and the important role that they can play when making hiring and promotion decisions. The Committee also sends letters to judges encouraging their colleagues to make an extra effort to identify and interview minority individuals for 

a non-Article III judicial vacancy in their respective districts. 

A Diversity Initiative Blueprint was formulated and is revised continuously with 

input from the Committee and a variety of Judiciary advisory groups. Key components of the Blueprint include: 

• Ongoing Outreach to Judges. Completion of a judge-to-judge presentation, emphasizing the critical role that judges play in hiring and promotion decisions. The 

presentation (contained on a DVD) is included with orientation materials for new 

judges. 

• Outreach to Potential Judicial Employees. Upgrading the Judiciary website 

(www.uscourts.gov/careers) to allow the Judiciary to compete better with other federal agencies for talent. The website now includes a series of Judiciary recruitment 

videos designed to attract America’s best talent to the federal courts with a focus 

on promoting diversity in the Judiciary’s workforce. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
54 

• Diversity Toolkit. Recently, the Judiciary distributed a recruitment toolkit to 

the courts intended to provide information and practical tools to assist courts in 

reaching out to ‘‘hard-to-find’’ candidates, improving interview techniques, and implementing formal and informal mentoring programs to increase the retention of diverse employees. 

• Continued Judiciary representation at college/law school employment fairs. 

• Coordinating with external organizations for outreach and recruiting (Minority 

Bar Association, minority publications, minority corporate counsels, DC Women’s 

Bar Association.) 

Judge GIBBONS. It may be that more could be done at the national level to encourage the outreach with respect to individual 

court hiring for the law clerk positions. It is kind of a national hiring market, not so for other positions in the courts. I think we 

might take a more national approach to encouraging local courts to 

become more actively involved in outreach; in other words, to go 

beyond just the advertising and the making available. 

Even though under our court governance system the hiring is 

really within the hands of local courts, certainly there is always 

more that you can do to create a climate in which folks are thinking about doing these things that they ought to do and that would 

be positive in terms of enhancing diversity. 

Ms. LEE. Great. And I think when you think through this and 

you look at the local courts, we have the tri-caucus, the Black, Hispanic, Asian Pacific American Caucus that could help in your local 

courts in recruitment efforts. 

Judge GIBBONS. I will say that on another note, while we have 

not done so well in racial, in ethnic diversity, we have done very 

well in gender diversity even in the lawyer ranks where a majority 

of all the Federal law clerks in the system are now female and 

have been for a number of years. 

Ms. LEE. Yes. May I have one more minute, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Sure. 

Ms. LEE. And the dismal record for the judges, I am looking at 

this in terms of African American, Asian and Hispanic judges, on 

page 128 of the report here. I don’t know how you deal with that. 

Mr. DUFF. That is a little bit out of our control. 

Ms. LEE. I know, but just for the record it is horrible. 

MINORITY CONTRACTING

Finally, on the minority contracting piece in the report we asked 

you that question in our last hearing and you came up with a certain percentage. You say of this total 500 of the total of 4,800 contract awards, 591, 12.11 percent, were awarded to minority and 

women-owned businesses. 

Judge GIBBONS. I think the most striking thing about those figures is what it doesn’t include. We were only able to furnish figures 

for a few entities like the Administrative Office, but not for all of 

the courts throughout the country. I think we were able to provide 

some figures perhaps maybe for the Federal Circuit, but not for 

other courts. So those figures, they really don’t tell you much at all. 

And I believe that I was told in preparation for this hearing when 

I asked about that that we had made an effort to get those figures 

and had found that those statistics were just not maintained. We 

do nationally maintain pretty complete statistics on hiring, and not 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
55 

just who is hired but who is in the applicant pool. But we apparently do not maintain those statistics with respect to contractors. 

Ms. LEE. Can we ask you to begin to develop a central repository 

or some kind of a data gathering mechanism or procedure? Because 

until we know what is what, it is really very difficult to know what 

is what. 

Judge GIBBONS. I think we can tell you we will begin to look at 

it. Our courts operate on a system of decentralized budgeting. 

Ms. LEE. I know. 

Judge GIBBONS. And so—— 

Ms. LEE. We have got to do something. So beginning to look at 

it is fine, but we have got to know as we begin to look at it, we 

have to have an outcome or a goal and we can help you maybe 

come up with some mechanisms to develop that, but I think it is 

absolutely essential that we know what is going on with these contracts. 

Judge GIBBONS. Perhaps we can take—I mean it would seem to 

me that the key thing is collecting the information, and apparently 

why we don’t have the information is because when our courts 

make a contracting decision they don’t collect information. And certainly we could begin to look at how we could collect the information. 

Ms. LEE. Yes, I think so because given that America is a diverse 

country, I think our courts want to see some fairness in every aspect of the court system and this is one big aspect of it that there 

should be some equity and some fairness, and how do you know 

that until you know it. 

Mr. DUFF. Representative Lee, if I might supplement the answer 

a bit. Part of the request we made today is for increased funding 

in our accounting system and that new accounting system I think 

will enable us better to monitor and respond to and be responsive 

to these sorts of concerns. 

Ms. LEE. As long as you have some categories in there that will 

give us the information in this new accounting system which 

some—most accounting systems don’t have. You have to have a 

special database, a special repository, a special skills, you know? So 

look at it within a broader context if you want to attach it to that. 

Mr. Chairman, can we make sure we do whatever we need to do? 

Mr. SERRANO. I want the record to show that the chairman joins 

Ms. Lee in that request. She is always on target with this. You 

know, no reflection on your comments, both of you, but it reminds 

me when I started in public office 37 years ago. I would ask people 

what does your department look like in New York State. The answer was we don’t keep records because we treat everybody equally. Well, no, we want you to keep records. The Census Bureau this 

week is asking very pointed questions about who you are and I 

think you need to know within the court system who is there. So 

I sign up with that. 

[CLERK’S NOTE: Subsequent to the hearing, the Judiciary provided the following additional information:] 

As Judge Gibbons stated in here response to Rep. Lee’s question regarding contract awards to minority-owned and women-owned businesses, procurement in the 

federal Judiciary is decentralized throughout the courts nationwide so there is no 

central repository containing information relating to federal Judiciary contracting 

actions. A procurement module that will capture Judiciary-wide procurement data, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
56 

including data on contract awards to minority-owned and women-owned businesses, 

is expected to be implemented in the courts in 2013. Data from this module would 

be available from the system beginning in 2014. 

At the present time, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts is able 

to provide information from its financial accounting system relating to FY 2009 contract awards to minority-owned and women-owned businesses for the following judicial organizations which all share a single procurement database: Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts, Federal Judicial Center, United States Court of 

Federal Claims, United States Court of International Trade, United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 

There was a total of 3,429 contract awards in FY 2009 for the six Judiciary organizations listed above. Of this total, 435 contract awards (12.69%) were to minorityowned and women-owned businesses. 

Let me do something here, Ms. Lee. We are trying to wrap up. 

So if you have another question to ask. 

Ms. LEE. One more question. 

Mr. SERRANO. Go ahead. 

SHARING FEDERAL PROBATION PRACTICES WITH STATES

Ms. LEE. Evidence-based practices, just in terms of recidivism at 

the Federal level, how can we ensure that this information can be 

shared at the State level with law enforcement officials in the court 

system, what you are doing, because evidently the recidivism rate 

has been significantly reduced for Federal levels? 

Judge GIBBONS. Well, our recidivism rate was lower to begin 

with, substantially lower. We hoped to make it even lower. I am 

not aware of any studies that explain why that is. It may be partly 

because of the nature of the offenders that we have had, but certainly we are no longer a Federal system where our offenders are 

not dangerous, because there are in fact many of them very, very 

dangerous to society and have done very substantial time in prison. 

But I would attribute it to the fact that we have always just had 

a really professional, excellent probation system. Evidence-based 

practices provide a chance for us to be even better, but I was in 

the district court for 19 years before I went to the court of appeals 

and one of the great privileges in my life was working with the 

men and women in our probation system, and I think they just get 

good results because of the caliber of people they are and the work 

they do. I don’t know what else to attribute it to. And I will bet 

that has been a position to which probation officers aspire because 

historically the Federal system has paid better than the State systems. 

And I am not telling you it is a high paying job. I am just saying 

that it has been treated as more of a professional job. They virtually all have at least Master’s Degrees in relevant areas and they 

approach the job with as much professionalism and seriousness as 

any group of people that I know. 

Ms. LEE. If there is no empirical evidence to tell us why, maybe 

the anecdotal evidence will help, having an evaluation, send something out to the States saying we think this may be why this is 

working. You may want to consider it, something, really because it 

is really horrible in all the States. So I would like to talk with you 

further on how we would do that. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
57 

Mr. SERRANO. It is okay if you have another question. I need you 

to cosponsor my new bill. 

Ms. LEE. I am. 

Mr. SERRANO. You don’t even know what it is. 

Ms. LEE. But I am going to cosponsor it. I thank you, I want to 

make sure we follow up on this anecdotal evidence and replicate 

best practices. 

Thank you again. 

[CLERK’S NOTE: Subsequent to the hearing, the Judiciary provided the following additional information:] 

We do not know for certain why the federal recidivism rate is lower than that of 

state and local systems, but we are building a comprehensive outcome measurement 

system to support empirical research that will be able to answer that question definitively. The infrastructure for that system will be complete in two years, but part 

of it is already done. That part now enables us to gather arrest data from the FBI 

and all state systems, which provides a baseline recidivism rate for all federal districts and will allow us to measure changes in the future. Our goal is to be able 

to conduct empirical research to determine what interventions help to foster lasting 

positive changes in individuals under the supervision of probation officers, and 

thereby reduce recidivism. 

In the meantime, we can offer possible explanations for the difference in recidivism rates between federal and state and local systems. A good portion of federal 

cases, around 40 percent, are considered low risk as measured by the Risk Prediction Index and reflected in the Criminal History Score computed for sentencing 

guidelines purposes. It is possible that state and local systems do not have such a 

high percentage of low risk cases. 

In addition, federal probation officers have more experience and education than 

their state and local counterparts. Typically, the federal system recruits from state 

and local systems and selects only the best available candidates who already have 

several years of experience in community corrections. Candidates are attracted to 

the federal system partly because of better pay and benefits in most jurisdictions, 

but also because of the excellent reputation of the federal system. On average, federal probation officers have 12 years experience in community corrections. All have 

bachelor’s degrees, and half also possess master’s degrees. About 12 percent are fluent in a second language, usually Spanish. 

One reason for the excellent reputation of the federal probation system is the exceptional training that federal probation officers receive. All new officers participate 

in a six-week basic training program on the campus of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Also, probation officers are required to participate in a minimum of 40 hours of training each year, on top of any training they receive in the 

use of firearms and officer safety. Federal probation officers participate throughout 

their careers in advanced programs offered by the Federal Judicial Center, the 

United States Sentencing Commission, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts. 

Federal probation and pretrial services officers and their state and local counterparts are increasingly exchanging information about evidence-based practices at 

conferences such as those of the American Probation and Parole Association and the 

National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. Also, the Administrative Office 

of the U.S. Courts has long published Federal Probation, a journal with three issues 

per year that is available to the public and contains articles written not only by academics, but by practitioners at the federal, state, and local level. 

RETENTION OF FEDERAL JUDGES

Mr. SERRANO. Mrs. Emerson has no further questions. I just 

want to add to the question she was talking about. Diversity in 

courts, in general there is an issue of retention of Federal judges. 

I don’t know if you have touched on that in your testimony, but the 

whole issue in that case was compensation. Has that changed at 

all or is that still a problem? 

Mr. DUFF. We are still having a problem, Mr. Chairman. The 

number of judges leaving the bench is increasing and we are seeing 

troubling trends. It seems to be affecting the gains we have made 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
58 

in putting a diverse bench together. It has been slow, it is out of 

our control a bit, but it has had a disproportionate impact on minorities leaving the bench because of the economic impact. 

So we have not received pay restoration that we have been seeking and it continues to be an issue, but we are mindful of the difficulty of doing that in this economic climate. 

Mr. SERRANO. I understand the judges look around and see people with the same law degrees doing 10 times better than they 

have, not to make light of it, but tell them that you know a chairman of a committee that represents the area of Yankee Stadium 

and there are 27 guys there and the minimum salary is $660,000 

a year for a rookie and the other is making $27 million a year, so 

I understand. I understand. 

CHAIRMAN SERRANO’S CLOSING REMARKS

I want to thank you both for your testimony. I have more questions for the record and, Ms. Lee, if you have more questions it will 

be submitted for the record and same to you, Mrs. Emerson. 

We want to thank you for your testimony and want you to know 

this committee all stands ready to assist you and when we do ask 

you hard questions and present to you that which we think is fair 

as diversity in the courts, we do it because it is the right thing to 

do and we hope you pay attention to that and work on trying to 

resolve those issues. We thank you for your testimony. 

Judge GIBBONS. We thank you very much for the opportunity to 

be here. 

Mr. DUFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might add, I wish you 

all the best with your new bill on naturalization. I will say that I 

have encouraged our judges to include Members of Congress in the 

naturalization ceremony, so if your bill passes we will have less opportunity to interact. 

Mr. SERRANO. My bill will allow you to give the oath to new citizens. 

Ms. LEE. Is that the bill you want me to cosponsor? 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes. 

Ms. LEE. You got it. Thank you for clarifying. 

Mr. SERRANO. The hearing is adjourned. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
59 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 102 62204A.029
60 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 103 62204A.030
61 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 104 62204A.031
62 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 105 62204A.032
63 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 106 62204A.033
64 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 107 62204A.034
65 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 108 62204A.035
66 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 109 62204A.036
67 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 110 62204A.037
68 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 111 62204A.038
69 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 112 62204A.039
70 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 113 62204A.040
71 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 114 62204A.041
72 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 115 62204A.042
73 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 116 62204A.043
74 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 117 62204A.044
75 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 118 62204A.045
76 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 119 62204A.046
77 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 120 62204A.047
78 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 121 62204A.048
79 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 122 62204A.049
80 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 123 62204A.050
81 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 124 62204A.051
82 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 125 62204A.052
(83) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2010. 

FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S. SUPREME 

COURT 

WITNESSES 

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME 

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME 

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. SERRANO. The subcommittee will come to order. Just two 

personal notes at the beginning. Number 42 is in honor of April 

15th, 1947, for those of you who are a little young in the crowd. 

That is 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 about Mariano 

Rivera of the Yankees as the last player to wear number 42, and 

your favorite committee chairman is quoted in the story. 

Mrs. EMERSON. And what is, if I may ask, the Yankee’s record 

so far, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SERRANO. You are out of order. 

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 Sonia Sotomayor comes from the South Bronx from the area 

that I represent, the area that I grew up in, and her parents were 

born on the same island of Puerto Rico that I was born on. So of 

course it was a special time to see her become part of the very 

prestigious and very honorable Court. 

This morning we gather to hear about the fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Supreme Court. We have the distinct honor of 

being joined by two distinguished Justices of the Supreme Court 

regarding its appropriations request for the upcoming fiscal year, 

and 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 opportunity 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 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
84 

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 for 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. 

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 courts 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 will have 

to put up your number. Justice Thomas was nominated to the 

Court in 1991 by the first President Bush after serving as Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil 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. I say that with great admiration when I say that you have been here so many times before 

us to share your testimony 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, and we are glad that your previous appearances before the subcommittee were pleasant enough 

that you agreed to return for repeat performances. Thank you for 

joining us today. 

Mr. SERRANO. And now I would like to turn to my colleague and 

my sister Mrs. Emerson, our ranking member. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you. 

Welcome, Justices Thomas and Breyer. I really appreciate so 

much that you come before us today. 

An independent judiciary, trusted and respected by all citizens 

and committed to 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 am pleased you are 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 of the few instances 

when the Supreme Court and the legislative branch interact, and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
85 

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 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. Please know that I will work with Chairman 

Serrano to make sure you all have the necessary resources to fulfill 

your constitutional duties. Thank you all. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

By the way, that question about the Yankee record, is that because the Cardinals are having a better start? 

Mrs. EMERSON. The Cardinals are doing phenomenally well, 

knock on wood. 

Mr. SERRANO. There is always September. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, that is what happened last year, but for 

now I am enjoying it, you know. 

Mr. SERRANO. Justice Thomas and Justice Breyer, the floor is 

yours. As you know, the routine is that your written testimony will 

be printed in the hearing record. Please proceed with whatever oral 

statements you care to make, and then we will have some questions. 

Justice THOMAS. Good morning, Chairman Serrano, Mrs. Emerson, Members of the committee. Justice Breyer and I are pleased 

to return, and we will pass along your kind wishes to our colleague 

Justice Stevens. We will certainly miss him. He is 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 Suter. We 

have Marshal Pamela Talkin, and the counselor to the Chief Justice, Jeffrey Minear. And we have our Public Information Officer 

Kathy Arberg, and our Acting Budget Manager Venita Acker. 

As I said, we are pleased to be here, and we have submitted a 

statement for the record, as is our custom. 

And you are right, Mr. Chairman, I may well be the longest-serving member of this committee. I think it is 15 years now. And 

maybe I will get off for good time or good behavior. 

But the Court’s budgetary needs, as you have indicated or alluded to, are tiny. 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 emphasize the word 

‘‘needs.’’ We do not look at this as wants or a wish list. 

In the years I have 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—it 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. We have 

the salary and expenses, which Justice Breyer and I will address, 

and we have the building and grounds, which the Acting Architect 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
86 

of the Capitol Stephen Ayers will address. But on that latter category, let me make a couple of comments, and I will be brief. 

The modernization commenced in 2003, fiscal year 2003. And 

there is some confusion about the year simply because the first portion of the modernization actually had 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 close-out activities finishing early next calendar year. 

With respect to our salaries and expenses request, that portion of our total budget this year request is $77,758,000 for fiscal year 

2011. That is an increase of $3,724,000, a 5 percent increase. Now, 

70 percent of that increase is nondiscretionary, it is mandatory. It 

is basically what is required to continue operating at our current 

level. It is an adjustment to our base. It is increases in salary. It 

is mandatory increases in benefits. There is an additional $173,000 

that is 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 our Web site in house. That 

has been an early success. In the first 2 weeks that that system, 

that the Web site, has been up, we have had 25 million hits from 

around the world. As you remember from discussions in the early 

years, we were ecstatic about 1 million hits in a month. It has been 

well received and universally praised. This allows us now to make 

adjustments, the things that we talked about early on. If you visit 

it, you will see it is 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, 3 to 5 minutes to put something there. 

As I indicated last year, though, there is 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 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 their 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 with the opening of the building after the construction, we will 

have more pedestrian traffic. In addition to that, we will have an 

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 also 

have additional needs at our command center. 

Now, rather than coming here with a request as required or the 

personnel or security people asked for, we are going to ask for half 

of that. We are going to ask for 12 rather than the 24 and make 

do with that. But as I indicated, that is a request that our security 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
87 

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. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Justice BREYER. That is fine. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. 

Justice THOMAS. That is the first time he has ever agreed with 

me. Well, it is not the first time. 

Justice BREYER. No, I agree with him all the time. 

Mr. SERRANO. I hope somebody is taking notes of this. 

Mrs. EMERSON. C–SPAN is. 

Mr. SERRANO. My first question would be one that you touched 

on, but I just wanted to clarify. So you believe that the modernization project will be completed on time this summer? 

Justice THOMAS. Well, on time as is currently projected, not from 

the initial completion date—we are a year behind. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, yes, on time based on last year’s testimony 

where you said it would be this summer. 

Justice THOMAS. That is right. It is expected to be done this summer with the close-out activities drifting into the early part of next 

year. 

Mr. SERRANO. What would those close-out activities be? 

Justice THOMAS. I think it is basically we have got some grounds, 

perimeter work to do. We also have some cleanup to do, removal 

of construction trailers, et cetera, those sorts of things. 

Mr. SERRANO. Overall how would you characterize the Court’s experience with the modernization process in terms of adequate 

budget, resources, and disruption, if any, to the Court’s operation? 

Justice THOMAS. From my perspective, I think it has been spectacular. In any big projects we have a choice. We could move out 

of the building as they, in essence, rebuilt it. You are talking about 

plumbing, and wiring, structural work, heating and air, and some 

security issues. Now, if you look around town, many people evacuate the buildings in order to accomplish this. We chose to stay, 

and they have had to work around us. Now, there have been 

glitches, things weren’t perfect, but I would characterize the resources, the handling of this, from my perspective, as excellent, recognizing that there are imperfections. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, as difficult as it must have been to have this 

work going on while were you there, I always felt it was very important and symbolic that you would stay. If I was a bad standup comic, I would say if you move, where would the protesters 

know where to go? 

Justice THOMAS. They would figure it out. 

Mr. SERRANO. But there was definitely a need for continuity, and 

I am glad you chose to do it that way. 

Question. You said you could really use 24 officers, but you are 

only going to ask for 12. You are not going to get too many committees asking why you are asking for the lesser number; they actually applaud that. So do you feel that the 24 was maybe too much 

of an ask, or are you being nice to us because of the budget problems, or do you actually think you can do it with 12? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
88 

Justice THOMAS. We have not asked for a budget or 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 is a comfortable number. It is a number that gives 

us some leeway. But we can with a minimum or baseline number 

of 12 make it work. So it would be not a luxury, but a better, more 

practical, a more flexible number to have the 24. And I think most 

agencies would come in and ask for the 24. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. 

Justice THOMAS. But as I have said, we have never in the time 

that I have been coming here ever asked you for more than we 

have needed. We have been very stringent, particularly during 

Chief Justice Rehnquist’s tenure. He was very strict about what we 

asked for. 

Mr. SERRANO. One last question on that. These 12 new officers, 

I am just curious, do you select them from an existing law enforcement force, are they trained only for the Supreme Court, are they 

totally new hires, or do they get transferred from Capitol Police or 

somewhere else? 

Justice THOMAS. I think in the past we used to take quite a few 

people from, say, the District police force, Metropolitan Police, and 

various agencies around town. We normally now hire new people, 

and we send them off to the Federal law enforcement facility and 

training facility down in Brunswick, Georgia, which probably is excellent merely because it is in Georgia. And so it is normally an 

entry-level job. We have had good luck with keeping them. We 

have had very little turnover. In the early years we had quite a bit 

of turnover, and that got to be a problem. But after we reached 

parity in benefits and salary and retirement, that has pretty much 

ended. 

Mr. SERRANO. Let me ask you one last question before I turn it 

over to Mrs. 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? 

Justice THOMAS. That is separate. That is in the buildings and 

grounds category. The Architect of the Capitol will handle that, but 

that roof, that is a part of the maintenance. The roof is an old roof, 

it is the original roof. And this has been an ongoing project, and 

this 6.3 million is to finalize the repairs on the roof. It is the final 

phase of that, but it is not a part of the modernization project. 

Mr. SERRANO. I think you spoke about this in the past, forgive 

me if I am wrong, but I think you said part of what we wanted 

to accomplish was not only to make the building more workable for 

everyone, but also to make it easier for folks to visit. Do you think 

we have accomplished that? 

Justice THOMAS. I think we have. I think we can always debate 

around the margins, as to whether or not this approach or that is 

a better approach. I think we all have different opinions about 

that, but I can remember my own first venture up steps in the Supreme Court. 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 in the modernization project 

and the additions. There are going to be new things, such as a new 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
89 

film. I think there is more artwork there. I think the building is 

maintained in an excellent fashion. So the answer to that, I would 

say, is yes. 

Also on the Web site, I think, is an opportunity to see more of 

the building and more of what we do. Just the ability to show what 

is there without actually having the physical intrusiveness or disturbances that you would have is outstanding. So I think there are 

a number of opportunities to do that. I think the building—and you 

have been there—it is a fabulous place to work and to visit. So I 

think that we have accomplished that. Justice Breyer may have a 

different view of that. 

Mr. SERRANO. Do you have a different view of that? 

Justice BREYER. I will wait to see what happens. We had at one 

point, I think, about a million people a year coming through. I 

think that is good. I think the number has dropped a lot because 

of the construction probably, and I hope to get back to a million or 

more. I think it is important that people go through that building. 

It is their building, and they ought to know about it. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Let me ask a combination modernization/security 

question just back related to the 12 officers. Given the recent 

events, the plane crash into the IRS building in Texas, the shootings at the Las Vegas courthouse and at the Pentagon, that shows 

that we perhaps, perhaps not, need heightened security at some of 

our Federal buildings. Obviously you all are a high-profile building. 

You are 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 won’t be enough? 

Justice THOMAS. Without getting into too many details in an 

open hearing, one of the reasons for the request is actually we have 

individuals who work on—one person actually now—who actually 

do the work on threat assessment. And we are going to upgrade 

that because of the volume, without getting into the details of it. 

We understand the importance of analyzing those threats and remaining current and following up on that. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So within the new modernization project, you will 

have a new police command center in the building, correct? 

Justice THOMAS. That is already—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. You have that already? 

Justice THOMAS. Yes. 

Mrs. EMERSON. 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? In other 

words, if we have 3 new entrances and only have 12 new officers—— 

Justice THOMAS. We will have enough officers to cover the entrances, but the point is that, as I said, it would be sometimes you 

can have things that are adequate that you can get through the 

process with, and then sometimes you could 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. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
90 

Mrs. EMERSON. And Justice Breyer mentioned having—hopefully 

once the modernization project is complete, more visitors will come, 

and so that is 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, for 

example? 

Justice THOMAS. We are in the final phases. We have one side 

of the building to do. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. 

Justice THOMAS. And that will be done after the construction is 

done. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So you think it will be on schedule and within 

budget? 

Justice THOMAS. Based on everything I have heard, yes. 

Mrs. EMERSON. That is good. 

Let me switch subjects. According to your-all’s budget submission, in 2009 there were 88 cases argued and 84 cases disposed of 

by opinion. Back in the 1970s, 1980s, early 1990s, there were well 

over 100 cases 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 am just curious. Could 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? I am just interested in your thoughts on these trends and 

whether you expect it to continue in future years or not. 

Justice THOMAS. First of all, with respect to the future, I don’t 

know. When I went on the Court in 1991, we had about 120 cases 

a year. I liked that number. Some members of the Court may not 

agree with it, but I think 100 to 120 would be good. 

But the question is what is in our pool of cases. In 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 2 

or 300 that come in that are filed or that are received during the 

week, and you make an assessment. What you are looking for is 

whether or not it is a Federal issue that is substantial or significant. And then you have other problems, whether there are some— 

we call them vehicle problems; in other words, 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 has been a change in our— 

to some degree in our mandatory jurisdiction. It is virtually all discretionary now. It may be that the 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. I 

thought I happened upon one, but to this date I haven’t had that 

substantiated. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
91 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you, Justice Thomas. 

Justice Breyer, you look like you want to say something. 

Justice BREYER. No. I think it is a very good question. I will try 

to keep it to the 2-minute version. The 10th-graders are the ones 

that I really like to talk to 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. I try to point out most laws in the United States, 

almost all of it, is State law. Federal law is about 3 percent. That 

is the law passed by you in Congress and the Constitution, and we 

only handle Federal cases. And Justice Thomas very well said 

which Federal cases. 

The basic rule is that we are there really to work out differences 

among other judges. If all the other judges in the United States 

who handle these questions are in agreement on what these words 

mean, why us? Jackson said that; he said, we are not final because 

we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final. Now, no 

one knows what that means. What it means is we don’t have the 

last word because we are so brilliant. We are, of course, brilliant, 

but only, only, only in the sense that someone has to have the last 

word. So if they all agree, why us? And if they disagree, though, 

then we have to work it out. So there you have the basic criteria. 

Now, why has that criteria ended up with fewer cases in the last 

few years? Here is where I bring in the theory, and it is a very old 

theory. You can read it in 1584 in Montaigne. He says this king 

or whoever it was was so stupid, he thought by writing a lot of 

laws, he was going to reduce the number of lawyers because he was 

going to explain 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 has happened is our diet has become like 

AEDPA, ERISA, and that is because if we go back 10 years, those 

are the laws you passed. And now you, I gather, have passed a law 

with 2,400 pages. If you have passed a law with 2,400 pages, it 

probably has a lot of words, and I would predict as a test of the 

theory that 3 or 4 years today, no one is ever going to ask us again 

why we have so few cases. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Oh, that was a good answer. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. It was a great answer. 

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I always have to 

begin my statement when the Chairman brings up the subject, I 

just want to begin by saying, Go, Sox. That limits my time. 

Mr. SERRANO. Is that White Sox or Red Sox? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Red Sox. 

Mr. SERRANO. Red Sox? You have 3 minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. You have to stick by your principles, and it is worth 

it. 

I have a couple of questions in looking at the request in terms 

of salaries and expenses. It says this sum reflects an increase of 

5 percent 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 percent meant a 5 percent salary increase, or 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
92 

5 percent was including salary and benefits, and therefore the salary increase was less than 5 percent? 

Justice THOMAS. No, 5 percent is the overall—the increase of the 

overall budget. And the increase of the salaries are merely—it is 

less than that, it is whatever we have—it was the cost-of-living increase plus whatever in-grade natural promotions that are required. But beyond that, they are not arbitrary increases, and it is 

not 5 percent. Five percent is the overall increase. For example, if 

we are required to increase benefits because of the benefit package, 

that goes up. If you are required to pay into whatever you are required to pay additionally into retirement systems, that has increased. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Justices, if you could get back to us with an indication whatever that will mean on average salary increase for staff 

if you don’t have that figure available. 

Justice BREYER. He says it is about 1.4 percent. 

Mr. SCHIFF. 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 country, and appreciate your efforts to 

keep your budget reflective of 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 not 

served us well, and has not served you well, but particularly hasn’t 

served judges well. But that is a topic for probably another discussion. 

I wanted to raise an issue that I have been studying for some 

time and increasingly feel more and more strongly about, and I 

think it may be a difference of opinion. I think Justice Breyer and 

I have discussed this perhaps in the past, and that is the issue of 

cameras in the courtroom. Is there any plan in the works to 

change, to pilot or in any way increase the use of cameras at the 

Supreme Court? 

Justice BREYER. Mr. Minear tells me that the Judicial Conference is currently considering a pilot project that I guess they are 

favorably disposed to it. 

Mr. SCHIFF. That would be a pilot project in your courtroom? 

Justice BREYER. No, it wouldn’t be in our courtroom. 

Justice THOMAS. No. 

Justice BREYER. It would not. The Judicial Conference does not 

have to do with—our Court—it has to do with the lower courts. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, let me raise specifically the issue in your courtroom. I will share my thoughts on that. I would be interested to 

hear your own. 

I would think probably of any courtroom within the system, appellate courts, both the courts of appeal 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 is not the predisposition of the bench, it would 

not help them in their advocacy. And I think that this is one of the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
93 

few areas of the public sector that remains free of cameras, and we 

are still using sketches and audiotapes, which seems anachronistic. 

I just think that change is inevitable. I would be interested to 

hear whether you would contemplate a pilot in your own Court or 

why the dynamic is so different with an audiotape versus a videotape. 

Justice BREYER. The answer is I think I don’t know. I think I 

know fairly well after a long time the arguments for and against. 

If you bring courtrooms into—cameras into the oral argument, 

there is a big plus for the Court and for the public. I think they 

will see that we do our job seriously; we don’t always get everything right, but we take it very seriously. People are well prepared, 

the lawyers are well prepared, the judges are trying to think out 

problems that are difficult problems. And for the public to see that, 

I think, would be a plus. 

So why not do it? The concerns are not, I think, totally the ones 

you have mentioned, but that is part of it. The concerns are if we 

bring it into our Court, we are assembled, and if it is in our Court, 

it is likely to be in every court in the country, including criminal 

procedures where there are separate problems raised as well, 

judges, juries, witnesses and so forth. 

A second problem is will understanding be promoted if you can— 

because you can only show the oral argument, which is 1 percent 

of what goes on. And people relate to what they see much more 

than they relate to what is in writing. And we are deciding cases 

that we have results for 300 million people, and only 6 of them are 

in front of us, and we have to worry a lot about what our ruling 

will do to the 299,999,000, et cetera, that aren’t there, and so will 

there be misunderstanding about that? 

And the third, which I think is minor, but it is possibly there, 

it is not that the lawyers or judges or anybody would act up. I don’t 

thing they really would. We just had the Canadians in a visit to 

us, and they have it in there, their Supreme Court, and it has 

worked out all right. But there is some concern about what—I 

mean, 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 

is 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? 

Now, you can take those three worries I have 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 has 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 is why I think what is 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 comfortable is a long, complicated matter. 

I have always said it will involve studies, and serious studies, not 

just ones promoted by the press, serious studies of what has happened in different places. And when I say that, everyone goes to 

sleep, because when you mention the word ‘‘study,’’ that is a good 

somnorific. But I think something like that is necessary. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
94 

I like these pilot programs even in other courts. I think there are 

things to be learned, and I think eventually we will get the comfort 

level, but I think we are not there yet. 

Mr. SCHIFF. If I can engage a little bit on that, because I think 

you mention 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 is, in my view, a far greater chance of misunderstanding if the public isn’t able to see. There is far greater, I think, 

opportunity for people to be suspicious of the 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 

understand what it does better. It would be beneficial to the public 

to gain that understanding. I think that clearly trumps any risk of 

misunderstanding, which is always going to be present, and I think 

is more present when things are done less visibly than with more 

visibility. 

Is that the tapping of the gavel? 

Mr. SERRANO. The 9-minute gavel, yes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Okay. I will wrap up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I 

knew I shouldn’t have made the comment about the Red Sox. 

I also think that the kind of slippery slope point that if you do 

it in the appellate court, you must do 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 is true in our profession as well. A lot of what we do 

is in writing, and 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 up and you 

said, we just have to decide. I don’t think a study is going to give 

you a comfort level. I think the only thing that will give you a comfort level is by taking the plunge. I also think, Justice, it is just 

inevitable. And if it is inevitable, we might as well plunge forward. 

And I appreciate the chairman’s indulgence. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

The gentleman brings up an interesting issue, one that the chairman, since his days in the State assembly, has dealt with about 

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 is precisely the fact both on the left and on the right 

there 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 how many 

questions he had? Did you hear Thomas? Oh, my God. 

Justice THOMAS. Or you didn’t hear me. 

Mr. SERRANO. Did you see them there? 

That is my concern. And I am sure, in the desire for full disclosure, people are going to say tonight that, you know, what am I, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
95 

for covering things up? 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. 

Justice BREYER. There is a difference. Can I? 

Mr. SERRANO. Sure. 

Justice BREYER. It is sometimes overlooked, but I think it is an 

important one in the nature of the jobs. Your job is to write some 

words on a piece of paper, and those words tell people what to do 

or what not to do. But they don’t tell on that paper, they don’t say 

why you wrote the words. That is not the nature of the job. So obviously there is an inside story that is not on that paper. 

A judge’s job is different. A good appellate judge, the ideal is you 

write not just the words, but you write the reasons why you wrote 

the words. And if you are honest and good, they explain the real 

reasons why you wrote the words. 

So in that sense the process is quite different, and it is a process 

that takes 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 is something 

that worries us. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, if I could just jump in, one quick 

point. 

Mr. SERRANO. You know, Mr. Crenshaw here is not happy. Go 

ahead. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Crenshaw is such a gentleman, he will 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 find the questions you ask shed light on sometimes 

your own thinking, sometimes on the issues in the case. I think the 

more the public has a chance to see how thoughtful and probing 

those questions are, I think, as your original comments indicated, 

it is good for the Court, and it is good for the public. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Crenshaw. 

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 

are not on television. So I don’t know if that is true to the Supreme 

Court, but we have kind of seen that over the years. 

Let me say that I have looked at the numbers and listened to 

your testimony. The budget requests are certainly reasonable, a 

modest increase. The building is pretty much on time and on budget. You are asking for 12 instead of 24 additional security folks. So 

I don’t have a lot to quarrel with in terms of budget requests. 

I just have a couple of questions I am kind of 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 

straws and you come up short every time? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
96 

Justice THOMAS. Well, actually it is probably a combination. But 

if you would bear with me 1 minute, I would like to just address 

the question of the increases on—the 5 percent increase that Mr. 

Schiff asked before, and that is the proposed increase for 2011 for 

the members of the Court is 1.4 percent. That is the mandatory increase. And for the Court personnel it is 1.4 percent also. So it is 

different from the 5 percent that is the overall budget. They are 

unrelated. 

I was asked in my early years on the Court to participate, to be 

a part of the budget committee, and that meant that you 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, help him out. I think 

it is good for the Court and good for the institution to be asked to 

do these things. And I think, like anything else, you get used to 

it, and you would 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 we—I think I—speaking for me, I enjoy 

this. I have gotten to know the members of the committee, and I 

think it is good for both institutions. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, you do a great job, and I am glad you are 

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. I know you-all don’t have a whole lot to do with the 

selection. That is outside your hands. But you-all do select clerks. 

And I was just looking at the kind of list of the clerks who have 

served over the years, and it seems to me there is 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 who might 

aspire to be a clerk for a Supreme Court Justice someday. I wonder 

what they think when they look at that, and the kind of question 

becomes—is the reason for that because people from Harvard or 

Yale are more qualified to be Supreme Court Justice clerks, or do 

a disproportionate share of students from those schools apply? And 

is that something that you-all think about, you know, the educational diversity aspect of being a clerk? 

Justice THOMAS. Well, that is an interesting question. The courts 

are predominantly Harvard and Yale. There is no educational diversity there to speak of. The only member of the Court who is 

non-Ivy League is the member who is retiring, who announced his 

retirement. So I don’t think that is unusual. You do have excellent 

candidates from those two schools, Harvard and Yale. 

I, for one, think that there are excellent kids all over the country. 

I think there are excellent potential nominees to the Court all over 

the country. And I would be concerned about it, but I am not—I 

think you have elections for that. That is 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 

don’t see it as a negative when a kid is number 1 or 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, you know, it is an indiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
97 

vidual thing. I hire my own clerks, and I have my own criteria. 

And I am certain the other members of the Court have theirs, and 

with that may go their comfort level with moving beyond the Ivy 

Leagues or too far beyond. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, one last question. I have always 

got two bright people in front of me today, and when I was reading 

law, one time 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 mocks the natural desire for definitiveness. 

Does that ring a bell with you-all? Was that Felix Frankfurter? Not 

that you would know that, but I always wondered who said that. 

I need to go back and look that up. 

Justice BREYER. Google. 

Justice THOMAS. You should Google it, yes. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I will do it. 

Justice THOMAS. On your BlackBerry. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I will do that. I once Googled a quote by Jonathan Swift. 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 will go 

Google that quote, and maybe I can find out who said that. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I will do it for you. Write it down. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. 

Good morning. Let me just say once again how delighted I am 

to see you both. It is really a rare opportunity that we have a 

chance to interact with the judiciary, so thank you for being here. 

I want to follow up Mr. Crenshaw. Boy, he asked my question, 

but let me just follow up a little bit and take it a little bit deeper 

in terms of how I would like to see your answer a little bit more 

in terms of a broader answer. 

First of all, I started here on Capitol Hill as an intern in the 

early 1970s, became a chief of staff, and then went to California, 

ran for the legislature, and now I am back here. It has been very 

difficult. And I have seen some progress in terms of women and 

people of color in these key positions. Not enough. Actually we 

have, to the Speaker’s credit, looked at diversity here on Capitol 

Hill, and we are still not where we should be in terms of reflecting 

the diversity of our great country. 

Now we are in the midst or the final stages of the census. We 

know based on the previous census we are looking at 15.4 percent 

persons of Hispanic decent, 12.8 percent African American, 4.5 percent Asian, 1 percent American Indian. And so I know that the 

courts want to strive to be representative of the American people 

in terms of your staffing and law clerks, but we have to examine, 

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 are excellent 

institutions. However, we know that there are few minorities attending these law schools. And so I want to find out if you have 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
98 

an actual concerted effort to identify law clerks from schools like 

Howard or Texas Southern or even, in terms of regional diversity, 

Boalt Hall in California? And 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 are doing in that respect, if 

you do have a 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—— 

Justice THOMAS. Well, the pool that we—that is the pool for us. 

All of our clerks, or virtually all, with rare exception come from the 

courts of appeals. So you start with the courts of appeals, that is 

our base. Then it is individual after that. But I know of very few 

clerks who have not at least clerked at the court of appeals. Some 

clerk more than once or clerk at various levels. So the clerks that 

you are looking at, you look first at the courts of appeals; then you 

look at what we pull from that. 

Now, I have to admit I have a broad base as far as the law 

schools, probably as broad as anyone at the Court with exception 

of maybe Justice Stevens, and so there are quite a few in the pool. 

The reality is that it is the Hispanics and Blacks who do not show 

up in any great numbers. 

Ms. LEE. They don’t show up why? 

Justice THOMAS. Well, you just look in the pool. 

Ms. LEE. So how do we increase the pool? 

Justice THOMAS. Well, I don’t think it is up to us. 

Ms. LEE. I would hope there would be a strategy. 

Justice THOMAS. I don’t think it is up to us to increase the pool. 

The pool comes from law schools and from other judges. And then 

there are other things that go into that. But with that aside, as far 

as—I don’t really—I have to admit, I don’t really disaggregate my 

selection process that way. I just broaden it, and the kids show up. 

I have had very good success in kids who have done well. But—— 

Ms. LEE. Who are people of color and minorities? 

Justice THOMAS. Yes, I mean, but mostly—you know, again, that 

is not as big an aspect of what I do. It happens. There are some 

who show up, and I don’t even know what their color—— 

Ms. LEE. No, I understand that, but in a country where we have 

a history of discrimination, to show up—— 

Justice THOMAS. I understand that. 

Ms. LEE [continuing]. Just to show up, but we need to have a 

concerted effort to make sure those who show up are inclusive of 

the population. 

Justice THOMAS. But what is there is there. I think that what 

you look at is what is in the pool. 

Ms. LEE. But what is in the pool has to do, unfortunately, with 

some of your decisions on the Supreme Court that have really shut 

out many people of color in some of these institutions. So if we go 

there, we could really have a good, healthy discussion about some 

of your decisions. But I would think that we would want to see a 

broader pool. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
99 

Justice THOMAS. I think everybody wants it. 

Ms. LEE. And you would find ways to help at least at the court 

of appeals. 

Justice THOMAS. The wanting and the reality are two different 

things. I think that we should have people from all over the country on the Court. And as I have indicated, we tend to heavily lean 

toward one region in the country. 

Ms. LEE. Justice Thomas, I am trying to figure out how do we 

change that? Because you don’t want to see a Supreme Court that 

is discriminatory, de facto, and that is what happens. 

Justice THOMAS. I think you do that—as I said, you broaden the 

areas that you look. Many of us do that. I don’t think we have the 

capacity to change other Federal judges’ hiring practices. 

Ms. LEE. You don’t have the capacity, but—— 

Justice THOMAS. To change other Federal judges’ hiring practices. 

Ms. LEE. Wouldn’t it be great if you sent out an edict to say, 

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a diverse law clerk pool that reflects 

this whole country? 

Justice THOMAS. I think they know that. I think that that is one 

thing—— 

Ms. LEE. They may not if you don’t have the pool of people there 

to pull from. They may not know that; that that is what you all 

want to see. Somehow you need to communicate if that is what you 

would like to see, rather than just say, We will take who shows up. 

Because we know who is going to show up, especially from Harvard 

and Yale. 

Justice BREYER. I would say this conversation is not as in date 

as you might think. That is, when I came to the Court 15 years 

ago, I was a little surprised at the small number of minorities and 

people of color and Hispanic background who were law clerks. I 

would say in the last 15 years, there has been a sea change, and 

I think that it has not been as difficult as people might think. And 

I think once you establish credibility in the areas of people who 

might think, ‘‘Well, I don’t even have a chance,’’ you say, ‘‘No, you 

do have a chance.’’ I can’t say that, but I have to know people who 

will know other people who will tell other people. And then gradually people begin to think, ‘‘Oh, yeah, maybe I do have a chance’’. 

And then they maybe get into this pool, whatever the pool might 

be. In other words, like anything else, when you are hiring people 

or anyone else hires people, you have to do so through networks 

and contacts. That is at least part of it. And I have seen that 

change. 

So I don’t think I have had a huge problem here in this respect. 

Not perfect, but not the kind of problem that I think you might be 

thinking of. I think there have been quite a few in my office of 

very, very diverse backgrounds. And it has not—I will even tell the 

chairman, I have even, Mr. Chairman, had a law clerk y sus 

abuelos son de Ponce—I don’t even know if Ponce should be considered part of Puerto Rico because after all, if you are from Ponce, 

you are really special. 

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I think the facts would speak for themselves. I would just like to ask to see a report of ethnic, gender, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
100 

and regional diversity. Is that possible, a current report, so we can 

look at that? 

Mr. SERRANO. This is a very important issue for us and for this 

committee and it has been for me as it has been for you, Ms. Lee. 

I can understand what the justices are saying, and maybe it is not 

their role to say, Send me this person or that person. So in view 

of that—— 

Ms. LEE. I understand that. 

Mr. SERRANO. In view of that, this committee asked the Judicial 

Conference to give us a report. And the report that came back was 

pretty pathetic about the numbers at that level in their courts. So 

what this committee wants to continue to try to do is apply pressure, if you will, where the pressure needs to be, which is at those 

so-called lower levels, to make sure that the pool is increased. 

Our information is that that is not happening; it continues not 

to happen. And I intend for this committee to begin to tie what we 

do to an understanding that the federal judiciary can’t come every 

year and ask for a lot of support from us and then continue to give 

us those numbers. 

Ms. LEE. Sure. And I understand that, and I have seen those 

numbers. And I hope we get an updated report also, Mr. Chairman. 

But I also think somehow there should be some sense of intent, or 

the Supreme Court justices should make a statement that this is 

something you would like. You can’t say, Yes, send us a diverse 

pool. But you can at least indicate in some way that it would be 

nice to see diversity reflected, and anything you could do would be 

very helpful. You all would know how to nuance that. 

Justice BREYER. I agree with that. 

Ms. LEE. I am just asking if somehow you can do that minimally. 

Justice BREYER. Done. I agree with you. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SERRANO. For the record, I want to state that Ms. Lee asked 

a question I was going to ask and—— 

Ms. LEE. Mr. Crenshaw asked it. 

Mr. SERRANO. Justice Thomas, you and I have discussed this 

publicly for a while. This is still a concern. And I add to my concern in the past to Ms. Lee’s current concern which I think is important; that in a way that does not compromise the integrity of 

the Court, the Supreme Court itself speak in some way on this 

issue. I am not asking for a Court decision. I am still waiting on 

the one where the Puerto Rican can run for President of the United 

States. That is another issue. 

But you make some kind of a statement that things have to 

change at the lower level because there is a problem. And, unfortunately, every year when you folks come here, it is the Court that 

takes the brunt of the questions when, in fact, I agree with you 

that the pool is a problem. 

But in addition to the pool being a problem, or in spite of the 

pool being a problem, I think if the Court was to say we need this 

to change, we could begin to see change. And I have nothing 

against Harvard or Yale. There are different places throughout the 

country that can provide good folks. 

Now, whenever we have you before us, we try to speak only to 

budget issues and we can’t pass up the opportunity to touch slightVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
101 

ly on other things. We won’t get into any decisions. As we honor 

the long tenure and important contributions of Justice Stevens over 

the next few months, I cannot help but notice that we lose certain 

unique characteristics from the demographics of the courts with his 

or anyone’s retirement at the end of this term. Justice Stevens is 

our last remaining member of the Court to serve in the military 

during World War II. He is the one remaining Protestant member 

of the Court and the last justice whose Supreme Court confirmation hearing was not televised, amongst other things. 

As we reflect on what we lose from Justice Stevens’s long tenure 

and experience, we must also begin to look forward to what people 

want and expect of a new nominee. Absent any judicial philosophy, 

which all of us here probably have a different opinion on, are there 

any experiences, legal or otherwise, that you believe the Court 

would be well served by in a new justice? 

And secondly, do you think having all the current justices with 

previous judicial experience at the Federal courts of appeals helps 

or hinders deciding cases? Do you think the Court would do well 

to have a justice with experience at the State level of our judicial 

system, as Justice Souter did, or perhaps to have an experience as 

an elected official, as some other members have had? So without 

again getting into philosophy, what best serves the Court in your 

opinion? 

Justice THOMAS. Well, to all of the above, Mr. Chairman, I would 

say yes. I don’t think it matters as much what the experience is, 

as long as it is experience making decisions, and hard decisions. 

Just as I think it helps us if someone is from a different part of 

the country, it helps us if someone practiced law or maybe taught 

a particular area or prosecuted or defended in a particular area. A 

judge on a lower court, a trial judge versus an appellate judge, all 

of those things help—Byron White was a wonderful judge, another 

World War II veteran. He had not been a judge at all. He was a 

deputy attorney general and in private practice before he came on 

the Court. Just an excellent member of the Court. 

So I think all of the above works. What we look for, those of us 

who have been there a while, someone we can get along with, an 

honest person, a person who will be conscientious, a person who 

will realize it is a small group of us making hard decisions. I don’t 

think we ever discussed, at least during my tenure, how a particular person would vote. And that is the way we operate. But I 

don’t have a formula for what a judge should actually have. I like 

the way the Court is; people come at problems with different perspectives and with a different background. I think it is helpful to 

have that sort of mix. And I think that most sitting judges learn 

in doing this job that it is a humbling job, simply because the only 

people who have ready answers are the people who have no authority to make the decision and no responsibility to make the decision. 

Those of us who have to make it, have to be more cautious and 

have to be more humble about our abilities. So I don’t think any 

of us would come out and say to you, We have a formula for what 

the next member should look like. Just as long as the person is a 

capable, good person. 

Justice BREYER. I think in respect to what you are talking about, 

you should keep in mind the job—and it’s why it is a better job for 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
102 

an older person, in a way—it is sitting in a room. That is how I 

spend my day; I spend my day looking at the word processor. You 

are reading and you are writing. I told my son that. I said, ‘‘If you 

do your homework really well, you get a job and you can do homework the whole rest of your life.’’ But what that means is you have 

to know not just what those books say—that is part of it—and 

what all those cases say and what the briefs say—that is part of 

it—but you have to have what I would call a certain kind of imagination because you have to be able to think yourself beyond the 

room into the lives of the people whom these decisions will actually 

affect, and you have to have a realistic imagination so you will understand what the impact of this decision is going to be on those 

people. 

I cannot give you a magic touchstone that will tell you whether 

you have that kind of person. All I can tell you is that the nine people that are there try as hard as they can, and sometimes they succeed and sometimes they don’t. But it is that kind of imaginative 

experience of others that really, I think, makes the difference in 

terms of how you write those words. 

Justice THOMAS. Yeah. 

Mr. SERRANO. It is interesting, Justice Thomas, when you say it 

is a humbling experience. I will tell you a quick experience that I 

had. I represent, as you know, the South Bronx and there are a lot 

of immigrants in the South Bronx, there are a lot of folks with 

English as a second language, a lot of poor folks, a lot of folks with 

little education. So I have been explaining on a daily basis, after 

20 years in Congress, what it is a Member of Congress does. It is 

a daily routine for me, either in a school or in a community center 

or on the street. 

When Sonia Sotomayor was being considered, granted, a lot of 

the excitement was that she was a woman from the Bronx, that 

she was a Hispanic woman, that her parents were from Puerto 

Rico. But there was no explanation on my part as to what she was 

being nominated for. Everybody understood ‘‘el Corta Supremo.’’ It 

was as if they knew that this was huge, this was big, this was important, this was the coming of age for the community; and it became something where everywhere I went you are going to make 

sure this happens: Right, oh, yeah, I spoke to the Senate and it is 

a done deal. 

But the importance—I have told you in the past, much to the dismay of some of my friends on the left, that I feel a little uneasy 

about having a hearing for the Supreme Court because of the respect I have for the Court. I don’t always agree with its decisions, 

but I have a respect for what it is. It is humbling, but the public 

understands. The public understands the importance of what you 

do and the bearing it has on the future of our country. So we always thank you for your service and tell the other seven that we 

do the same for them. 

Justice THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is always an 

honor being here. You and I have been at this together for a decade 

and a half. 

Mr. SERRANO. I am glad to hear that you don’t think there has 

to be a judge on the court up here, because I am not a judge. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
103 

Justice THOMAS. And you don’t have to be born in the United 

States. You never have to answer that question. 

Mr. SERRANO. Really? So you haven’t answered the one about 

whether I can serve as President, but you answer this one? 

Justice THOMAS. We are evading that one. We are giving you another option. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thanks a lot. 

Justice THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Carrying on this thread a little bit, so the last 

three justices appointed to the Supreme Court were 55, 56 and 50. 

The last retiree, 90. Some have referred to becoming a justice or 

an appellate judge as taking the veil. And I am just curious, do you 

all think that it is good for the Court to have these younger justices 

serve terms that could be easily 40 years in length? I am curious. 

Justice THOMAS. Well, you are talking to a person who was appointed in his forties. I guess I am sort of an extreme example of 

your example. I can say this, and let me answer it this way: I am 

very pleased that I had the opportunity to work with members of 

the Court who had long tenures. Each of them brought something 

unique. They have a view of the law and the job that is different 

and has more depth to it than when those of us in our first 2 or 

3 years. They have been there. 

To hear Justice Stevens talk about being there in the early days 

with Justice Stewart, and what the decisions were, and having sat 

on so many cases that now form the precedential foundation for 

much of our jurisprudence, it gives you an advantage when you 

have people with that much experience. 

I don’t have a magic formula for how long judges should be on 

courts. If it was 25 years, I would be close to done; I would move 

on to another phase of life. But it is not that. It is a lifetime appointment in this country. And I see from my perspective, not necessarily for me, but I see some advantages to it and some disadvantages. But so far I just simply do not see, in serving with members 

who were in their later years, I just haven’t seen all that many disadvantages. They have been wonderful colleagues, to a person. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I appreciate that. Justice Breyer. 

Justice BREYER. I don’t know if the right number is 40. I don’t 

know what it is. It needn’t be that long. But you would have 

missed Holmes, some of Holmes’s service and Brandeis. What I 

think is important is that they be long-term. And the reason I 

think that is because it means that you will have members appointed by different Presidents. And while Presidents make a huge 

mistake if they think they are going to appoint somebody who is 

going to agree with them all the time, they—Teddy Roosevelt appointed Holmes. Three months later he is on the wrong side of the 

Northern Securities case and Roosevelt says, ‘‘I can carve a judge 

with more backbone out of a banana.’’ He was pretty annoyed. 

But on general philosophy, on general philosophy, there is more 

of a correlation. All right. I came to this Court. I have been a judge 

in New England. I grew up in San Francisco. I spent a lot of time 

teaching, and I suddenly thought, my God, I have met a lot of people who I disagree with on something, but boy they are really here 

and they really disagree. And then I think about that for 5 minVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
104 

utes, and I think that is a very good thing. This is a very big country. There are 300 million people. They have 900 million points of 

view. There is every race, every religion, there is everybody under 

the sun in this country. And they have learned how to live together 

under law. And our greatest perk, our greatest benefit, is we get 

to sit there and see that. 

So it is a very, very good thing that I serve with people who don’t 

always agree with me—sometimes they might—but who don’t always agree with me and have different points of view. I think you 

ought to serve at least long enough to be sure you pick up a lot 

of that. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I appreciate that. 

Let me ask another question that is a rather touchy subject. And 

I promise you, I am not trying to put you on the spot. But this is 

a big issue, given the fact there are a lot of judicial vacancies 

around the country at all levels. Are we having a tough time retaining judges because we are not giving any cost-of-living increases? 

Justice BREYER. Yes. 

Justice THOMAS. Yes. 

Justice BREYER. In my opinion, yes. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Easy enough. 

Justice THOMAS. Not only are you having trouble retaining some 

of the ones who are on the bench, we are beginning to see 

pushback or resistance to even being nominated by some of the 

best talent in the country. But that is just a part of the reality. 

But I would like to just take a brief second to touch on just one 

aspect of the diversity question because I think Ms. Lee had a good 

point. One of the things that you run into when you visit law 

schools that are not the Ivy Leagues is a sense among the students—and it doesn’t matter whether they are minorities or women 

or males—that is, just many of the students—that there is no 

chance that they can be here at our Court as law clerks or any 

other capacity. That is something that I think we certainly can 

eliminate in saying that that possibility exists. And that spreads 

throughout. 

I also think that Justice Breyer is absolutely right that a lot of 

our hiring—there are only four to each of us a year. There is no 

system. We all do it individually. It depends on the people you 

know. So if you know more people, say, at the University of Georgia or George Mason or other schools, the University of Missouri 

or Creighton, you have a tendency to rely on their advice about a 

young person who is applying. And it is very individualized. So the 

broader that net is and the more—the least resistance you have to 

people applying, the more chances you have of bringing some of the 

individuals in who are now being excluded on a large scale or a significant scale. 

Mrs. EMERSON. And I am grateful for you saying that. I look at 

my husband, who is a brilliant attorney, who got into two schools, 

the University of Missouri and Yale. He applied to only two and 

chose to go to the University of Missouri to prove that he could be 

as good, if not better, than a Yale lawyer. That is a terribly silly 

reason and risky. But nonetheless, I just think it is important to 

move just beyond the Ivy Leagues because there are so many 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
105 

young people, who just simply can’t afford to go to the Ivy League 

schools, who are brilliant and deserve to have opportunities. And 

I am glad to see the sensitivity toward bringing in more diverse 

schools. 

Mr. SERRANO. We are going to wrap up in a couple of minutes, 

both of you. When you spoke about the lack of pay or other reasons, I am reminded of a thought I have every so often; and that 

is that we are a people who love our country. We love our system, 

and we should. It is the greatest system in the world. We love our 

democracy, and we should. It is the greatest democracy in the 

world. We love it so much that at times we act like we are trying 

to impose it on other people in other countries because we like it 

so much. 

We don’t care so much for the people who run the system or the 

people who make the judging systems. It seems like a lot of Americans think this runs by itself, it was set up and it runs by itself. 

So there is this incredible contradiction, but healthy, I guess, 

where we love what we have going, but somehow the roads get 

built by themselves and nobody has to approve that budget, and 

the hospitals get funded by themselves, and there is no one in the 

courts except a computer. 

Let me ask you just a couple of more questions and we will wrap 

up. This one, bear with me, there is a brief statement before. There 

has been some confusion as to the Supreme Court’s requirements 

for granting cert and stays in capital cases; that is, in cases involving the death penalty. My understanding is that generally the Supreme Court only requires four votes to grant cert, which allows 

that case to be reviewed by the Court. 

However, it is also my understanding that the Court has never 

made explicit its policy for granting stays in cases involving the 

death penalty, although many scholars of the Court indicate that 

the Court needs a five-person majority to grant a stay in death 

penalty cases. This results in potential situations in which the 

Court could grant cert to hear a case involving the death penalty 

for a particular individual, but not stop an execution from going 

forward. 

Would it be possible to get a firm explanation of the voting requirements that are necessary to grant a stay of execution in capital cases? Do you think that cases such as those discussed in the 

recent New York Times article on this issue where the Supreme 

Court decided to hear a case involving the death penalty, but refused to stop an execution going forward until the Court had heard 

the merits of the appeal, does that present a problem? And I apologize if you feel that I may be going into Court decisions. I am trying not do that at any of these hearings. 

Justice THOMAS. I think it is a fair question, without discussing 

the actual case involved. I think that would be inappropriate. The 

practice has been, since I have been at the Court, to be very sensitive to this difference between the number of members of the 

Court it takes to grant cert versus the number it takes to stay any 

action, not just executions. And in the past, the reason it rarely 

comes up is because it is resolved internally with individuals casting a vote to stay it, even if they don’t agree with it. So you don’t 

have that inconsistency. And occasionally you might have a difVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
106 

ference of opinion as to the underlying merit of the grant. But 

there are reasons in these sort of exceptional cases why you don’t 

get the fifth vote, but the normal practice is that the five is almost 

automatic. So it is rare. 

Justice BREYER. It is important to see, in things like this, because it is a very important matter, that there are informal ways 

of working things out. And so the four who would like it granted 

also are thinking, well, there is an issue here. And you might have 

enough discussion with the other members of the Court where you 

would think, well, it would be an issue, but it is not necessarily a 

winning issue you have here. And others might test the strength 

of feeling, and it is perhaps a little bit like you might have in a 

caucus or something, or a discussion where you try to get things 

to work out. And normally it works out, not always to everybody’s 

satisfaction, but normally it works out. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Justice THOMAS. That difference is always there. And just by the 

rarity of the occurrence you can see that it works out. And I think 

Justice Breyer’s keyword there is these ‘‘informal’’ arrangements, of 

which we have many at the Court, allow you to make adjustments 

as circumstances change. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. Just ending here. 

March 18th, you started hosting the Web site, the Court itself. 

Will you be keeping records of the different pages or parts within 

the site that get hits? And how will you use that? 

Justice THOMAS. I am not aware of whether or not we are going 

to do it for each page. But let me have our Web people, our IT people, prepare a report and get back to you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Great it would be good to find out and also how 

you are going to use that data. 

Justice BREYER. If you have a chance, it is 

www.supremecourt.gov. 

Mr. SERRANO. I have been there. 

Justice BREYER. Good. 

Mr. SERRANO. And by the way, I apologize—talking about technology—for being a little late today. I was putting on Facebook that 

we were going to be on C–SPAN. So I thought it was important. 

And to make our C–SPAN friends happy, my last question is: 

Last year C–SPAN aired a special series on the Supreme Court. All 

the justices agreed to be interviewed. The series enabled the public 

to hear directly from the justices about their work. 

What other steps have the justices taken, either individually or 

collectively, to help inform the public about the Court’s operations 

and its important role in our democracy and in our constitutional 

structure? I just say that I am a big fan, as I told you before about 

the whole situation with Sotomayor, of informing the public more 

and more and more of what the Court is all about, because it is 

so important. 

Justice THOMAS. I think that on what you see—when we started 

this conversation about informing the public, think of the things we 

were talking about—making the briefs available. All of the briefs 

are now available. 

Mr. SERRANO. A short time after. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
107 

Justice THOMAS. That is right. It is a joint arrangement with the 

ABA. It is right after they are filed. 

Now, with a joint arrangement with C–SPAN, you saw that wonderful presentation where every member participated. And C– 

SPAN does a particularly good job because they don’t have an 

angle other than to get it done right. And I think you are going 

to see that the Web site, the fact that we have control of it now, 

allows us to do more and more of this; to do things, for example, 

to work with our historical society, to work with other institutions, 

the ABA and organizations like C–SPAN, to make the Court accessible to people who can’t get there. 

We can talk about oral arguments. Oral arguments are a minuscule part of the decision making process in my opinion. And it is 

also a minuscule part of what we do and what happens at the 

Court. 

But there is so much more that is already there, and more that 

will be accessible to the public on the Web site and in other ways. 

You will see more cooperation with, I think, organizations like C– 

SPAN and the American Bar Association. 

Justice BREYER. I think that may be the only single thing we can 

do in response to your earlier question; and that is, Why do people 

in this country not understand what it is we do? And although you, 

I am sure—and I know that we do, and I have seen him give an 

infinite number of speeches, Justice Thomas, to the Horatio Alger 

Society, any group that comes into the Court. We are talking to 

high schools, we are talking to grammar schools when they come 

in. 

Yesterday I was at Duke, talking to some law schools. And C– 

SPAN is such a help in this, beyond belief, because they will put 

these things on. I grant you sometimes it is for insomniacs, but 

nonetheless it is very helpful. I mention it because—— 

Mr. SERRANO. When it is midnight in New York, it is 9:00 in 

California. 

Justice BREYER. Justice O’Connor has been devoting her retirement years to this, as has Justice Souter. And what the ‘‘this’’ is, 

is trying to get teaching of civics restored to the high schools and 

trying to get, say, you or others in the government to explain to 

children through a lesson plan, through a lesson plan, what it is 

you do, so they take it in in an organized way. 

She has a Web site. The Annenberg Foundation has been supporting it. There are other foundations, Carnegie, that support it. 

And I believe in it completely and I am sure you do too. And we 

love spending time doing that. 

Mr. SERRANO. I know that the last time I was at the Court seeing certain people that I see here at this hearing dressed in a special attire to make a presentation, that was quite historic and 

beautiful. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
108 

Once again, thank you for coming before us. Thank you for the 

service to our country. As we move forward on this budget process, 

we will take into consideration your request. And you know that 

in the past, we have done the right thing and we will continue to 

do the right thing. 

Justice THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. 

Emerson. 

Mr. SERRANO. The hearing is adjourned. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
109 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 190 62204A.053
110 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 191 62204A.054
111 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 192 62204A.055
112 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 193 62204A.056
113 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 194 62204A.057
114 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 195 62204A.058
115 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 196 62204A.059
116 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 197 62204A.060
117 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 198 62204A.061
118 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 199 62204A.062
119 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 200 62204A.063
120 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 201 62204A.064
121 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 202 62204A.065

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
(123) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010. 

FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE GENERAL 

SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

WITNESS 

MARTHA N. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES 

Mr. SERRANO. Good morning. I am sorry I am somewhat late. I 

was trying to reach a group that came from Puerto Rico for tomorrow’s big bill, and so we are all running all over the place. And yes, 

we ran that race this morning, and I finished the race. 

Mrs. EMERSON. You ran it or walked it. 

Mr. SERRANO. I ran it. It might have looked like I was walking, 

but trust me. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Oh, no, no, no, I thought it was a walk race, not 

a run race. 

Mr. SERRANO. You mean versus like a Republican-Republican 

and a Democrat-Democrat. 

Mr. SERRANO. No, it was a race. 

And my team, the Serrano Peppers did very well. 

Mrs. EMERSON. What a cute name. 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes. Okay. Today we hear testimony on the fiscal 

year 2011 budget request of the General Services Administration, 

GSA. We welcome Administrator Martha Johnson, who was confirmed this February to discuss this agency’s fiscal year 2011 budget submission. Ms. Johnson served as co-lead for the Obama Presidential Transition Agency Review Team for GSA. Among other positions, she served as GSA chief of staff from 1996 to 2001 under 

then Administrator David Barram. From 1993 to 1996, she was assistant deputy secretary at the Department of Commerce. 

Congratulations on your confirmation. We are glad to have an 

administrator in place and are happy to have you here for your 

first hearing before us. 

The GSA has been supporting Federal agencies and their workers since 1949 by acquiring goods and providing services and facilities to support the needs of those agencies. The GSA performs a 

wide range of services from the construction of Border Patrol stations through the management of many e-gov initiatives. 

Additionally, the GSA coordinates and evaluates governmentwide policies related to the management of government property, 

technology and administrative services. 

The Recovery Act provided GSA with $5.55 billion for green 

projects, new construction, including Federal Court houses, lands 

ports of entry and initial construction of the DHS consolidated 

headquarters on St. Elizabeths campus in D.C. This project, at 4.5 

million total square feet, is the single largest commission in GSA’s 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
124 

history. I look forward to a discussion of GSA’s continuing implementation of the Recovery Act funds. 

The administration is requesting $674.8 million in discretionary 

funding for 2011, which is a 13.5 percent increase over 2010. Given 

the President’s freeze on nonsecurity discretionary spending, we 

will need to take a close look at all agency requests for increases. 

Administrator Johnson, this subcommittee looks forward to the 

remarks you will make today. I would like to ask that you please 

keep your opening statement to 5 minutes. Your entire written 

statement will be submitted for the record. 

And now I would like to turn to my colleague, my sister, the 

greatest ranking member in the world, and a person who believes 

that races are walks. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Probably because I would have had to have 

walked it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Or because every race for you in November is a 

walk. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I only wish. Is that an endorsement? 

Mr. SERRANO. I stand by my previous statement. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

We really appreciate your being here, Ms. Johnson, and we welcome you for your first appearance before the Appropriations Committee. 

I must tell you that having spent a lot of time reviewing the GSA 

budget, I find it one of the more complex budgets in our jurisdiction. So I really appreciate the Chairman holding this hearing. And 

I appreciate the fact that you all really touch the lives and workings day to day of every Federal agency and every Federal employee. And the fact is that the level of business you all do is quite 

staggering. 

Just to make a couple of comments. The Federal Buildings Fund 

has grown to over $9 billion a year, and that is not including the 

one time influx of the $5.5 billion that we gave you of stimulus 

funds last year. You all manage a portfolio of almost 9,000 buildings and structures for the Federal agencies that have a replacement value of $70 billion, and you procure over $40 billion in goods 

and services for the Federal agencies. 

So even though it has been a year since the stimulus bill was enacted, I am still having some issues with that $5.5 billion worth of 

stimulus money that we gave to the General Services Administration. Many of the buildings that, as I told you, that were receiving 

funds for modernization were or are recently constructed buildings, 

and I am still not satisfied, or I guess it is just not clear to me, 

why these new buildings were prioritized when you were still facing about a $5.5 billion backlog in building repairs. 

With regard to annual energy savings it is unclear to me how 

much in energy savings will be realized from the modernizations, 

as well as the appropriations accounts which reflect the savings. 

And I will just make a side comment that apparently in the 

Greening of the Capitol, we are all getting new toilets in our offices. And in order to save the amount of water that we need to 

save for energy purposes, one would have to flush their toilet 69 

times a day in order to achieve the water savings that we have 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
125 

been told that these $660 toilets will cost. So therein lies my real 

sort of antipathy about this particular issue. 

I am opposed to the use of stimulus money to fund the escalation 

costs of buildings already being constructed. And I will be curious 

as to how many new jobs, if any, were created by devoting millions 

of so-called stimulus funds to cover escalation costs. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope to continue working with you to ensure 

oversight of billions of taxpayers’ dollars being managed by GSA. 

I just want to make sure that GSA is not just spending money because we gave it to them and because they have lots of it, but that 

every dollar is being used to improve the efficiency and operations 

of the Federal Government. 

So thanks so much for being here today and I look forward to 

your testimony. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you so much. 

Please proceed. As I said, please limit it to 5 minutes, and we 

will put your full statement in the record. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you so very much. 

All right. Chairman Serrano, Ranking Member Emerson and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

me to appear before you today to discuss GSA’s fiscal year 2011 

budget request. I would also like to thank you for your continued 

support of GSA through the appropriations process. The funds you 

provided to GSA in the Recovery Act and in our fiscal year 2010 

appropriation are being dedicated to some of the most pressing 

problems our Nation is facing: stimulating the economy through job 

creation, reducing the Federal Government’s carbon footprint, and 

increasing energy security, and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are 

being spent wisely and transparently. 

As Administrator, my vision is to transform GSA into an innovative change agent for the government. We will change the way we 

acquire, manage and dispose of our assets to improve the environmental and financial performance of the government. We will accelerate our efforts to open government through our government-wide 

policies and expertise in citizen engagement and collaboration. GSA 

will offer new sustainable products and services to our customers 

and, in so doing, will influence their behaviors to reduce consumption, reduce waste, improve efficiency and effectiveness. 

We will make this transformation and improve our performance 

so that GSA is known across the government for three things: innovation, customer intimacy and operational excellence. We have 

demonstrated our commitment to improving these three dimensions of performance by embedding them in our new mission statement, which is, GSA’s mission is to use expertise to provide innovative solutions for our customers in support of their missions and by 

so doing foster an effective, sustainable and transparent government for the American people. 

With that said, GSA’s fiscal year 2011 budget request further 

supports our efforts to achieve our mutual goals of economic recovery, sustainability, and open government. Our budget requests 

$675 million in net budget authority. This amount is just 2.8 percent of our total planned obligations of $24 billion. The majority of 

our funds come in the form of customer reimbursements for goods 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
126 

purchased or rent paid for space under GSA jurisdiction, custody 

or control. 

For the Public Buildings Service, GSA requests $9.2 billion in 

new obligational authority. Of these funds, $676 million are requested for the construction and acquisition of critical facility 

projects for the Department of Homeland Security, Food and Drug 

Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Customs and Border Protection, and the exercise of the lease-purchase option to acquire a building used by the Internal Revenue Service in Martinsburg, West Virginia. 

We also request new obligational authority of $703 million for repairs and alterations to Federal buildings. These funds are used to 

prevent deterioration and damage to buildings, which not only protects the government’s investment but helps to ensure the health 

and safety of building occupants. 

For GSA’s operating appropriations our fiscal year 2011 budget 

requests $321 million. Our operating appropriations provide for 

GSA’s Office of Government-Wide Policy, the many governmentwide programs of the Operating Expenses account, the GSA Office 

of the Inspector General, the Electronic Government Fund, the 

pensions and office staffs of former Presidents and the Federal Citizen Services Fund. This year’s budget also requests funding for a 

new appropriation, the Federal Acquisition Workforce Initiatives, 

whose purpose is to improve Federal contracting. 

In fiscal year 2009, GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service realized 

positive net operating results for all portfolios for the first time 

since establishment. Revenues increased in all FAS portfolios, resulting in total revenues of $9.9 billion, an increase of nearly 7 percent over fiscal year 2008. 

In fiscal years 2010 and 2011, GSA anticipates continued growth 

in FAS business, as we foster collaboration and develop new partnerships. 

The Recovery Act just over one year ago provided GSA with 

$5.85 billion, including $4.5 billion to convert existing GSA facilities into high-performance green buildings; $1.05 billion for the 

construction of new Federal buildings, U.S. courthouses and land 

ports of entry; and $300 million to replace motor vehicles across 

the fleet. As of March 31, 2010, we have obligated over $4.3 billion 

in Recovery Act funds and used the full $300 million provided for 

the energy efficient motor vehicles. 

These funds have a tremendous impact on the economy, and we 

have acquired a number of motor vehicles and demonstrated significant impact on energy usage. We have done our best to maximize economic impact of our recovery funds. We are awarding construction contracts for less than initial estimates. Using our existing authorities, we sold motor vehicles that we replaced with Recovery Act funds and retained nearly $45 million in proceeds, 

which we can then reinvest in new hybrid vehicles. 

To conclude, your approval of GSA’s budget request for 2011 is 

a critical step towards helping GSA achieve our mutual goals of 

economic recovery, sustainability, and open government. Thank 

you. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
127 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 213 here 62204A.066
128 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 214 here 62204A.067
129 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 215 here 62204A.068
130 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 216 here 62204A.069
131 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 217 here 62204A.070
132 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 218 here 62204A.071
133 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 219 here 62204A.072
134 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 220 here 62204A.073
135 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 221 here 62204A.074
136 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 222 here 62204A.075
137 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 223 here 62204A.076
138 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 224 here 62204A.077
139 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 225 here 62204A.078
140 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 226 here 62204A.079
141 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 227 here 62204A.080
142 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 228 here 62204A.081
143 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 229 here 62204A.082
144 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 230 here 62204A.083
145 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 231 here 62204A.084
146 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 232 here 62204A.085
147 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 233 here 62204A.086
148 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 234 here 62204A.087
149 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Thank you for your testimony. One of the objectives of the Recovery Act was to commence with expenditures and activities as quickly as possible, and that is a quote, in order to help create jobs and 

stimulate the economy. Some observers have expressed concern 

that while GSA should ensure funds are prudently managed, its 

Public Buildings Service has not expended the $5.5 billion in funds 

it received as rapidly as the Recovery Act intended. In March 2009, 

GSA identified 254 projects it would fund through Recovery Act appropriations, including $4.2 billion in new construction and building projects upon which GSA could start construction quickly. That 

is another quote. Seven months later, GSA had only expended $57 

million in Recovery Act funds. And the latest report from GSA indicates that $295 million has been expended. 

So the question is, why does it take so long to begin expending 

funds on these projects? And if GSA last year testified that it 

would streamline its procurement process in order to speed the 

award and execution of Recovery Act contracts, what is the status 

of the accelerated initiative, and how effective has it been in reducing the time it takes to get Recovery Act funds into the economy? 

And I think if there was a criticism that you are going to hear 

over and over again, it would be, how come the money is not being 

spent as quickly as it should have been? It would seem to many 

Members of Congress that your agency is one that can expend 

money quicker than others, and you have got things in the pipeline 

all the time, so why isn’t it happening? 

Ms. JOHNSON. There are a couple of ways of approaching that. 

First of all, as I arrive at GSA, one of my critical goals is to help 

GSA do some significant business process reengineering. I think we 

need to work on our systems and reduce significantly some of the 

bureaucratic process that we are working with. 

With respect to recovery funds, the thing that is important to lay 

out is that when we have actually funded projects, there is a tremendous amount of economic activity that is already under way, 

because when we obligate the money, that is a contract to a contractor. The contractor then goes to the bank, gets the money that 

will allow them to borrow against, then goes and hires people, then 

puts them to work, then finishes the job to our satisfaction, then 

bills us, and then we fund it. 

So the obligation and the funding are separated substantially, 

but a fair amount of economic activity is under way. We are actually leveraging the American taxpayer dollar by encouraging and 

engaging in private financing, which then we essentially reimburse 

when the project is done. So there is that—our funding is a lagging 

indicator of the activity, and that is where I think some of the confusion is. 

Obviously, that process, the initial contracting, the initial obligation, needs to be done as promptly and sufficiently as possible, and 

those projects need to be managed well. We do have a PMO across 

the entire country which is watching those and trying to stay on 

top of the project management calculus of them. But it is that 

delay that is not to demonstrate that there is no money moving; 

there is a significant amount of money moving. It is private money, 

and then we will reimburse at the end. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
150 

Mr. SERRANO. All right. I am trying to follow this. So you say the 

key here is that you reimburse at the end? 

Ms. JOHNSON. We fund at the end. 

Mr. SERRANO. So if you obligate to me $100 million, I begin to 

hire people and spend my own money? 

Ms. JOHNSON. You go to the bank and get money. You go and get 

financing for your project, knowing that you have the backing of 

this contract with which you can go to the bank. Then you hire the 

staff, and you start moving on the project. They do the work. And 

then as the project reaches certain milestones, they can come and 

bill us for the dollars, and then that will be returned to the contractor. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. So then the accusation, if you will, or the 

criticism of GSA, would be you are not spending the money as 

quickly as you promised. You would say, we are, it is just that we 

haven’t made the payments because the project is not completed. 

But the money is moving around, and dollars that would ordinarily 

not have been expended by these contractors are because you are 

backing them up with the dollars? I don’t want to put words in 

your mouth. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. I think this is not simple, and I think that 

the notion of spending money is—you know, we fund it at the end, 

but there is money moving, and there are people working. 

But I think it is useful to look at when we obligate, when we do 

that contracting, so that you know what to expect. Trying to reconcile this number to this number is sort of a lot of, I think, unnecessary, you know, complexity. But the fact that we are letting out 

those contracts is a critical milestone. And then when the money— 

it is really a lagging indicator. When the whole recovery project is 

over, we are going to be able to look back and be able to tell you, 

you know, the final big numbers. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I would suggest to you that, not your public 

relations, but your public information effort to be one that explains 

that a little clearer to the Congress because we see it totally differently. And what you are explaining now to me makes sense, 

which is scary, because any time a Federal agency makes sense to 

us, we have to be very nervous about that. But it does make sense, 

but that is not the criticism. The criticism is just the opposite. So 

I think that message, if it is correct and I take it at your word, 

then it has to be put forth. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. I will certainly pay attention to that. 

I believe probably 90 percent of my job is going to be communications, and I think it is because our processes are complicated. 

Mr. Serrano. Let me tell you, the administration is requesting 

$674.86 mi4lion, an increase of $80.4 million, or 13.5 percent, 

above fiscal year 2010. Could you explain what the increase accounts for? 

Ms. JOHNSON. The delta there, about $25 million of that is for 

the Federal Buildings Fund. The rest of it is sort of the $55 million; 

about $5 million of that is $1 million for the e-gov fund, some 

money for the Inspector General, some money to deal with benefits 

for former Presidents, sort of some catch-all of a couple of things 

like that. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
151 

The big chunks, there is about $24.9 million, $25 million, that is 

being tagged we hope for the acquisition workforce for working on 

the acquisition workforce, which the President has identified as a 

critical issue that we need to pay attention to. The other chunk, the other approximately $25 million, is a combination of two things. One is the Integrated Acquisition Enterprise. And that is working with all of the contracting information, 

which is now in many different places, to pull that together so that 

it is integrated, and we can really take command and understand 

the procurement process better. And then another $4 million, I believe, for the Office of Federal 

High-Performance Green Buildings, which is a particularly special 

project in my mind with respect to our sustainability challenge, a 

place where we can have the expertise and the combined capacity 

to share ideas and understand what is happening in terms of green 

building work. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. We may disagree on this, but let me start that 

way. But you said in your testimony with regard to ARRA money 

that the Recovery Act provided you all at GSA with an unprecedented $5.85 billion, including $4.5 billion to convert existing GSA 

facilities into high-performance green buildings. 

To the best of my knowledge, there was nothing in the language of the ARRA that said you should use that $4.5 billion to convert 

existing facilities into high-performance green buildings, and we 

are double-checking that. So, in other words, you were given the 

money, but it wasn’t directed for that purpose, to the best of our 

knowledge, and I will double check, and I could be wrong. 

Ms. JOHNSON. And I need to double-check that, too. I am assuming that, but—it is specific word for word? 

Mrs. EMERSON. It is specific that it did for high-performance 

green buildings, because I did not recall that when I read the bill 

that it did say that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. My staff is telling me it is. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, and I will readily admit to being incorrect 

about that. 

However, just to go back, I know Joe was correct in saying that 

you know, obviously, there is a lot of confusion out there among the 

public about moneys that are obligated and not spent, but you 

know, obligation—I actually interpret obligated the way that you 

describe it, that is just how I personally would. But that is just because we built a courthouse in my district, and I used to have 

fights about that all the time. 

However, I went to your Web site that tracks the spending of the 

stimulus funds, and it says that 1,700 jobs have been created as 

a result of GSA’s stimulus funding. So that was as of December 31, 

I think. And at that time, you all had obligated $2.2 billion, so let’s 

just say you had spent $2.2 billion. But 1,700 jobs, $2.2 billion, 

works out to $1.3 million per job. Is that correct? 

Ms. JOHNSON. That is one way of cutting the numbers. And I am 

not sure that it is really apples and apples. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I know. But that is why it shouldn’t be on the 

Web site then. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
152 

Ms. JOHNSON. I appreciate that comment, and I appreciate the 

need to be ever more clear and accurate. And we need to be reporting jobs funded by the quarter, because that is really the best way 

for people to see. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, yeah, because, I mean—okay. So if the next 

jobs report will be based on activity through March 31st and you 

all have obligated over $4 billion, there sure as heck better be a 

whole lot more jobs than 1,700 jobs for people, or it has to be calculated different because people are going to go berserk. 

And if I can say, well, you know, GSA, we gave them all this 

money, and they have created 1,700 jobs, and every person is getting paid $1.3 million—well, I mean, technically I could say that 

based on what the Web site says, and that wouldn’t be incorrect, 

but it is also misleading to your disadvantage. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, it certainly is. And I think that the whole notion that we are creating jobs is actually the wrong way to characterize it, because we are funding jobs that have to be done. And 

being very clear with the public about that is very important. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Yeah, because, I mean, people will just not be 

happy and already are not happy with the fact that it is costing 

an awful lot per job, and they are government-paid jobs instead of 

private-sector jobs. So it is my recommendation that you all go 

back and try to rework that, okay? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I will do so. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Also, it is my understanding that GSA considers 

one phase of a multi-year project to be one project, and therefore, 

all projects started with stimulus funds or the ARRA funds are 

fully funded, by your definition. However, many of the projects are 

multi-year projects or multi-phase projects that were started with 

stimulus funds, such as the Department of Commerce headquarters, I guess, is a good example. 

So could you provide for the committee the out-year funding requirements of following phases for stimulus projects, like escalation 

costs? You know, I need to have—well, I will go on to this next 

question. But if you could provide for us a list of all those things, 

that would be really helpful. 

Ms. JOHNSON. We will certainly work to keep you informed on 

what we see as—I mean, if you take the DHS St. Elizabeths 

project, we have a notion that it is a $3.4 billion project, and we 

know specifically what the Coast Guard piece is and what phase 

1 and 2 and so on are. And of course, when you have projects that 

are that long, they don’t just cover multi-year. They actually cover 

whole business cycles, where you know the cost of steel can go up 

and then suddenly the cost of labor can go down. So I think we 

need to do a good solid job on projecting it. 

Mrs. EMERSON. But we are at this point in time—I mean, I think 

every single bid for every construction project that is going on in 

my district—and these are not government-funded, these are private—I mean, every single one of my developers who are actually 

building anything are getting bids that are you know far lower 

than before because people just want this work to go on. So I suspect that, you know, to your advantage you could probably get 

more work done for less money now. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
153 

Mrs. EMERSON. And that is what—that whole multi-phase thing 

makes me nervous because it is projected. And I don’t necessarily— 

the way that GSA has said, well, this is—you know, like my courthouse in Cape Girardeau, it is going to cost this much. Well, based 

on today’s prices, it is going to cost this much, but usually, it is not 

based—it is not calculated that way, so you know, it could be that 

it could be, you know, $10 million cheaper, and $10 million cheaper 

is a lot of money. 

Ms. JOHNSON. It is. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Even though it doesn’t sound like it. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. And I think that we need to do a better job 

in doing our risk assessments and explaining them as well. Because when you are doing projections, anyone can do all kinds of 

projections, so we need to help people understand what they are 

based on. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Yeah. So, then, back—do you want me to stop, 

Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SERRANO. No. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. I just didn’t know if I had gone over. 

Mr. SERRANO. You did. 

Mrs. EMERSON. You are correct on this language, and I apologize. 

I just want to ask you about escalation costs. After the stimulus 

bill passed, GSA decided to devote over $150 million to cover escalation costs of ongoing construction projects, and right now, there 

shouldn’t be any escalation costs, but that is beside the point. 

Given that you all have requested over $600 million in 

reprogramings to address cost overruns in capital projects over the 

past 6 years, you all have had a history of underestimating project 

costs. I mean, I am not blaming you. You weren’t at least in your 

present position at the time. 

So could you update us on how your estimates from the original 

spend plan have changed over the past year? And what are you— 

given the fact that construction costs have pretty well declined over 

the past few years, what are you all doing with those savings? 

Ms. JOHNSON. For the Recovery Act money, what we are doing 

is realizing some lower bids than we expected. And that means 

that we have, therefore, more money to go further down the project 

list with, which we are delighted to be able to do. So we are actually able to move further than we thought we were going to be able 

to given the original allocations. 

I agree with you that in a market that is moving, first up, in the 

beginning of the decade, and then down, that we need to be very 

tightly communicating what that is meaning for our projections. 

And I am happy to do our best to share that and to lay out a risk 

profile next to it. 

In some cases, the project escalations, as I understand it, are 

simply to get projects going that have for some reason been 

stopped. But I will supply you more detail with that afterwards. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I really would appreciate it just because if I 

hadn’t lived and breathed those projects for 5 years on a daily 

basis, I probably wouldn’t be quite as concerned. 

Ms. JOHNSON. You can understand the difficulties, yes. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
154 

Mrs. EMERSON. And it was frustrating. And it is not all the 

fault—no party is at fault totally, but the communication and probably the lack of transparency was very troublesome. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. One of my goals is transparency. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. From the great State of Florida and one of the 

greatest Members in the history of Congress. 

Mrs. EMERSON. He is looking for your vote, Deb. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Really? I am shocked. You had me at 

hello. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome. It is good to see you. Thank you for being with us 

this morning. 

I have a more locally oriented question as well as a broader public policy question. And since all politics is local, I will ask you the 

local one first. From what I have observed in looking at the President’s budget, the budget for GSA does not request funding, again, 

for new courthouse construction projects that were included on the 

Judicial Conference’s 5-year courthouse construction plan. And I 

know under the leadership of Chairman Serrano, in the last fiscal 

year, we were able to include construction funding for those courthouses, for some courthouses on the list, in spite of that fact in the 

last fiscal year. 

But in reviewing the 5-year courthouse project plan for 2011 to 

2015, as approved by the Judicial Conference, I was particularly 

disappointed to note that the Federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale was not on that 5-year list, despite having been included on 

the list as recently as 2007. You may or may not be familiar with 

the serious deficiencies in the Federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale. It leaks like a sieve. They are out of room. They have judges 

sitting on top of each other, a very antiquated facility, and many 

potential safety risks for both people who work there and constituents of mine who go there every day. 

So I would like to know why the Federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale was not included on the 2011 to 2015 list, and if you can 

explain the process moving forward, and what role you play in that 

process for GSA? 

Ms. JOHNSON. We have over the last 15-plus years of course been 

engaged in a significant judiciary relationship in building and renovating courthouses. The first customer visit I paid when I came 

into this job was to the Administrative Office of the Courts. It is 

a very important relationship for us, and we are working very hard 

to have a good and rational and fair and open process with them. 

And what we do is work off their priority list, so it is in conjunction 

with them that we develop our priorities. And so I—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Fort Lauderdale was on the list as recently as 2007. Why is it not on the list anymore? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I don’t know that I have the answer to that right 

now. I can supply that to you. I believe it is because it is not currently on the list, but I will verify that and get back to you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, it was on the list, and now it 

went off the list. 

Ms. JOHNSON. It dropped off. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
155 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yeah. I need to know why it dropped 

off the list. 

Ms. JOHNSON. It is not on the judiciary’s list, so we need to discuss with the judiciary to understand how they set their priorities. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And how quickly can a feasibility 

study be completed in the event that it was on the list? 

Ms. JOHNSON. It depends upon what the judiciary instructs us to 

do. Feasibility studies, we can launch one fairly rapidly. But I 

think what we need to do is really understand the needs in order 

to do a proper study. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, I can assure you that there is 

no greater need than in Fort Lauderdale for a Federal courthouse. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I stand advised. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So I look forward to working with you 

on helping others to understand. 

Mr. SERRANO. Now have we finished discussing this courthouse? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. Higher on the priority list and 

my broader policy question, Mr. Chairman, is last year GAO investigative staff reported that they were actually able to smuggle 

bomb-making materials into 10 high-security Federal facilities in 

four different cities. They were actually able to assemble those 

items once inside the buildings. And apparently, a lot of those 

bomb-making components weren’t even on prohibited lists coming 

into those facilities. 

Now, from what I understand, each Federal building has a security committee, and they come up with their own list of prohibited 

items, as opposed to there being a one central, you know, broader 

general list of prohibited items. That doesn’t really make very 

much sense in this age of homeland security and our need to make 

sure that we protect our facilities. You have some courtrooms that 

ban cell phones, and others allow them. I mean, it is very inconsistent. 

So what role does GSA play in building security, and do you have 

anything to do with determining what is included on those lists? 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Federal Protective Service, which is with the 

Department of Homeland Security, is our partner in building security matters. Together we work on understanding the risk profiles 

of buildings, and we rely on the interagency security committee’s 

standards around that. So there is a process, to that extent, that 

I understand. Beyond that, I would need to learn a little bit more 

and get back with you with fuller details. But this is very much 

of a partnership within another agency. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is pretty disturbing that there isn’t 

any consistent list of prohibited items and that bomb-making materials could be brought into any government facility. You know, especially just having passed the Oklahoma City bombing anniversary, you know, we are being vigilant through TSA at making sure 

that we have a standardized list of materials and people know 

what is expected of them. I mean, I think just for day-to-day life 

in America, going into a Federal building in Oklahoma City versus 

going into one in Miami, there shouldn’t be a difference in what 

you can carry into those buildings. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
156 

And I would hope that you could work towards making sure that 

there was one consistent policy and that we tighten up the list to 

the degree that you don’t already have control over it. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I think it is very important for the American public to have the expectation that Federal buildings are consistently 

accessible. I do know that with the various missions of agencies, we 

have different levels of security, so I will look into that and get 

back to you on it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Following her line of questioning but being more global here, the 

2011 budget request does not include funding for the acquisition or 

construction of additional space for the judiciary. This subcommittee has supported these projects in previous bills, and the 

judiciary’s caseload will likely continue to grow. What were the 

major factors that resulted in an old courthouse construction in an 

acquisition project scoring too low to be funded in 2011? And given 

that it takes years to construct courthouses, are you confident that 

the judiciary’s future space needs will be met without initiating 

any new courthouse construction projects in 2011? 

So we have a situation here where we have been very supportive 

in this subcommittee of these construction projects. You are proposing none this year. They need space. What do you project will 

be the bearing of this decision on their space needs? And do you 

anticipate courthouse funding will continue to be limited to alteration and expansion rather than new construction in future years? 

Ms. JOHNSON. There are a number of different pieces that I need 

to bring to this answer. 

First of all, of course, as I said earlier, we have been under way 

with a massive judiciary program and appreciate the support that 

we have received with respect to funding new construction as well 

as repairs and alternations. 

The Recovery Act allowed us to fund construction on seven courthouses. And so, within the last period of time, there are a number 

of courthouses that received some additional support or some support so we could move forward on them through the Recovery Act. 

We are currently looking at the judiciary’s priority list, and the top 

one is Austin, and that one was funded to get under way through 

the Recovery Act. The second one I believe is Salt Lake City. And 

that courthouse we have procured the space, and we have done the 

design, and we are now waiting for authorization, so there is an 

authorization need in order to proceed. 

So we are continuing to work down the list that the judiciary 

supplies, and with recovery money, we have been able to continue 

aggressively with seven other courthouses. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, that answer is a mixed bag. I will tell you 

why. Those of us who voted for the Recovery Act and voted for all 

these massive programs to move our economy ahead were under 

the understanding that where there was no money to contract 

something or to fill out the needs of a project, that Recovery Act 

moneys can go in there and fill that gap, but where there was 

money being expended, the idea was not to supplant that money 

but actually add to it. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
157 

So we actually had had from this committee, generously, moneys 

in the budget for the judiciary. Now basically what you are telling 

us is, we are not going to spend that money because we are getting 

it from another place, but then that was not the intent. That certainly was not the reason I voted for it. Again, let me repeat it: 

Where there was no money to spend, go ahead, that highway that 

has been sitting out there for 10 years and you could never build 

it, build it now, that will help the economy. But where you were 

spending money, we are giving you more to spend, again for the 

same reason, but not for you then to say, I am not going to spend 

that. So the administration’s request and GSA’s request almost 

contradicts the presentation made to Congress, am I correct? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It cancels it out. 

Mr. SERRANO. Yeah. That is how you understood it, right? 

Mrs. EMERSON. Exactly. 

Mr. SERRANO. We have three people here. That is how we understood it. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I appreciate that. 

The Recovery Act certainly did give us some room to support 

courthouses, and that was not meant to displace budget, annual 

budget processes. In addition, however, we are balancing a large 

portfolio of requests. And in this year’s budget request, a substantial portion of it is for St. Elizabeths, which is another major priority of the administration, the FDA and some remuneration work 

with the Denver Federal Center. So there are other pressing needs 

on the portfolio. And in this year’s calculus, it was important also 

to support those other projects. So we are trying to play a careful 

calculus of all of the needs on the portfolio. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. 

Well, two points. First, it should be obvious to you by now that 

this subcommittee wants the judiciary to be taken care of with 

their physical needs, and it is a shame that the request came the 

way it came. Secondly, it is easier for a committee chairman and 

it is easier for a ranking member to respond to a request for dollars 

rather than to create a request. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I appreciate that, yes. 

Mr. SERRANO. So if you ask for $1 billion, I could always go to leadership, I could go to everybody else and say they asked for $1 

billion. That agency asked for $1 billion. I need to give them something, even in a tight economy. But if you ask for nothing and then 

I am going to give you something, then I will be the one you know 

spending money, not reacting. So you put us in a difficult situation 

when you don’t ask. 

We had an agency here that never wanted money. It is called the 

SEC, and you see why they didn’t want money; they didn’t want 

to supervise anybody. I mean oversight. 

So keep in mind that you put us in a difficult situation here in 

trying to do what we want to do. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I appreciate that you are intent and eager to help 

us with the courts, and I will hold that thought in my mind. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. Talk to us about the DHS headquarters consolidation. GSA is working with the Department of Homeland Security to consolidate DHS operations for more than 40 locations 

around the Washington, D.C., area into 7 to 10 locations. St. ElizaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
158 

beths will become the new DHS headquarters, ultimately employing more than 14,000 Federal employees. Establishing a new headquarters at St. Elizabeths will cost an estimated $3.4 billion. What 

is the status of this project? Are there any emerging issues that 

might push completion beyond 2016, as currently scheduled? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right now, we are quite confident that we are 

moving forward on St. Elizabeths, and it is a good story. In fact, 

Friday, I am going to go over and see the site, and it was featured 

in the Washington Post recently. It is not just shovel-ready. The 

dirt is moving over there. There is activity going on for the Coast 

Guard headquarters, which is the first major piece of the project. 

The next phases involve consolidating and renovation of about 

seven headquarters buildings, and some of the utility and security 

fencing and historic preservation work, as well as highway interchange. So there is a lot of work going on and expected. 

We are comfortable that the Coast Guard building will be completed and online in 2013 and that the full project should be delivered by 2016. Our current slogan is, on schedule, on budget, and 

on green. We are really excited about St. Elizabeths. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. And as a result—so you are confident still 

for the 2016? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, I am. Yes, I am. 

Mr. SERRANO. Now, as a result of moving folks out of there, out 

of the different places, you will have empty space. Do you have a 

plan for backfilling, and how do you see this working itself out? 

Will you have space that you don’t have any need for? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. We have quite—it is a complex plan, but it 

is an important one to understand. We have something like 50 Federal locations that are housing DHS employees at this point, and 

we also have a number of leased buildings as well, leased space, 

something like 84 leases with another 9 pending. The overarching, 

the arc of work is going to be moving people out of those leases and 

into Federal space, backfilling either DHS people moving to St. 

Elizabeths or simply moving to St. Elizabeths. So it is the leased 

space that is housing employees that will then be able to fill up the 

Federal spaces that will be vacated. See, it is sort of a little bit of 

a moving game that way. At the end, I think we will only have 

about five leases. Some of them—between now and 2016, when all 

of the people will be relocating to St. Elizabeths, I believe we are 

very confident that we will find Federal workers to fill the Federal 

space that we have. So, yes, it is an integrated plan, and it is not 

a simple one, but I think it is a very sensible one. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. 

Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. These are easy questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Oh, good. 

Mrs. EMERSON. As we talked in my office and as you know, in 

our statement of managers accompanying the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill, you were directed to review the 10 largest Federal 

agencies to determine levels of funds spent on office products 

through the GSA schedules and to do comparisons based on the 

fact that we had—well, actually, the Department of Homeland Security had voluntarily decided to try to save money. I mean, the 

whole thing started when DHS said, we are going to save $42 milVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
159 

lion or something over 5 years because we can go directly to Staples or any other entity to buy our office supplies. So, anyhow, that 

report is due to the committee here in June. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Do you suspect that we will receive it on time? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, I do. It is under way. I am looking forward 

to it myself. I am going to learn a lot from it. We have been looking 

at the 2009 expenditures for office supplies across about 10 agencies, looking at credit card records and GSA advantage records and 

e-mall records over at the Department of Defense. It does look as 

if the spend on office supplies is somewhere between $700 million 

and $1.3 billion. It is a significant amount. 

However, it is also really hard to be sure we are tracking it well, because many of the purchases are in that $300 to $500 range, and 

they are just so granular it is hard to track. But at least we are 

getting our arms around it, and I think out of that we are going 

to have some real good lessons learned and ability to figure out 

ways in which we can consolidate buying. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So is it too early to say that there are certain 

issues that you have uncovered in the study? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I think it is too early, certainly for me. 

Mrs. EMERSON. And I suspect, too, that then, based on what the 

study finds, you are going to implement certain steps to ensure 

that employees who use the schedules are getting the best possible 

prices? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. We actually have a fair amount of activity 

under way already. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Can you share a little bit about that? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. First of all, we are working hard with our 

own contracting officers so that they understand the schedules 

even better and have better information about what pricing has 

been obtained on those schedules and what options they have. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Let me ask you something. How many contracting officers do you have? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I am sorry, I don’t know. I will have to—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. I mean, would it be 100? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Oh, thousands. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thousands. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. So training is a significant leverage point for 

them, and getting them the information about pricing is a significant leverage point across the agency. I mean, in the Public Buildings Service as well. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thousands of people. But I am talking about 

thousands—you don’t have thousands of people doing office supplies? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No, no, no. In terms of the contracting work. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Right. I would understand that there would—yes, 

across the board, I know. I was just talking about office supplies. 

I am so sorry. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I am so sorry. 

Mrs. EMERSON. If you have thousands doing that, that is not a 

good thing. 

Ms. JOHNSON. No, no. I will see if I can answer that more granulated question in writing. We are also embarking on training conVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
160 

tracting officers in the 10 agencies across the government so that 

they will understand the schedules better and how to use them. We 

are keen on helping compliance with the regulation out of the Defense Authorization Act, which is about getting three bids for every 

schedule’s contract. And that is something that we follow, but not 

everyone has, and that regulation is where we are trying to help 

people train and understand that. And we are also keen on putting 

online the terms and conditions of contracts so the contracting officers have more information available to them. So it is about openness as well as training. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. I appreciate that. And I will really look 

forward to reading that report. I am sure we both will. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, I will, too. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Let’s talk about the State Department Foreign 

Affairs Security Training Center in the stimulus bill; $70 million 

was appropriated to the Department of State to construct this Foreign Affairs Security Training Center in Queen Anne’s County, 

Maryland. Obviously, we all know that you have received a lot of 

attention for the way that this project has been handled, including 

charges that the site was selected without the involvement of the 

local community and that there were some press reports that said 

GSA sent reps to the community. Your representatives weren’t able 

to answer any questions, even the most basic ones. 

And I know that it is always a little touchy when you are going 

into a new area and trying to build a new facility. But if you could 

just fill us in, number one, what the status of the project is to date? 

Have the local, the concerns of the local residents been addressed? 

And I also understand that the State Department is concerned that 

the funds won’t be obligated before the availability of the stimulus 

funds expire, so can you just tell me if you think that is likely? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. Currently, I will say that we have been concerned about, devoting resources and time and some energy to 

being sure the community learns what it needs to know and is engaged in a dialogue about this project. We have held—we held the 

prerequisite two community meetings, and we delayed one because 

of the snowstorm. And then we held two more in which we had 

some particular workshops on the issues that seemed to be the 

most contentious. 

So I think we have done a solid job of doing outreach. There is 

no question that there is concern in the community. We have taken 

some people on visits of other training centers, so we have taken 

them to see what the kinds of facilities would be and tried to do 

some extra work to be sure that that information is conveyed. 

Currently we are waiting for the environmental assessment. The 

draft of the environmental assessment should be arriving the first 

part of May. With that draft, I think we will have a kind of a fork 

of decision. One is, should we release that for public comment, or 

should we move directly into an environmental impact statement 

process? And we are waiting to see what the draft says. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Does NEPA require you to do an EIA before construction would begin, or are you doing that just in case there is 

a lawsuit? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
161 

Ms. JOHNSON. I don’t know what the process requirements are. 

We certainly feel the environmental impact statement needs to be 

done before construction. 

Mrs. EMERSON. No, I mean, it would have to be. But I don’t know 

if the law requires just for you to have an environmental assessment as opposed to the whole, the 2 or 3 year long environmental 

impact statement, because that is how long that takes and the EA 

is much shorter. 

Ms. JOHNSON. We are waiting to see what the EA is telling us, 

because we simply are doing that due diligence to understand actually what we are facing in terms of the issues. And we do want to 

be very careful about that because the community is concerned. So 

that is where we are. We are also doing everything we can to be 

sure that the money from the State Department is obligated, yes, 

so that it can be secured and behind this whole process to support 

it. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Now that we know what obligated means, before 

it is spent. 

Mr. SERRANO. On its way. 

Mrs. EMERSON. It is on its way. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Nailed and tagged, not dispersed. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, any information you can get to us beyond 

what you have said today would be helpful. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I would be happy to. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. I appreciate that. 

Let me ask you about this, and don’t get sensitive about this, but 

this is an issue. 

Mr. SERRANO. You are going over your time or what? 

Mrs. EMERSON. No. What I am going to mention. 

Mr. SERRANO. No problem. 

Mrs. EMERSON. In Missouri, approximately $41 million of stimulus funds are for buildings in our State. And we have got about 

a 9.5 unemployment rate. But within the construction industry, it 

is anywhere from 35 to 40 percent. And so it is important for me 

that the benefits of this spending are being felt in our local job 

market. Can you tell me how GSA guarantees that your contractors 

and subcontractors employ people who are legally authorized to 

work in the United States, and are the procedures the same for 

construction contractors as well as for service providers? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Let me answer the parts of that that I know for 

sure. GSA has some 23,000 contractors with HSPD–12 badges, 

which means a substantial, a substantial effort has gone into being 

sure that our contracting workforce is secure. The terms for getting 

an HSPD–12 badge I think are something like you will be working 

in the building or you are on a job that is going to be over 6 

months, so it makes it worthwhile. For sites that workforce is not 

yet in buildings or that is a shorter-term assignment, we bake into 

the contract that the contractor has to guarantee that the workforce that they are using, the workers that they are using, will conform to all of the rules. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So does that go down to the subcontractor, and 

the subcontractor of the subcontractor, and that subcontractor of 

that third subcontractor? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
162 

Ms. JOHNSON. My expectation is that it does. Let me confirm 

that. 

Mrs. EMERSON. If you would, just because, this is where we are 

having some issues in my congressional district. Because I have 

got, you know, with such high unemployment in the construction 

industry, we have a number of subcontractors of subcontractors 

who are actually hiring people who don’t have appropriate documentation to be in the United States. And I am not—and so it is 

the employer who should be in trouble here. 

But our overall general contractors are not responsible for the 

two, say if you are going down two subcontractors. And at least 

that is what we have been told; the law would not—they don’t have 

to be responsible for, you know, the final subcontractor, if you will, 

on verifying employment. So I am just troubled by this because we 

have had two or three instances in my district in the last month 

where, you know, my folks in those communities can’t win bids. 

They haven’t been able to win any of the bids to put their people 

to work because we are using undocumented workers. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I will look into that. You are talking basically 

about a double-click or the double-click-through and how far the 

reach of our requirements extend. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Right. I mean, I would hope that they would be 

more strict than—you know, because it is a government-sponsored 

project. But I just want to be sure given the trouble we have had. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I will learn about that myself and communicate it 

right back to you. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Very good. I appreciate it. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. That does not upset me, what you just said. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SERRANO. However, the other side of that issue is that when 

the economy was doing well, there were always these folks employed. Some people have said they were undocumented. Others 

have said they were not citizens. When the economy went back and 

the construction industry was hit, they were let go in the same 

numbers as everybody else was let go. So that this is really only 

an issue if you are letting people go, some were kept who were not 

documented or not citizens, and those who were American citizens 

were let go. But prior to this, the comment always was that, without that community, you couldn’t just about build anything in this 

country because they were very much a part of that community. 

Mrs. EMERSON. And I am not saying that at all. I am just saying 

that the employer should be at fault here. I am not blaming the 

folks who are working because they are trying to help their families. 

Mr. SERRANO. What I am saying is that this was not an issue 

before the economy hit bottom, so it is only an issue now—— 

Mrs. EMERSON. Oh, right, right, right. 

Mr. SERRANO [continuing]. If these folks were let go and those 

folks were not let go. But everybody across the board was let go. 

Those folks we talk about, whether they were just documented or 

undocumented immigrants, are as unemployed in that area of employment as everybody else. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
163 

But anyway, Mr. Boyd, Mrs. Emerson claims that I am being 

extra nice to all members of the committee in my presentation because I am looking for votes for tomorrow. That is not true. I do 

think you are one of the greatest Members in the history of Congress, and I now recognize you. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was delighted to get that call from you over the weekend. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Good for you, Allen. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. 

Mr. BOYD. I didn’t know who that New York number belonged 

to. I quickly figured out. 

Mr. Chairman and Ms. Johnson, let me first apologize to you all 

for being late and beg your forgiveness for not being here on time. 

But also, Ms. Johnson, thanks for your service, and I want to follow up on a question that was asked earlier by Representative 

Wasserman Schultz relative to the Federal building situation. 

I have a similar situation in the congressional district that I represent in Panama City with a Federal courthouse that is, according 

to your predecessor, extremely inadequate and needs to be replaced. I have a letter from your office here in front of me with a 

report, a building project survey. That report is fairly detailed, as 

you know—I am sure you are quite familiar with those reports— 

and a certification of need. And this project actually was on the 5- 

year plan at one time and dropped off. And my question really to 

you is, what can you tell the committee about, when this report 

leaves your office, about the funding, I noticed in your report, you 

said that you had not gotten a request from AOUSC. Obviously, 

that would be the case. What can you tell the committee about how 

we can—what we can do to correct some of this? 

Ms. JOHNSON. My—— 

Mr. BOYD. Panama City, Florida, I am sorry. Make sure that 

note has got Panama City, Florida, on it. 

Ms. JOHNSON. You got it. Thank you. 

Mr. BOYD. Not Panama. 

Ms. JOHNSON. We have struggled for a long time with the fact 

that the judiciary has a very long list of needs. And of course, we 

have been really aggressively working that for, well, over a dozen 

years, 15, 20 years. We are trying very hard to work with the 

courts against their internally derived priority listing. I think it is 

through the judiciary that we need to—they are our customers. We 

are trying very much not to assume that we know more than they 

do about this sort of thing. So we really do try to pay attention to 

their list of priorities. 

Currently the list is—you know, we can get going on their top 

list one, Austin. The second one we are sort of stalled right now 

because of authorization matters. But we are always trying to be 

on top of their top priority. So I think the straight-up response is, 

we need to work with the judiciary to help them work their portfolio so that it has the right priority listing. 

Mr. BOYD. I thank you for that, and I know that your job is just 

to do the building, not to prioritize. And I totally understand that. 

Mr. Chairman, I want you to know, this is something that I have 

been working on for many, many years. On the list, off the list, you 

know, I don’t understand that honestly. Maybe I do and just want 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
164 

to be in denial. But it is—you know, I hope that whatever this committee under this leadership can do with you and Mrs. Emerson, 

that we would try to do better. 

Mr. SERRANO. I should tell you, before you came into the committee meeting, a lot of the questioning was around the needs of 

the judiciary. Debbie spoke about it. I spoke about it. Mrs. Emerson spoke about it. This committee has been good to the judiciary 

for obvious reasons, and we are concerned that they are not asking 

for a request. 

Before you came in, the answer was, which I said in a respectful 

way, was not the greatest answer, was that there were recovery 

moneys that were spent on the courthouses, and therefore, they 

were not asking for money. I told them that puts me in a difficult 

situation because it is easier for me to respond to a request up or 

down on the amount than it is to create an amount in a budget 

that wasn’t requested. And that is what we are faced with now. 

Mr. SERRANO. We stand ready to move ahead and continue to put 

the message forth that the needs of the judiciary have to be met. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Let me ask you a question about construction 

versus leasing. It is one that troubles me somewhat. I see a trend 

moving away from ownership by GSA towards leasing, and I don’t 

fully understand it. I don’t know if it is GSA’s economic recovery 

package for landlords other than for the Federal Government, but 

I trust this landlord. 

By the way, could you look up to the ceiling? If this was the GSA 

Building, you wouldn’t allow that, would you? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Absolutely not. 

Mr. SERRANO. Just for the record, it is pretty embarrassing. I am 

glad we are not on C–SPAN. It could be very embarrassing to see 

that. 

So my question is: What factors has GSA taken into account in 

deciding whether a particular facility’s needs should be met 

through direct Federal construction or through leasing? Which do 

you tend to prefer? 

And also, if leasing has any of the characteristics that it has in 

areas of my congressional district, the condition of any of the buildings require so much repair that it may not be cheaper in the short 

run, but certainly in the long run, to build something that is upto-date; something with the technological needs in mind, not where 

you have to rewire a whole building. You and I could come up with 

a million reasons why a modern building is better. 

So why this trend to move away? 

Ms. JOHNSON. The proportion of the Federal building inventory— 

that is, leased as opposed to owned—has sort of tipped over the 50 

percent mark, which is raising this kind of question regularly. 

We are a very steady tenant. The government is often in a building that has particular needs for the government agency. So we are 

keen on having our own buildings wherever it makes sense, and 

that would be our preference. It is also important because when we 

own the buildings, then we are collecting rents which then fuel the 

Federal Buildings Fund and allow us to do the repairs and alterations and future construction. It is the notion of the Federal 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
165 

Buildings Fund replenishment that pushes us towards wanting to 

have owned inventory. 

The difficulty, of course, is that there are needs by our customers 

for flexibility and short-term needs. The Census is the prime example of a lot of leasing done to support a particular mission. And I 

am aware that something like 70 percent of the requests for space 

right now are for space that is in the under 10,000 size and in a 

shorter time frame. So it just fits in flexibility terms for that. 

However, I do believe that the way the leasing—agencies come 

to us, and if we cannot supply them a new building, we do need 

to turn to the leasing alternative rather than not meet their mission needs. And so there are times when we would much rather be 

building and constructing and owning the buildings, buying in the 

inventory that we have been using and so on. But there are simply 

some funding constraints that keep us from being able to engage 

in capital building projects. 

Mr. SERRANO. That may be the case momentarily, but we seem 

to see a trend that is moving away. You say you were what, now, 

50 percent or more is leasing? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. SERRANO. If you were a GSA analyst or an outside analyst 

on the future of GSA, is that the way to go? Is that healthy for 

GSA to be leasing so much? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I think we would agree that, as I said, if we had 

our druthers we would like to be in owned inventory more aggressively, but that the leasing alternatives are what we are coping 

with given the way the funding mechanisms support the long-term 

capital projects. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. Well, again, we told you what this committee thinks on the judiciary, and I think we are clear on the fact 

that it is probably not the best way to go, to continue to grow in 

the leasing category. And I think the repairs and the other issues 

will become a major problem. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Let me ask a follow-up to that. 

What do you think is the cause of the annual deficit in the 

whole? 

Ms. JOHNSON. The whole building fund problem? There are about 

four things; let me see if I can get to the four. First of all, as we 

are growing the leasing inventory, we are not collecting rents that 

replenish it. There is no question that that is the cycle that I was 

just talking about. In addition, our inventory is aging. Our average 

age of buildings is 46 years. Over 30 percent of the inventory was 

built before 1949. It is an old inventory, so to speak, and that 

means it is much more expensive to maintain. So more and more 

dollars are required to replenish and renovate the current inventory. I think that is putting stress on the fund. 

The building fund has enjoyed appropriations something like 28 

out of the 37 years it has been in existence. So we know this cycle 

is not self-sustaining. So there are those economic pressures on it. 

Mrs. EMERSON. The long-term impact on the buildings fund, 

though, is not good. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Right. Not good. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I am interested in—this isn’t a ‘‘gotcha’’ thing, 

but it is a pet peeve of mine. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
166 

Again, one of your performance goals says that you want to 

award leases at an average rental rate of not less than 7.5 percent 

below industry averages for comparable office space in fiscal year 

2011. Which is a wonderful thing, until it comes to the Census. 

Where in my home town you are paying—let’s see, similar space 

to what Census is running at. I know that this is a short-term 

lease, but it is seriously 70 percent more than what the market 

cost is today. I mean, even my office space at the Federal building 

that I did have to negotiate with you all, because I didn’t like the 

price you offered me, so we negotiated it down. So I thought it was 

very much of a win-win for everybody. But the office space at my 

beautiful new courthouse in Cape Girardeau is less than half of 

this office space for the Census. 

And I am not saying—I know they didn’t want to go in the Federal building because it scares people, and I understand the psychology of not putting a Census office there. But needless to say, 

that sort of flies in the face of what your performance goal is. I just 

point that out as something that I think we would be happy to 

work with you on, but I think it means we are going to have to—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. The short-term leasing is expensive. And not 

being able to put Census offices in Federal buildings is also a bit 

of a constraint. And that is something that we always struggle with 

when we are sending out the Census teams to secure space. 

In addition, we have to do all of the build-out, which is all paid 

back in that short time frame. So there are expenses associated 

with that short-term lease that also jack up the price. 

This is one of the reasons it is a performance goal. We need to 

be continuously monitoring this and managing this. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I can’t imagine that a Census office would need 

anything particularly fancy. Who am I to know? I just thought you 

had to work with workers. If they set it up like our office, it 

wouldn’t be much build-out at all, other than for new toilets. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mrs. Emerson and I have to move on today to a 

couple of events, and we don’t want to keep you here much longer. 

But I do have a question. What you heard here is what you heard 

here also; it is this whole leasing thing that makes people nervous. 

So you are moving into a GSA building? 

Mrs. EMERSON. I am in Federal—in our courthouse, that I told 

you, I have day-to-day involvement in the construction. 

Mr. SERRANO. Good rent? 

Mrs. EMERSON. I negotiated a great rent, actually. I said I would 

only pay the same rent at the new courthouse that I paid at the 

old courthouse. 

Mr. SERRANO. I wish I had a Federal building in my district. 

You are requesting $9 million in IT funds. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Excuse me. Do not increase my rent. 

Mr. SERRANO. I don’t have a Federal building. 

You are requesting $9 million in IT funds for the Federal Acquisition Workforce Initiative; $24.9 million in funding for Federal Acquisition Workforce Initiatives Fund; and have $8 million projected 

carryover from fiscal year 2010 for the Acquisition Workforce 

Training Fund. 

I understand that the proposal for this was developed so late in 

the process, that GSA is one of the few agencies to actually propVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:42 Dec 09, 2010 Jkt 062204 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A204P2.XXX A204P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
167 

erly have a budget for IT. That is good for you, but makes us concerned that plans for it may not be that well thought-out. 

If you understand what I just said, you are much better than I 

am. But I have been rehearsing this for the last 2 days. But I do 

understand. 

Do you have other funds that will be used for the same or similar 

purposes? 

Ms. JOHNSON. For acquisition workforce; government, if you will. 

There are two funds. One is for training. And then this Acquisition 

Workforce Initiative is about a number of different things: improving the materials, the curriculum for training across more than just 

contracting officers to include programs in project management. It 

is also meant to fund sort of the inventory to understand who is 

in the workforce, who are the contractors, what kind of skills do 

they have—sort of track and know what our workforce is. 

And then the third is to build that community. There is so much 

now available to people that they can share among themselves. 

They don’t have to go off and get a degree, but they can be sharing 

their best practices in communication and mentoring and helping 

each other through their career paths. That would be a third piece 

that we would be paying attention to. 

So I come from the world of leadership development and talent 

development, and I do believe that the acquisition workforce needs 

some real attention and some support. I think we do need to upgrade the curriculum. We need to create the communities where 

they can be working with each other. And I think we also need to 

have an inventory so we know who they are, where they are, and 

be much more informed about it. I think this is driving us to better 

data so we can manage it better. 

Mr. SERRANO. And is there still interest, as there was in the 

past, in working not only at GSA but in government in general? Do 

you get that sense? People still think it is a good job? I am not talking about Members of Congress. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Speaking for myself, I was delighted to come to 

GSA. I think we are entering a period of a bit of a renaissance. And 

I will say at GSA it is because we are so profoundly involved in 

sustainability. Young workers want to join GSA because we have 

a huge role to play in the green agenda. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Let me also tell you that a lot of young professionals who are in commercial real estate and the like really like 

the idea of going to work at GSA. The hardest part of going to work 

at GSA or any Federal agency or department is the crazy application process. And I know John Berry at OPM is trying to really, 

really work hard on making it re ́sume ́-based now. 

So the only downside to trying to apply is that if you don’t get 

referred for one job, you have to start from scratch again. I think 

that is frustrating. But I know a lot of people who have great expertise, and there is a lot of opportunity for growth there because 

you all do things that other agencies don’t. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, we are in a wonderful position that way. 

Mr. SERRANO. Before we let you go, let me just say that there 

is an ongoing back-and-forth between Mrs. Emerson and me about 

the St. Louis Cardinals and the New York Yankees. And just for 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
168 

the record, in 1949 when the Agency was formed, the Yankees won 

the World Series—but then they were winning all of those years. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I was just born the next year after that. 

Mr. SERRANO. The next year after that, I came to New York saying someday I want to be a Congressman. 

Thank you so much for your testimony and for your service. 

Please understand that while we are a committee who wants to be 

supportive, we do have concerns. You have some concerns from everybody here about the judiciary and its needs and the difficult position you have put us in by not asking for any money. 

And the whole leasing issue is one also that is of great concern 

to us. 

I will submit some questions for the record. One of them speaks 

to the territories. We hope that when you look at what you do, you 

remember there are millions of people, American citizens who live 

under the American flag, but who don’t live in a State, and they 

should be treated equally as we allocate resources. 

Thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTS
169 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 282 here 62204A.088
170 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 283 here 62204A.089
171 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 284 here 62204A.090
172 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 285 here 62204A.091
173 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 286 here 62204A.092
174 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 287 here 62204A.093
175 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 288 here 62204A.094
176 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 289 here 62204A.095
177 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 290 here 62204A.096
178 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 291 here 62204A.097
179 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 292 here 62204A.098
180 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 293 here 62204A.099
181 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 294 here 62204A.100
182 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 295 here 62204A.101
183 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 296 here 62204A.102
184 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 297 here 62204A.103
185 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 298 here 62204A.104
186 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 299 here 62204A.105
187 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 300 here 62204A.106
188 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 301 here 62204A.107
189 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 302 here 62204A.108
190 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 303 here 62204A.109
191 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 304 here 62204A.110
192 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 305 here 62204A.111
193 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 306 here 62204A.112
194 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 307 here 62204A.113
195 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 308 here 62204A.114
196 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 309 here 62204A.115
197 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 310 here 62204A.116
198 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 311 here 62204A.117
199 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 312 here 62204A.118
200 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 313 here 62204A.119
201 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 314 here 62204A.120
202 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 315 here 62204A.121
203 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 316/500 here 62204A.122
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Breyer, Justice, Stephen ......................................................................................... 83 

Duff, J. C .................................................................................................................. 1 

Gibbons, J. S ............................................................................................................ 1 

Johnson, M. N .......................................................................................................... 123 

Thomas, Justice Clarence ....................................................................................... 83 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING