▶ 0:19:13The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We welcome to to today's hearing on oversight of the federal courts. I'll now recognize myself for a longer opening statement than I thought.
▶ 0:19:30As we speak now, a federal judge in Boston has decided that the US Supreme Court staying his nationwide injunction in fact doesn't apply because he has issued a second injunction with the same plaintiffs accomplishing effectively the same thing.
▶ 0:19:54His earlier order did uh said that these individuals were not to be deported back to uh South Sudan. They have not been. But in fact, under that base order, the Supreme Court has said they could be and yet they find themselves halfway in between when in fact the US Supreme Court has acted.
▶ 0:20:17There is no greater definition of an absence of good behavior than in fact for a seated article 3 judge to defy the strict letter of the Supreme Court the intent but rather say but I can issue a second order. What I find particularly bad about that is it's not the first time we have seen judges do it.
▶ 0:20:41And in other areas, we have seen judges circumvent the clear intent of random selection for cases, including patent. We've seen this happen again and again, and we've seen the Supreme Court act only to find that they must act again.
▶ 0:20:58Today I call on the US Supreme Court to act within minutes to stay the second order lest and by the way to prohibit a third, fourth and fifth order um in The Supreme Court cannot be effective if they have to effectively keep up with the speed of a judge signing things coming off a computer probably written with with Chat GPT. That's where we are today.
▶ 0:21:27My original statement did say that today we are conducting oversight of the federal courts which is a routine part of our jurisdiction and it is. The federal courts are a critical part of the constitution system and this committee on a bipartisan basis has promoted the expansion of the court repeatedly under both Republican and Democrat uh chairman. We continue to do so.
▶ 0:21:54This subcommittee regularly attends the judicial conference meetings and deals directly with the conference. Additionally, we're given the privilege of access to members of the Supreme Court in order to both express our opinions and to learn from them. All of this is as our founders intended.
▶ 0:22:16When we were founded, the court was not in a separate building across the way, but in fact nestled between the House and the Senate in a way in which members of both bodies typically might have lunch with them. It is unfortunate that we have grown so far apart because in fact we serve no purpose except to create laws which must be enforced.
▶ 0:22:43the executive branch attempts to enforce them, but only the court can determine the faithful execution by that other branch. So, as we speak of activist judges, we also speak of the need to expand the court to eliminate a backlog that is now exceeds 600 cases on average per judge.
▶ 0:23:09I want to take a moment to thank both our witnesses here today and the dozens of federal judges who could go off into retirement at full pay but stay and continue to work in senior status. Those judges have done us a great service. They not only have stepped aside from their lifetime appointments so that another can be appointed helping us deal with a shortage but they have continued to work.
▶ 0:23:38That combination is the only reason that the court has managed to continue to function. It will not function for long with the increased tempo unless we do our job. So, I call on all my members today to give real thought to quickly expanding the court, but at the same time, just as today, to continue to do our oversight, to continue to come as close as we can to the founders's original intent, an intent
▶ 0:24:08that nestled the the members of the Supreme Court right next to the House and Senate in a way in which the communication as to original intent, the communication as to as the court saw it. The communication as to what judges that then would ride circuit would even see all of that in fact is our obligation.
▶ 0:24:32So I have no doubt that there will be other subjects besides rogue rulings act um which we have sent to the senate today but it is not the only uh thing we will discuss. I want every member of both the Republican and Democratic side to consider this as an important hearing to vet all questions.
▶ 0:24:52We fortunately uh have uh a distinguished panel that should be able to ask most but not all questions in uh consultation with uh the the chair the ranking members of the full committee and the subcommittee.
▶ 0:25:06I am using my discretion today to say we will not be swearing in the witnesses uh as is the requirement of the committee because it is our tradition not to swear in constitutional offices that come behind before us unless in fact they are witnesses in an otherwise more specific discovery. And with that it's my uh my honor and privilege to yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee Mr. Johnson for his opening statement.
▶ 0:25:36Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm honored uh Judge Saint Eve and Judge Sudter uh that you were able to travel to DC to testify before us today. And I'm especially grateful because the administrative office of the courts was already called upon by the majority to present themselves for a hearing earlier this year.
▶ 0:25:57While it is an honor to have the uh administrative office uh before us, I wonder at the necessity of having you all here again so soon. The judges, and former judges in this room have a very different perspective on the United States court system than most of our constituents back home.
▶ 0:26:21For most Americans, the few times they walk into a courtroom is one of the more anxiety inducing, stressful times of their lives. And whether that stress is uh as minor as a traffic ticket, as heart-wrenching as a divorce case, or as potentially lifechanging as a harmful product dispute, most of us don't end up in front of a judge unless something has gone wrong.
▶ 0:26:49But at least we know we have protections for when we do have to go to court. Americans are guaranteed a speedy trial, a fair trial, and the right to counsel if you can if you cannot afford one. Congress also allocates funds that the judiciary needs to make those constitutional guarantees come true.
▶ 0:27:13But even with those rights protected, when Americans stand in a courtroom on one of the worst days of their lives, some of us find ourselves standing in a building that is falling apart, no attorney available to represent us, waiting for hours to have our day in court because of judicial backlogs.
▶ 0:27:35Under the leadership of MAGA Republicans and the Trump administration, it's harder than ever for the judiciary to serve the American people. Last Congress, we had to deal we had a deal to allocate the judicial conferences requests for more judges over a 10-year period, starting with the next unknown But Republicans broke their word to ensure that federal judges would be allocated only
▶ 0:28:05if Trump won. Cyber attacks on sensitive judiciary systems are on the rise. But the Trump administration is taking apart our cyber security infrastructure that keeps us safe. Even our buildings aren't safe from Donald Trump. Our courouses are crumbling. but he's ending the leases for courouses and buildings that are in use for the American people.
▶ 0:28:35One might think that programs guaranteed under the Constitution would be an exception, but that doesn't appear to be the case either. When Congress passed the CRA in December, the federal defender services budget was frozen at the level from year from the year before, leaving the pro the program at a critical shortfall. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an attorney in criminal proceedings.
▶ 0:29:06And under federal statute, courts are required to appoint counsel from federal public and community defender organizations or from a panel of private attorneys established by the court. Without counsel provided by the courts, thousands of Americans accused of federal crimes would go unrepresented. Without funding, the federal defenders won't be able to provide counsel.
▶ 0:29:33Without the federal defenders, prosecutions can't go forward under the You see, everything breaks down when the federal defenders are not able to do their jobs. And that's the cliff the judiciary is headed towards without the requisite funding. Finally, personal attacks on individual judges have driven an increase in threats to federal judges over the past 10 years and especially the last six months.
▶ 0:30:03I refuse to accept the idea that we have become a country where judges, judicial staff, and their families can be threatened, intimidated, or killed just for doing their jobs.
▶ 0:30:19no matter where we fall politically, no matter who we vote for, deserve to be able to walk into a courtroom and know that the person sitting on the bench will adjudicate the case fairly with no design towards making one political party or another happy out of fear for their safety. That starts with funding judicial security. Let's not play around with judges lives to make a political point.
▶ 0:30:50This committee can be where we divorce federal funding from the politics of the moment. Where we can all agree to fund the judiciary so that judges can continue deciding cases free from political pressure. where we can say that no matter what our politics, the third branch is I'm not going to use the term co-equal.
▶ 0:31:15I'm going to say it is equally The third branch is equally important to the other branches and should not be interfered with. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses as to what resources they need to continue their work and I yield back the uh remainder of my time. I I thank the gentleman. The chairman of the full committee uh has been called away to a deposition. When he returns, he'll uh undoubtedly do his opening statement.
▶ 0:31:46With that, I'd like to recognize the ranking member of the full committee for his opening statement. Thank you kindly, Chairman Isa. I appreciate that. and welcome Judge St. Eve and Judge Scutter. Um the hearing is on fiscal responsibility in the courts which makes matters pretty simple for me.
▶ 0:32:04We should make sure we give the federal courts all the resources that you need to carry out your constitutional duties without having to fear for the safety of your judges or their families, court personnel, and members of the public who are in federal courouses. We should thus set a legislative record today about the needs of the judicial branch. We should not attempt to see if Congress can use our power of the purse to coers judges into ruling this way or that way on a particular case. That's an attack on judicial independence.
▶ 0:32:35Uh the power of the courts to say what the law is, as the court put it in Marbury versus Madison in 1803. Funding is essential to the independence of the courts. Hamilton began Federalist 79 by acknowledging this relationship. quote, "Next to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support." He said, "In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will.
▶ 0:33:04Alas, power over the judicial will is exactly what President Trump has sought since he took office. Judges who decide in his favor are brilliant, faithful judges, and those who decide against him are communist radical left judges, even if they were appointed by a fellow Republican president. In March, Trump called for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against his administration on a fundamental constitutional question, a judge who had been nominated to the bench first by President George W. Bush.
▶ 0:33:32Quote, "This judge, like many of the crooked judges I'm forced to appear before, should be impeached," Trump posted on social media. Meanwhile, his allies in Congress have repeatedly fought to change the way that the courts work just to benefit him personally and his administration, such as when they tried to make all state cases against him um and his associates removable to federal court and to prevent judges from being able to issue injunctions that apply beyond the specific parties to a case.
▶ 0:34:02And last month, this committee passed a provision stripping the power of judicial contempt in certain cases that would allow Trump to ignore adverse federal court decisions, even though eight and 10 Americans think the president should have to obey the orders of the courts. And that is indeed the whole premise of judicial review as articulated in Marberry versus Madison in 1803. But the MAGA siege on the judicial branch has not just been limited to anti-judicial legislation.
▶ 0:34:31Every major resource of the court's need to act as an independent branch of government is less achievable because of Trump's program. Trump's ad homonym rhetoric against individual judges has helped fuel an increase in threats to judicial security. His lieutenants at Doge have sharply limited the buildings available to the judiciary.
▶ 0:34:50Even as our courouses are falling apart, American cyber security, including our court IT systems, is weaker under Trump after he neutered the sub agency within the Homeland Security Department responsible for keeping us secure from online attack. And Republican leadership took a bipartisan deal to get the judiciary more federal judges and then twisted it to their own ends. And I'm exempting here my friend Mr. Isa from that description.
▶ 0:35:18Some of our colleagues have suggested the only way the judiciary will get the funding it needs is if judges change how they rule on decisions important to Trump. Punch Bowl News recently reported about the controversy over threats to judges.
▶ 0:35:31When asked about increased funding for judicial security in light of the skyrocketing threats to federal judges, my friend Chairman Jordan told a reporter, "I don't know that there's going to be a lot of people excited about giving them an increase." Another colleague reportedly suggested the judiciary quote should stop screwing everything up if they want more security funding.
▶ 0:35:52Checks and balances only work under the Constitution when the three branches of our government respect each other's essential independence of action and decision to withhold the means of guaranteeing the safety of a judge or their family is to compromise that independence. A judge who receives deliveries at her home reminding her that the people threatening her online know where she and her children live may be less able to think clearly and rule objectively on the merits of a case if they fear that their family's in danger.
▶ 0:36:20And that's not an academic point, but an urgently practical one. Threats to federal judges skyrocketed skyrocketed over the last six months as President Trump escalated his personal threats and rhetoric against federal judges in courts. According to the US Marshall Service, 197 judges were threatened from early March to late May this year. More than double the number of judges that had been threatened in the pri in the prior 5 months. Judicial security should not and has never should not be and has never been a partisan issue.
▶ 0:36:51When Justice Kavanaaugh was targeted in 2022, Chairman Jordan rightly said, "We don't want any violence here, but let's not have a double standard." And I agree with that. We must oppose all violence and all threats of violence against the federal judiciary from whatever quarter they arise. We must give judicial branch um institutions all the security funding they need wholly without regard to which judges are being protected in which cases they may be handling.
▶ 0:37:19Political control over judges is a hallmark of monarchical and authoritarian regimes. Indeed, King George's attacks on judicial independence were part of the bill of particular set forth um in complaint against him by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Quote, he has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices and the amount and the payment of their salaries.
▶ 0:37:44Jefferson wrote, "It would be a dangerous breach of our constitutional values to withhold critical security funding for the judiciary in an effort to change the way judges decide their cases. I'm certain that we cannot and we will not do that today. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman, the remainder of my time. I thank the gentleman. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. It's now my pleasure to introduce our witnesses.
▶ 0:38:13Uh the Honorable Michael Y. Scutter. Judge Scutter serves on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He received his commission in May 2018. Judge Scutter also serves as the chair of information technology committee for the judicial conference of the United States. Prior to joining the seventh circuit, he worked as a in private practice and served in the white house department of justice and as a assistant US attorney in the southern district of New York. Welcome.
▶ 0:38:44Secondly, we have the honorable Amy St. Eve. Judge St. Eve serves on the US Court of Appeals also for the seventh circuit. She received her commission, pardon me, uh in May 2018. Judge St. Eve also serves as chair of the budget committee for the judicial conference of the United States.
▶ 0:39:04Prior to joining the seventh circuit, she served as the district court judge in the Northern District of Illinois in private practice and as an assistant US attorney in the Northern District of Illinois. I welcome both of our witnesses. As I said earlier, I will dispense with uh with the swearing in and ask each of you uh to give us your opening statements. Um I will go in the order I like to go. Uh Judge St.
▶ 0:39:33Eve, if you'd proceed. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Isa, Ranking Member Johnson, Ranking Member Rascin, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Amy St. Eve and I am a judge on the seventh circuit court of appeals in Chicago.
▶ 0:39:48On behalf of the judicial conference committee on the budget which I chair, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the fiscal posture of the federal judiciary and our priorities and needs for our programs and staffing in fiscal year 2026. Thank you for the opportunity to do so. An effective and efficient judiciary is foundational to our system of government.
▶ 0:40:13Adequate and consistent funding is absolutely critical to conduct our constitutional and statutory responsibilities and we are relying on Congress to help ensure that those resources are in place. The branch's fiscical year 26 funding request must be looked at in the context of recently enacted fullyear continuing resolution for fiscal year 25.
▶ 0:40:39In that CR, every component of the branch was held to its fisc year 24 enacted funding level regardless of changing requirements. And for most of our accounts, this is the second straight year of a freeze. Among the impacts of the fullear CR are the deferral of dozens of judicial security projects at a time when threats against judges and the judicial process are increasing.
▶ 0:41:06The suspension of almost three months of payments to private attorneys who have provided constitutionally required representation to indigent defendants. The continuation of a hiring freeze in the fender federal defender And a yearover-year reduction in the allotments made to courts and probation and pre-trial services offices to serve and protect your constituents.
▶ 0:41:32While the judiciary's fiscal year 26 request of 9.4 billion may seem large, these resources are needed to rebuild critical functions that were funded in either fiscal year 24 or 25 and to address new and potentially significant workload being generated for the courts by the law enforcement initiatives of the executive branch.
▶ 0:41:58Our request includes 6.9 billion for the courts and probation and pre-trial services offices. More than 85% of this requested increase in this area reflects just standard adjustments to maintain current services while the remainder funding is critical for new investments in staffing space and IT. The defender services request totals 1.8 8 billion.
▶ 0:42:28Well over half of the requested increase is needed just to mitigate the effects of the suspension of payments to private attorneys that was necessitated by the fisc year 25 CR. The remainder will support current service levels and allow a resumption of hiring in the federal defender offices. We are also requesting almost 900 million for our court security program to address a complex and evolving threat environment.
▶ 0:42:59The request fully funds contractual obligations to our court security officers and helps recapitalize systems and equipment which budget was slashed due to two straight years of funding freezes in this account. The request also continues the expansion of our vulnerability management program which implemented the Daniel Andre Act and was created after the murder of the son of Judge Esther Sales.
▶ 0:43:28Finally, our request includes the $19 million that we will project will be needed to fully fund juror requirements for the year. As we ask Congress to make this substantial investment in the judiciary, I want to assure you that we take very seriously our commitment to fiscal accountability and the responsible stewardship of our funds.
▶ 0:43:51My committee has an entire subcommittee dedicated to finding opportunities to achieve efficiencies, adopt innovative business practices, and reduce or limit costs without negatively impacting the quality of judicial services. At any given time, we have numerous cost containment initiatives that are in various stages of implementation, and these are described in more detail in my written statement.
▶ 0:44:19Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today and for your support of the judiciary. I understand that the fiscical year 26 budget we have put forward is a large one and that this is a challenging budget environment, but it is necessary to support the fair, efficient, and secure administration of justice in this country. And I would be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you. And I'm pleased I didn't even have to say five minutes. You got it right. Spot on.
▶ 0:44:46I have a whole new appreciation of the red light here. We, you know, we can add one to the court if you'd like Judge Scutter. Good morning, Chairman Good morning, Chairman Isao, Ranking Member Johnson, members of the subcommittee, Ranking Member Raskin. My name is Michael Scutter, and I too serve on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago.
▶ 0:45:10I appear before you today on behalf of the judicial conference committee on information technology which I chair to discuss cyber security threats to the judicial branch and our responses and ongoing priorities. Thank you for this Technology touches nearly everything the judiciary does. Case filings arrive electronically. We manage our dockets electronically. Draft and issue orders and opinions electronically. Communicate with colleagues and staff electronically.
▶ 0:45:39and depend on a range of systems for our administrative functions like HR and financial management. No doubt much the same is true here on Capitol Hill and all throughout the executive branch and private sector. Advances in technology have helped us in countless ways and are replete with future promise.
▶ 0:45:58We're striving to seize those opportunities by modernizing our systems and evaluating value added responsible uses for artificial But we all know that technology brings with it risks. And it's this point I want to underscore for you. Cyber risk is very real for the federal judiciary. Malicious individuals and groups look to exploit vulnerabilities in our environment for their own benefit and to destabilize confidence in our branch.
▶ 0:46:29In recent years, we've experienced serious breaches of our case management and electronic case filing system. More recently, we witnessed a ransomware attack on a federal public defender's office. These events resulted in the loss of sensitive information and delays in judicial processes. We've responded by working closely with the executive branch, including the FBI, to identify the responsible actors and to better understand their intentions.
▶ 0:46:57Our executive branch partners including CISA within DHS and the national cyber director have also helped identify ways in which we can strengthen our cyber security posture. Please know that we're doing everything possible to better secure our systems and the confidential information they contain, including sealed filings on very sensitive criminal, national security, and commercial matters.
▶ 0:47:24We expect we expect the threats will only increase in their persistence and sophistication in the coming years. At regular intervals in recent years and indeed just last month we've offered this and other committees classified briefings on these cyber risks and breaches and you have our commitment to keeping you informed as we move forward. The judiciary's responded to the reality of unrelenting cyber risk by making cyber security one of our branch's top priorities.
▶ 0:47:53In the wake of our first breaches, our former director established an IT security task force to rate to make recommendations on short and long-term objectives. The IT committee received those recommendations and has been hard at work implementing them while also putting in place a compreh comprehensive IT modernization and cyber security strategy. We're three years into implementing that strategy and are making sound progress.
▶ 0:48:20All under the leadership of our branch's first chief information officer and our current director, Judge Robert Conrad, has kept cyber security an absolute top and urgent priority for our branch. All of this takes resources and Congress has been a strong supporter of our IT budgetary needs in recent years. And as I thank you for your past support, allow me to ask for it once again.
▶ 0:48:48The judiciary's fiscical year 26 funding requests include $74 million for multi-year plan funding. The funding will allow us to continue making progress towards modernizing the judiciary's IT systems and strengthening our security. Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today for your understanding and support of our pressing IT and cyber security needs and I welcome your questions. Thank you.
▶ 0:49:18You left me extra time. Unheard of. With that, we go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Klene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank our witnesses for being here. Um, Judge St. Steve, the judiciary is requesting another significant funding increase in fiscal year 26. Um, can you justify this expansion in light of inflation and flat or declining case load trends? certainly.
▶ 0:49:46The we're requesting 9.4 billion for 2026 and that increase is driven by multiple factors. Um, for one, our judicial security fund has been frozen since 23 and we have significant needs in judicial security. The our judicial security fund funds our court security officers who are really the frontline officers that keep the courouses safe.
▶ 0:50:16It funds our vulnerability management program which helps get judges personal identifying information off of the internet. It funds equipment and at the courouses, the magnetometers, the videos, and it also funds uh the courthouse hardening projects that we've been doing around the country. That's been frozen since 23. Um inflation has certainly impacted those.
▶ 0:50:42in particular in the judicial security fund are we have had to put aside some of the equipment updates in order to pay for the court security officers and the vulnerability management program. We've put a priority on that. So courouses around the country some equipment is on a 10-year cycle where it should be replaced and that equipment is now on an 18-year cycle because we haven't been able to replace it.
▶ 0:51:11So a chunk of the money will go toward that. Can you tell me how security funding both physical and cyber uh is audited and um yes the we have an a rigorous internal audit process at the administrative office where there are accounting firms that do cyclical accounting of each of the districts and circuits throughout the country.
▶ 0:51:38And there are also internal audits that are done at the administrative office. Well, I I know that appropriations have increased in recent years for new courthouse construction and renovations, even as GAO reports continue to raise concerns about unused space and unclear prioritization metrics.
▶ 0:51:56Uh meanwhile, in my own district, I've heard reports that one federal courthouse lacked heat during the winter, and the process to get that fixed through GSA was long and That raises concerns about whether basic facility needs are being sidelined while funding goes toward more politically visible construction projects.
▶ 0:52:15Can you explain how the judicial conference prioritizes courthouse spending, especially between new construction and urgently needed repairs and what safeguards are in place to ensure that these decisions are based on objective needs rather than politics or aesthetics? So we have a rigorous process for new construction where we work with GSA and there's a priority list based on a series of factors where we determine which places and which courouses need new construction.
▶ 0:52:45We work with GSA on projects that exist in courouses and that has been a challenge for us. Uh the GSA has lost about 60% of its workforce. I can tell you in Chicago all of our project managers were laid off. So we don't have any GSA project managers.
▶ 0:53:06I have examples from around the country that I could tell you that the layoff of GSA employees has resulted in us not getting the services that we used to. Yet we are still paying the same rent to GSA. Judge Scutter. Congress has heard concerns about it and cyber security funding being treated as a budgetary black box, essentially hard to audit and often folded into broader security categories.
▶ 0:53:34Can you provide examples of how these funds are being prioritized and transparently reported? thank you for the question. We um in our in our budget submission there is some uh detail on that and we regularly re meet with appropriator um appropriator staff and members of the appropriation committee within the branch.
▶ 0:54:02We are devoting our IT and cyber resources to a series of priorities that are all about modernizing our systems to better enhance our security using AI. Um, in part it's it's cutting edge technology. Our director established a task force recently. The task force is looking um hard at AI.
▶ 0:54:27AI uh brings with it enormous promise as you know and it brings with it uh certain risks as well. I think um the chief justice captured that sentiment very well in his 2023 year-end report where he said that any use of AI rec requires caution and humility and uh we're looking hard at it. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Now recognize a gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Thank you.
▶ 0:54:56Um, it's notable that our third equally important branch of government, the judicial branch, has submitted a budget request uh totaling $9.4 billion for fiscal year 2026.
▶ 0:55:14And I will note that this committee in its big ugly bill that passed out uh couple of months ago allocated $45 for the construction of new uh detention facility beds in private for-profit detention facilities under contract to the US government to detain um uh immigrants.
▶ 0:55:43$45 billion to 9.7 billion. And uh we would uh question that. Uh very modest request. It's astounding. Uh Judge Saint Eve, as you know, this is not the appropriations committee. We on the House Judiciary Committee have no control over funding.
▶ 0:56:05But how the judiciary functions from whether Americans get a speedy trial to whether a judge is afraid for his or her safety is predicated on sufficient resources for the judicial branch.
▶ 0:56:19Could you explain for us what having the courts adequately funded means for the constitutional functions of the judicial branch and conversely how frozen funding can snowball into bigger problems for the rule of law? Well, having having sufficient funding is essential for us to carry out our constitutional duties.
▶ 0:56:44The courts have to be funded for the judges to do their work and carry out their duties. I'm going to focus on what you touched on earlier, Ranking Member Johnson. The defender services, they are part of the judiciary's budget. And under the sixth amendment of the all defendants charged with a crime are entitled to representation. And over 90% of criminal defendants have appointed counsel.
▶ 0:57:14It's less than 10% of criminal defendants who can pay for their own counsel. Those appointments and lawyers come from the defender services as well as from courtappointed attorneys under the criminal justice act or CJA attorneys. Because of the CR and 25, the defender services has been under a hiring freeze for 23 of the last 27 months.
▶ 0:57:42They are working at approximately 93% of their work measurement formula. The CJA attorneys we are very concerned about because we rely on them for appointments when the federal defenders can't cover it for one reason or another. And we anticipate that as of now it's July 7th or July 11th. Previously we thought we'd have enough money until July 23rd but that has moved up.
▶ 0:58:10But our fund is going to run out of money to reimburse the CJA appointed attorneys in just a couple of weeks. Yeah, this is an imminent uh threat to the ability to for the courts to operate in a constitutional way. And I know that uh this chief executive doesn't care about the constitution. Let me ask Judge Scutter uh during the uh judge during during Judge St.
▶ 0:58:37Eve's testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee, she spoke of technology as a cost-saving measure, specifically encouraging more use of electronic research and sharing of library materials and facilitating virtual meetings. Could you briefly explain for us how investing in functional IT systems will help the judiciary with its resources in the long term? And I apologize for interrupting uh Judge uh Eve.
▶ 0:59:09Yes, we we invest a lot of resources um in it to help make our work more efficient. Some of what may be embedded in in your questions are efficiency uh efficiency upticks that we realize through enhancements in different applications like legal research.
▶ 0:59:32I think in response to Representative Klein's question, this is where AI um on the horizon um presents efficiency opportunities for our courts. The broader point um that your question gets at is we just like Congress, just like the executive branch, and just like the private sector, we need to regularly invest in our systems to keep them modernized.
▶ 0:59:58When a system becomes outdated or is operating against a very um infrastructure to it, the catchup cost is enormous and the cyber risk that is often injected by allowing it to become outdated creates real risks to us. We're organized around a very sound strategy that we received a lot of input on. our plan um is good.
▶ 1:00:28It's we need the resources and we need to stay organized and focused within our own branch in achieving our objectives. Thank you, Judge. And I yield back. Thank you, gentlemen. We now recognize the gentle lady from California, Miss Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both uh judges and witnesses. It's good to listen to you, and we thank you for your service to our country uh in the um judicial branch.
▶ 1:00:54I've got to say, you know, I'm concerned that we are witnessing what I think is really a dangerous pattern for um calling for the impeachment of federal judges simply because uh a person doesn't agree with their ruling. Um these threats of impeachment don't have to do with misconduct. Uh they're just about punishing judges uh when a a member does not agree with the decision. Uh, Judge St.
▶ 1:01:25Eve, the last time the administrative office testified before this committee, I raised concerns about the misuse of impeachment as a political weapon. And having been, I think I'm the only member of Congress that was involved in all four modern impeachments. Uh, first as a staffer during the Nixon impeachment and as a member, uh, later. Uh, I'm well aware that impeachment is a very serious process.
▶ 1:01:52uh it must be exercised with the most uh complete seriousness. It's really a constitutional failafe uh meant to address serious misconduct not to remove judges for doing their jobs under article three. And there was a reason why the founders gave lifetime tenure uh to judges so that they would be uh free uh to to follow the facts and follow the law without fear of intimidation.
▶ 1:02:20and the uh threat of unwarranted impeachment really does undercut what our founders had in mind in a carefully crafted uh checks and balance system. So, um I'm just wondering uh and either one of you can answer if you know um since the last uh testimony before this committee, the number of articles of impeachment against federal judges has risen to seven uh against six federal judges.
▶ 1:02:50To your knowledge, has the judicial conference referred any of these judges to the House for impeachment? To my knowledge, no. That's outside of the scope of budget what I prepared to testify to today.
▶ 1:03:06But I know that we do strongly disagree with calls for impeachment based solely on a judge's rulings and would repeat the words of Chief Justice Roberts from his year in report that the normal appellet review process exists for that purpose. That that is correct. And you know I I know that um I've been on this committee my entire tenure in Congress and we have had uh judges impeached for misconduct.
▶ 1:03:33As a matter of fact, I was one of the impeachment managers for uh one of the misconduct cases. The judicial conference um has never referred this number of judges in a six-month period. Uh I I can say that for a fact because I've been on the committee. Uh it seems to me that even without a conviction, being impeached can do damage to a judge's career.
▶ 1:04:00um even the the threat of impeachment can do damage and I know that you're worried about and rightfully so physical safety but the extreme rhetoric about judges that sometimes accompanies these impeachment threats I think heightens the danger that judges are are in. We've seen uh judges attacked both at the state level and and federal level.
▶ 1:04:27And I think uh it's important that we um understand that Chief Justice Roberts was exactly right. Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellet process exists uh for that purpose. And I gather both of you would agree with that. We're all um Yes, definitely. So, let me just close with this.
▶ 1:04:56I I think there's an irony here that uh the committee is holding a hearing focused on fiscal responsibility and supporting the functioning of our courts while some of the members of this body are actively attacking judges with baseless impeachment threats. I don't think you can claim to support the judiciary while undermining its uh This isn't about constitutional accountability.
▶ 1:05:23It's about political intimidation and that political intimidation could among unhinged members of the public also bleed into uh actual physical uh violence. So I I just think it's important that we step back from this uh legislative misconduct and I do thank the witnesses once again for their service. I yield back.
▶ 1:05:47I think the gentle lady, the chair might note that this committee has not taken up any, I repeat, any uh articles of impeachment on behalf of any of those proponents of the judges. Uh and speaking only from this chair for myself. We're currently under no such consideration for any of those that are pending. And with that, we recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina for her her questioning. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:06:14chairman and ranking member Johnson for organizing this extremely important hearing. Um I represent um the Eastern District of North Carolina, probably one of the fastest growing districts. Um we have not gotten a new judge or a new courthouse in a really long time and um things are things are pretty dire there. Uh, I also want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today and especially for your service during this trying time.
▶ 1:06:44You have to hear cases, but you're also managing the third branch of government and we really appreciate that service. Recent events have shown that while we should be improving and investing in judicial security, um this Congress is entertaining cuts to budgets because judges are issuing decisions that President Trump or some of my colleagues on this committee disagree with.
▶ 1:07:12But physical threats are not the only danger judges have for to their ability to do their job. The judiciary is increasingly subject to cyber threats and attacks as Judge Scutter uh noted in his opening remarks and I've been working on this issue. Colonial pipeline affected my district and I've been working on it in the energy sector.
▶ 1:07:36So, Judge Scutter, you chair the judicial conference committee on information technology, and we know that cyber attacks on the judiciary are increasing in both frequency and sophistication. What can you tell us about the cyber sec security threat to the judiciary in this setting? You laid a few things out, but what are you doing to shore up? How does that compare to other industries? Are you working with NIST?
▶ 1:08:05let us know what you're doing. Yeah, thank you very much uh for your question. You are you are absolutely correct and as I tried to underscore the cyber risk that the judiciary faces is very real. It's persistent. It's sophisticated. It's hard to stay ahead of. One thing we do know is that we're in shared company. It's a whole of government issue. It's it's a whole of society issue.
▶ 1:08:33It's present in the private sector as well. When we first experienced very serious and sophisticated breaches, it served as a real call to action for our branch to get very organized around cyber risk and then strategically to target it.
▶ 1:08:54The way that we're doing that is by investing with your support here in Congress in securing particular systems that are as well as modernizing more broadly applications that we depend upon and then focusing like a hawk on what is happening daily within our systems and responding to it in real time.
▶ 1:09:20I'd be remiss also to not recognize the partnership that we have formed with the executive branch. This is where cyber risk information and intelligence becomes very important to us. We received that through the intelligence community, through the FBI, the national cyber director's office in the White House has been a tremendous um supporter and um we have a lot to do and it's hard work and we're at it.
▶ 1:09:50Great. And what more can Congress do to support your efforts? The fact that you're recognizing it um publicly like you are is very important and then through the budgetary process to support us. And let me also invite to hold us accountable um to what we're representing we're going to get done along what timelines um and to get this done for everyone that litigates in our in our courts and to get it done for the judiciary and the American public more broadly.
▶ 1:10:20And then the Arizona public defender office situation had to do with ransomware. Correct. Um could you tell us if you have a policy on ransomware? I know that that's something that's been very difficult for us to establish in the private sector, but could you tell us how you handle ransomware?
▶ 1:10:38Yeah, we view we view ransomware as a form of cyber attack, which which it is, and I don't know of any formal policy, but I'm confident um in telling you that we do not pay uh ransoms and have no interest in um paying ransoms or associating with um criminal cyber groups like that.
▶ 1:10:59We will descend every possible resource including partnering with the executive branch to try to mitigate the effects of a ransomware attack. We've we've done that here. The losses that you're referring to that the federal defenders office experienced are very very real and very very troubling. And it circles recognizing where that hit. It hit in a federal defender's office. And as Mr.
▶ 1:11:29Johnson was uh noting, these are folks that are shouldering a very, very weighty responsibility under the Sixth Amendment to represent indigent um defendants. So, it's all interconnected. It's all very real and it's all very serious. Thank you very much and I yield back.
▶ 1:11:48I thank the gentle lady and I would join with the gentle lady in denouncing anyone particularly members of house or senate uh from using such languages may bring any uh greater danger to those who serve in the federal uh judiciary. And with that it's my privilege to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin for his five minutes. Thank you. Thank you chairman. Uh thank you both for being here today. Judge St. Eve.
▶ 1:12:16Um there have been some discussions over the years on judicial conduct and reforms and uh including uh most recently about the case of Judge Pauline Newman which we spoke in the judiciary committee about a couple weeks ago. Um Judge Newman's case has now been kind of dragging on for over two years and is now pending appeal before the court of appeals for for DC circuit.
▶ 1:12:43Um, do you have any idea what has been the total cost to the federal circuit or the administrative office of of the court uh on this investigation and the proceeds in and around Judge Newman? Congressman, excuse me, Congressman Fitzgerald, the Federal Circuit has independ independent budget authority and it's not under the judicial conference budget oversight.
▶ 1:13:10I also this is pending litigation uh that's been going on and I ethically can't comment on pending litigation. I can tell you from my own experience. I've been involved in several uh judicial conduct inquiries in the seventh circuit that this is typically paid for out of court the ones that I've been involved with, the judges, three judge panel have been involved and usually
▶ 1:13:40we have one staff person helping and so it's just part of our regular business and it comes out of that. I know that the statute provides that the director can ask the administrative office to pay for certain expenses or can approve that for expert witnesses who might be testifying.
▶ 1:14:02Also, the statute provides that if the judge ultimately prevails and the judicial misconduct is inquiry is dismissed that that judge can ask for reimbursement for expenses.
▶ 1:14:16But though that's provided for in the statute and I and I think that's part of the frustration is whenever you see kind of a some sufficient amount that that is uh not necessarily coming out of a specific category in the budget that it just seems to be open-ended which fuels the idea that these cases go on and on and on. I I don't know that that's, you know, specifically the case because we don't have enough information really to make that judgment, but it but it is something I think that we're watching closely and we're concerned about.
▶ 1:14:46Right. Um while the sixth amendment affords the right to a public trial for criminal proceedings and the first amendment has been interpreted to mean the same for civil proceedings, records of the proceedings are not public or free. uh federal court documents are available at a price uh through an online system known as Pacer, which I'm sure you're familiar with, obviously.
▶ 1:15:09However, critics of Pacer argue that even the minuscule fees can pause pose an access to justice issue that's out there. Uh, Judge uh, Scutter, uh, you kind of mentioned in your testimony uh, that um, the current court case management system are outdated or unsustainable.
▶ 1:15:34Um, do you want to can you comment a little bit more on on that and then what could we do to try and moni modernize this whole process? Yeah, thank you for uh, the question. We we as a branch definitely share your commitment to the access um to justice issues. Um judicial policy reflects that.
▶ 1:15:55Your your right to recognize that our case management electronic case filing system pacer is kind of the vehicle through which you access that as as you noted is vulnerable um to cyber risk. We welcome you your support of our ongoing efforts to modernize that application and to better secure it and I am happy to tell you and the committee that we are seriously about that and intensely about it to try to drive down that risk.
▶ 1:16:25Have you guys identified anything specifically that could you could do from a modernization perspective that would help and assist us? Yeah, absolutely. the um there's several there's several things on the the technical level at a more macro level what what I would say is this we have made a lot of progress in recent years in thinking about our IT essentially as critical infrastructure as essential to really everything that we're doing and what
▶ 1:16:55that is translating in translating to is a more enterprisewide or branchwide approach to our systems. And so we need to drive down some of the local customization that we have allowed historically with some of our applications. And as we approach system modernization at a more with a more enterprise or branchwide approach, we expect to realize real security benefits. That's primarily where our focus is. Very good. Thank you.
▶ 1:17:25My time's up. Yield back. Thank you. We now go to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Rascam, for five Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, Judge St. Eve, Judge Scutter, thank you for your testimony today. Um, federal judges and state judges both swear an oath to faithfully discharge their duties under the Constitution and under the laws of the United States. Um, Judge St.
▶ 1:17:52Eve, um, should a judge ever decide a case based on whether their decision would please the president or any other public official? I could say in deciding cases I look at the law and apply the law, apply the dictates of the Supreme Court and that's what we are directed to do. That's right. And that sounds like the normal course of business. But we just found out last week that a federal district court nominee may have done precisely that.
▶ 1:18:22Um before Florida State Judge Ed Arttow was nominated in May by President Trump, uh he lobbied for his federal court nomination at the same time that he sat on a state court panel that heard Trump's case against the Pulitzer Prize board which Trump was suing because he disagreed with their award of the Pulitzer to the New York Times and the Washington Post.
▶ 1:18:47And the decision in the case was about a very narrow question of personal jurisdiction which the court uh ruled upon. But this judge uh filed a concurring opinion uh in which he reprinted lots of Donald Trump's uh bold and capitalized letters about uh what a a fraud all of this was.
▶ 1:19:12And um actually not only did he reach the merits of the case saying that Trump had shown that the Pulitzer board had remarkably acted with actual malice towards Donald Trump, but the actual malice standard set forth in New York Times versus Sullivan should be overturned by the Supreme Court. And uh the court he said should return to the common law standard in England.
▶ 1:19:40um which uh allowed for people in public office uh to prove that they had been lieled uh by someone without showing any intent at all on just a strict liability standard. Quite a remarkable thing.
▶ 1:19:56Um I I suppose you don't want to comment on that particular situation, but would you think it's improper for uh a judge to be rendering a decision in order to please uh a president who might then appoint them to the federal bench? Could I ask you Judge Sive first? I am not familiar with that situation and don't think it would be proper to comment on somebody who's pending for a judgeship. Right. And I would never ask you to do that.
▶ 1:20:24But let me ask you, Judge Scutter, the abstracting from the the facts of this case is I've, you know, uh advanced them in uh a compressed way and you can check it out if you're interested on your own. There's a lot of news coverage about it. Um but do you agree with what I think Judge San said at the beginning, which is that a judge should never uh rule in a way that is designed to please a public official as opposed to enforce the meaning of the law.
▶ 1:20:50I I do agree with that and I think um you you recognized it in some of your uh comments that preceded your question and that is embedded within the oath that judges take is we swear to decide and resolve issues without without fear or favor the independence of the judiciary is enshrined in article 3 of the constitution and we take seriously the duty that you recognized earlier that Chief Justice Marshall pronounced in Marberry. Well, I appreciate that very much.
▶ 1:21:20Um, can you describe briefly how the ABA ratings for federal judicial nominees worked before March of this Did I I I can't I didn't um I can't honestly Let me refresh your memory.
▶ 1:21:34I don't know whether you went through that process, but essentially the ABA examined nominees and their backgrounds to determine whether they um were qualified for the job and also had the the various uh the ethical met the various ethical requirements of the job and that existed uh since 1955 um when the ABA began vetting nominees and uh used the present day system since
▶ 1:22:041990 for the last 35 years. So, we had a system in place that began under President Eisenhower to ensure that judicial nominees have the appropriate qualifications. In March, Trump announced he was no longer going to provide the ABA access to the materials they need to vet the nominees. And then just over two months later, he nominated one of his personal criminal defense attorneys, Emil Bo, to the third circuit court of appeals.
▶ 1:22:28And we learned yesterday the White House approached Bove to ask if he wanted to be a federal judge after he ordered the dismissal dismissal of corruption charges against Mayor uh Eric uh Adams. So do you think or would the would the judicial conference take a position on restoring the ABA vetting system or do you think uh it's just going to remain agnostic about whether it should be dismissed?
▶ 1:22:55The judicial conference, to my knowledge, has not taken a position on that one way or the other. That is outside of the scope of the budget process that I'm here to testify about today. I'm I'm happy to take that question back or put your staff in touch with staff if you'd like. All right. I appreciate that. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. to uh for the gentleman.
▶ 1:23:15Uh isn't it an interesting coincidence that Eisenhower, the man who made a deal politically with Earl Warren for the endorsement and made him chief justice, is the guy that this started under. U I would note, by the way, that uh I would likely get a zero on on a bar association uh endorsement for judgeship. You said Ike would I would get at least a zero. Oh, but we would give you a hundred, Mr. Chairman. I don't think you have anything to be afraid of. So, I thank the gentleman.
▶ 1:23:45We now go to the gentleman from South Carolina for his question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd give you 100, but I'm not on there. Um, I do appreciate it. Uh, uh, thank you for having this important hearing, and thank you, judges, for for being here. Um, you know, the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government. I think we all recognize that, uh, tasked with upholding and interpreting the law.
▶ 1:24:04Uh the concern that I think that we have, a lot of us, uh is that in recent years it has become increasingly clear that reform is needed to preserve the impartiality and the integrity of the court system, particularly when it comes to removing partisan influence uh from the bench. Uh unfortunately uh activist judges uh such as district court judge Boseberg have uh used tools like nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders to block the president's agenda raising serious concerns about judicial overreach and politicization.
▶ 1:24:35Uh if we are to restore the public trust in the judiciary, meaningful reforms are necessary. Uh today I want to focus uh on this uh on this committee's concerns with the politically compromised aspects of the judge or the judiciary uh as well as the broader issues of judicial security and oversight. Are nationwide injunctions a core function of the judiciary? Either one of you.
▶ 1:25:01The judicial conference has not taken a position on nationwide injunctions and I know that issue is currently before the Supreme Court. There was a case argued earlier this term where I anticipate we might get a ruling before the term ends that addresses something with respect to nationwide injunction. Judge San, what are some of the arguments I guess that are uh that that exist out there against nationwide injunctions being violative of the constitution?
▶ 1:25:29I have not studied that in anticipation of today's hearing. Also, as you one of those would be just a clear separation of powers, right? You've probably heard that. Is is it is it the function of the judiciary to have 600 plus unelected and unaccountable judges or do we have one president of the United States? That's probably one of the clearest arguments if you're arguing against it uh that exists out there in the stratosphere. Correct. Nationwide injunctions.
▶ 1:25:57There are issues throughout the country and this is an issue that could come before me as a sitting judge. So, it would not be proper for me to comment on it ethically one way or the other. Do you think that the American people um believe that nationwide injunctions or do they weaken the public's trust in our democratic system? Uh one designed to prioritize elected governance over judicial overreach. Either one of you.
▶ 1:26:25I don't I don't have an informed uh view on it. And in the capacity I'm appearing, I don't um know that I should venture a guess at it. Is the uh the JCUS making any attempt to clarify or to curtail uh the use of nationwide injunctions? What efforts or discussions are taking place right now regarding nationwide injunctions from a court administrative standpoint?
▶ 1:26:48I am not familiar with or aware of any, but again, I'm appearing in my capacity as chair of the budget committee and haven't studied that. So to your knowledge, there is no discussion taking place whatsoever with the JCUS or the AO about nationwide injunctions. I don't know one way or the other. I do know the judicial conference does not have an official policy on nationwide injunctions, but beyond that, I'm not sure. Judge Gutter, have you heard anything?
▶ 1:27:12No, I share the I share the same understanding and would just also observe that all the the pros and cons on the legal side of this or before the Supreme Court and um if we stay tuned if their term is ending soon as we everyone expects it will we may receive some guidance on this quickly. Well, hopefully so hopefully there is some guidance. I think it's partially obviously Congress has oversight um uh but courts also have the capacity to to to look at new practices.
▶ 1:27:39Um, what statistics or other information can you provide about the percentage of cases at the district courts in which equitable or injunctive relief is granted? I don't know those statistics, Judge Gutter. Yeah, I I I don't either. Um, I don't either. What statistics or other information can you provide about the percentage of cases at the district courts in which nationwide injunctive relief is granted?
▶ 1:28:05namely injunctive relief that enjoins a party uh against nonparties across the country. Any statistics? I don't know those statistics. I don't know if they're maintained anywhere. in your view, uh actually let me let me just switch gears here.
▶ 1:28:27Um, Judge Scutter, AO Director Conrad has noticed a sharp rise in cyber attacks on the court system, uh, which are prime targets due to their sensitive data and critical role for the judiciary. Uh, given the rising tensions with, uh, Iran, China, the growing threat of China, do you believe the judiciary has adequate cyber safeguards in place? Um, thank you for the question. I believe we're doing everything that we can to mitigate and drive down cyber risk.
▶ 1:28:56But I'd also renew the point that I made earlier in response to questions in my opening statement. The cyber risk that we face is persistent and sophisticated and it keeps growing in its sophistication. And the challenge that we have is keeping up with it and having the resources that we need to get these security improvements and these modernization efforts done to at the very least um keep up with it, but better yet to get ahead of it. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:29:26I see my time has expired and I yield back. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman from Colorado for 5 minutes. I thank uh the chairman and the ranking member for holding this hearing and I want to thank both of our witnesses uh for your service to our country and for your testimony today. I want to pick up on a point uh that was just articulated by my colleague from South Carolina. Both of you have served with distinction as federal judges.
▶ 1:29:51You both had very extensive and distinguished careers in private practice as well as uh in the assistant US attorneys, a variety of different high-profile cases that both of you prosecuted in the past. You both were appointed by President Trump to your current positions on your the respective circuit court of appeals in which you serve. And you both were confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate, which is no easy feat.
▶ 1:30:21Do either of you believe that the federal judiciary is quote politically compromised end quote as my colleague from South Carolina just suggested? Judge Scutter. Um I don't I thank you for your compliments.
▶ 1:30:36Um I I don't um my experience in the seventh circuit and with my colleagues all around the country is very much in keeping with the comments and the observations that uh Representative Rascin made with respect to the seriousness with which judges take their oath and approach each case or controversy that comes before them. to look at the facts and the law to try to get it right.
▶ 1:31:06Um recognizing that there's an appellet process in place if the losing party disagrees where the ruling can be challenged. Judge Sanife, I would echo Judge Scutter's comments and uh thank you for your compliments. I've been a judge for 23 years now and feel the exact same way that Judge Scutter does.
▶ 1:31:27Well, I want to say thank you both for your cander and I think it is important contextually for this committee and I think for the American public to hear jurists such as yourselves articulate what you just described. And of course, the reason is self-evident.
▶ 1:31:43uh you know this hearing it it's a bit odd because if one were watching it you'd think it's a fairly atypical or excuse me not an atypical hearing a fairly normal hearing discussing budgetary and technology matters that the judiciary is is trying to grapple with and yet we find ourselves in very abnormal times.
▶ 1:32:05I'm sure it's not lost on either of you that several of my Republican colleagues are actively debating, defunding federal district courts, potentially defunding circuit courts that issue opinions that they disagree with. You you all are aware of this. I'm sure you've seen some reporting in the news that suggests this.
▶ 1:32:29I can represent to you that having served on this committee and and served in the House and been witnessed to the conversations over the last five months that that's a that's an active matter of How do you respond to that? What would it mean, Judge St.
▶ 1:32:44Eve, if the Congress were to defund a district court that you you heard my colleague from South Carolina viciferously attacking Judge Boseberg, who I suspect you you know, we've submitted our budget for fiscal year 26 of $9.4 billion and can justify our requests for their the court security, the defenders, the SNE account, and the fees of jurors.
▶ 1:33:12And as I said in my oral statement earlier, funding of the courts is essential for us to carry out our constitutional and statutory duties. We and I completely concur with your assessment on that front, but I guess and I recognize it's a it is a question that may be a bit uncomfortable, but again, this is an atypical time we find ourselves in. How will the budget committee of the judicial conference respond if the Congress successfully defunds a district court?
▶ 1:33:42So if that if that happens, that could happen. The Republicans have signaled in the majority that at least some of them would like to defund a district court in Massachusetts or uh the Washington District Court. How will the judicial conference respond to that? is that that will just be the new normal that essentially Congress is allowed and permitted to exact political retribution against a judge if they rule in a way that uh a majority of the Congress disagrees with.
▶ 1:34:11Again, our funding is essential for the judges in every district in every circuit to carry out their constitutional and statutory duties and we need that funding in order to do so. Well, I I appreciate your your answer.
▶ 1:34:26Uh I would simply suggest that given the abnormal nature of the times we find ourselves in um I would hope that the judicial conference is actively how it will respond if and when proposals like the one that I've just described ultimately materialize because I with all uh respect for both of you I I think the
▶ 1:34:56response of the judicial conference will have to be more squarely designed uh to address this particular issue rather than the sort of broader budget proposal and the justifications that you've offered. Um at the end of the day, if the judicial conference is unwilling to defend the propriety of not having the Congress defund a particular district court, that that's going to be a very untenable position, I think.
▶ 1:35:23Um, so I that that would be my my request of all of you and I thank the gentle I mean the chairman for his indulgence on the time. I yield back. My indulgence knows no limits uh for good reason. Uh and I will note for the record that we know of no request to defund the court. Um and I I would also for the record because all of us on the top deas have been here a while.
▶ 1:35:48We've all seen the disruption that it's caused by government shutdowns to ranch, including uh our article three, and would say that all the proposals by one-of-a-kind members who might might say something like that pale in comparison to even a few days of shutting down the government, which often disrupts the the court in a huge way.
▶ 1:36:10And with that, I go to my favorite colleague on the day, the gentleman from Judge Scutter, you've always been my favorite. I hope you know that. Thank you, Darl. Thank you, Darl. And uh we don't shut down the government on this Mr. Mr. Chairman, I Okay, I I spoke. I deserve this. Yes, please. I had a unanimous consent request that I had neglected.
▶ 1:36:37The gentleman state is unanimous unanimous consent request was to enter into the record uh an article from the hill that quotes uh the speaker of the house saying and I quote we can eliminate an entire district court. We have power over funding over the courts and all these other things but desperate times call for desperate measures and congress is going to act.
▶ 1:36:54Touché without objection I will also place in the record uh leader Schumer uh in 2022 saying Kavanaaugh he'll pay the price for as row resurfaces without objection both we place in the record I now represent he's still my favorite colleague from California with me uh please Judge Scutter will it surprise you if we see a federal judge murdered
▶ 1:37:25Uh, I mean that would be tragic beyond beyond words and I think that's implicit in the question and I hope everyone would recognize that. Is the threat level that we see today against federal judges at a temperature where you see yourself and your colleagues changing their own security posture?
▶ 1:37:48Ju um Judge Sen may want to weigh in on this from the resource perspective, but there there is no question that judicial security is an enormous priority. It's it's a priority that has intensified in recent um years and it's responsive to everything that you all are recognizing across um you know across all of the questioning that we're hearing today and your support for um
▶ 1:38:18our security needs is essential to us so judges judges can go about doing the duty that we've talked about in the hearing so far and and I support that and I I think most of my colleagues support that. I'm concerned. Recently, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Jordan, said to Punch Bowl News on June 13, he sees few members excited to increase judicial security.
▶ 1:38:42And then Chip Roy, also a member of the committee said on that same day, maybe they the judges should stop screwing everything up. My concern is that we have put your security in the hands of the executive branch. It's often lately that the exe the commander-in-chief will tweet out or issue statements against judges and now your security is in the hands of somebody who doesn't like a ruling that one of your colleagues has made.
▶ 1:39:11That's why I introduced what's called the Marshalls Act. Every member of the Democratic side uh supports it. I hope Mr. Isa remains open-minded uh to supporting it as well. But this would move judicial security from the executive branch. would have the chief justice of the Supreme Court appoint the US marshals essentially judges would become in charge of their own security. What do you think about that? Uh Miss Judge San, thank you for the question.
▶ 1:39:40The US Marshalss are on the front line of our security. They have their protection details. They investigate threats. We are very thankful for their extraordinary efforts. I could tell you in Chicago, the US Marshalss are incredibly professional and responsive and anytime I have had any issue, they have responded immediately and appropriately and although they aren't part of our budget, we hope that they are fully funded.
▶ 1:40:08Um, in terms of a a separate force, that's not something that I have looked into and I don't believe the judicial conference has a position. So, it wouldn't be a separate force. So it essentially right now the president appoints the US marshalss. They're confirmed by the Senate. This would move judicial security the US marshals to appointment by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. So essentially the Marshall service would fall under the judicial branch.
▶ 1:40:34And so that way you you would still have to come to Congress to receive, you know, an appropriation for the judicial branch and its security, but it would allow uh the branch that is facing security threats to have more agility in surging where uh security is needed.
▶ 1:40:54And the concern is that if a judge in their deliberations is worried that a ruling that goes against the executive branch, when the executive branch has shown a willingness to issue harsh statements at judges that could bring threats, they may let that creep into their deliberations and not be as independent as we want. So, Judge Scutter, I'd welcome your thoughts on moving the marshalss from the executive branch to the judicial branch. Yeah, I I don't know.
▶ 1:41:21Um, like Judge Neve, I don't know that the judicial conference has um taken a a position on the point and therefore I I can't give you um that. But embedded all throughout your question and every everything that you're acknowledging is the priority to enhance judicial security wherever the marshals are located. I completely agree with with everything Judge St. Eve has said about the marshals.
▶ 1:41:47This is a very very professional committed group of men and women and in my experience in Chicago they are A+ and and I want to make it clear to Mr. Isa because he and his colleagues often point out that Judge Kavanaaugh uh had a serious attempt uh on his life and his family and that was wrong and that should be condemned and it it has been condemned by our side.
▶ 1:42:11Uh and my introducing this legislation is entirely motivated by the fact that I don't know who the president will be four years from now, eight years from now, 25 years from now. But I do know that what we have seen where threats are escalating against judges, I think regardless of who the party is at the White House, their independence needs to remain independent of their own security threats. And so Mr. ISA.
▶ 1:42:39That's why I would suggest moving it to the judicial branch so they can be in charge of their own security. And with that, uh, if the gentleman would yield, uh, for the record, because I think this is the appropriate hearing to include that, um, although I did not sign on to the bill for a number of reasons.
▶ 1:42:58Uh if uh uh Judge Se if you could answer what he implied in his question which is from a budgetary standpoint would you say that there are some ambiguities in your budget in that a major port some of your security falls under your budget some doesn't?
▶ 1:43:16uh some of your ability to build and and enhance and repair facilities falls under your budget, but most falls in your budget, but controlled by GSA. Are there budgetary changes that this uh committee should consider?
▶ 1:43:33Although it was noted we don't we don't appropriate at the end of the day we can say what does fall under appropriations who falls under your direct authority whose article three if you will and what liberties you have like the fed circuit to have your own budget or to uh even uh not ignore but to uh work outside the GSA when you think that's appropriate and cost savings.
▶ 1:44:00if you could opine on that because that's where the gentleman and I have become such good friends. And just to clarify your question, are you talking about in the context of security only? No. No. I mean the security uh the facilities themselves, there's a number of areas because you have to go to the GSA uh for that. You have to go to the marshalss for most but not all of your security.
▶ 1:44:22As someone who's looked at the budget, would it streamline your ability and the conference's ability to do their job if to the greatest extent possible we moved into your budget all functions and control so that you would make those decisions in the most cost-effective fashion. And that would include obviously the idea that you have three separate security organizations. The high court has a separate one.
▶ 1:44:48There's the uh uh security itself, which you do have, and then there's the marshalss, but also in the facility side, and I'm really just asking because you're here on the budget. Can we make changes in the judiciary that makes your budget uh more more effective?
▶ 1:45:07Well, I I think the best way to do that is to make sure that we are fully funded because we are not fully funded and haven't been and we've been flat frozen at the fiscal year 24 level. So that really constrains what we can do and I'll use the the court security account as an example. Uh we did not receive what we asked for in our court security account in 24 or in 25.
▶ 1:45:33And because of that, we had to make some tough decisions about what we can use those funds for. We put a priority, as I indicated earlier, on court security officers, who are the main officers at the courouses that keep the judges and the public safe and on our vulnerability management program. As a result of that, equipment at courouses had to come in second.
▶ 1:45:57And so there's a a lot of equipment out there that needs updated that we just have not been able to do because we don't have the funds to do it. So the best way to to help us with our budget is to ensure that we are fully funded. Thank you. We now recognize the chairman of the full committee for his combined opening statement and such questions as he may have. I don't know if I have that. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Jud Judge St. Eve. Uh so you're requesting a 9% increase. Is that accurate? That's accurate.
▶ 1:46:27How many how many what's the federal district? Is it 677? How many federal district judges? It is around that around that number. Uh what's what's the average what's the staff size for what what's what's a budget for your your typical federal district judge and what's the staff size that they would have working for them and for the court? So for a typical district court judge, they have three staff members. um judges can make a determination if they want three law clerks or two law clerks and a judicial assistant.
▶ 1:46:58In addition, judge the district court judges have a court reporter and a courtroom deputy. Although those positions, what's the total number then of all those? That's five. But in some districts, the courtroom deputy and the court reporter are shared. So, one district court judge does not have his or her own courtroom deputy or court reporter. That varies by district. And each judge has, you said, two or three clerks, correct? Okay.
▶ 1:47:26Uh, of the 9% increase, how much of that's going for uh security? The 9% increase, our security account is asking for 892 million. And what percentage of that is of is that of the of the overall 9%. A little a little under um 10% of our budget, the full budget.
▶ 1:47:50So 894 million of the 9.4 billion is for our judicial security account. Understand? But you're asking for an additional n you're asking for a 9% increase. Of that increase are what percentage of that 9% are you devoting to security in in going forward? I think our increase for the judicial security account is a 19% increase over what it is now. That's comparing it from fiscal year 25 to what we're requesting.
▶ 1:48:21Maybe maybe I'm okay. You're you're you're overall what's the overall dollar amount you're asking for compared to where you're at now and what you're going to have for the next the next year in just judicial security or overall overall. So the overall amount that we are asking for is 9.4 billion for fiscal year 12 and that's a 800 million increase over last That is about a 9% increase over last year. And what's that dollar amount?
▶ 1:48:48The dollar amount um I have to My understanding is you're asking for $800 million increase. Is that accurate? $800 million. I think that is accurate. Okay. And and and of that 800 million, how many of what what the dollar amount going for security? The total dollar amount going to security is 892 million. And that is about an increase of 142 million over 25. Okay.
▶ 1:49:17So, so the out of the I'm sorry. Go ahead. Say it again. Go ahead. Out of our overall increase, 142 million is in the court security account. Okay. So, that means 658 million is for other things. Yes. And where's it where is all that going? U defender services. We're asking for 1.8 billion.
▶ 1:49:43The SNE or salaries and expenses account, we're asking for 6.9 billion. And that salaries and expenses goes to cover people and buildings primarily and it but now you're giving me the total number. I I'm of the 800 million increase you said 142 million has gone for security. That leaves 658 million new dollars. Where is that money going? the new dollars.
▶ 1:50:10So our the additional increase is 800 million over from the prior year. I I don't have this broken down into percentages. Well, that just give me the dollar amount. So the dollar amount for defender services, the additional amount we're asking for is 315,000 roughly. We're asking for a little less in fees and jurors. We're asking for the in court security.
▶ 1:50:41100 a million in court security. Okay. Okay. Well, I mean, again, I think members are are comfortable. I've said this all along. We're comfortable with making sure there's security. We're not so comfortable giving increases and everything else. Um, I think that's where members are. Certainly, the the folks I represent back home, I think that's where where they see it. um that's our concern particularly with some of the decisions we've seen. So um with that I would be happy to yield my remaining 12 seconds to the chairman.
▶ 1:51:10Um I'll take all 12 seconds uh to place in the record uh and it uh it's a video so I'll just uh extrapolate the statement on the 1st of April 2025. The speaker's comments that were earlier referred to verbatim are we are not defunding the courts. We're not doing anything other than limiting in this legislation the ability of a judge to issue a nationwide injunction.
▶ 1:51:40Uh I want to make it clear the speaker of the house very very clearly uh had no intention of saying that there was any going to be any uh limiting of of judges on an individual basis but rather the nationwide injunctions which was a bill that was passed out of the house. And with that, I go to the gentle lady from California. Thank you, Mr. um chair.
▶ 1:52:02And you know, thank you to the two of you um for showing up here today because it sounds to me like you all are asking for money. You need money for buildings, for cyber security, for security, and for people. Um, and I applaud you for asking for more money for security because one of my Republican neighbors has a wanted poster outside his office with pictures of 18 judges, nine of whom are Republicans.
▶ 1:52:33Um, and it it's very scary to me and to all of the folks who are walking the halls visiting us um to see. But I want to talk about the people. Uh, and the chair of this full committee just mentioned defender services. Um, and that's what I want to talk about because in my mind, the fundamental right to a defense is what is on the chopping block. So, Judge St.
▶ 1:53:01Eve, my understanding is that you were in a USA, correct? Correct. Okay. And Judge Scutter, you too were in a USA, correct? Correct. I mean, New York and Chicago is what I read. And so for the regular people listening like me, um, an A USA is a prosecutor. And my understanding is that prosecutors are assigned a case load. Is that also correct? That's correct. Okay. Yes, Judge Gutter. Okay, great.
▶ 1:53:27And so case loads are a direct result of investigations done by special agents, by agencies like the FBI, like the IRS that are doing their due diligence and helping to present evidence for a case.
▶ 1:53:44And so you all may not want to answer this question, but I am sure that you all became better prosecutors, which probably enhanced your ability to become a judge because of the defense world. Uh, and many of these folks that I'm talking about are the federal public defenders, the community defenders. And I'm going to say that you probably became better because you had a skilled opponent. You had to work harder.
▶ 1:54:14You needed to have counterarguments. You needed to be well read and prepared. Uh, and I bet that you learned how to prepare to be a judge because of your time in the courtroom and preparing for a trial. And I think those are all skills that we would want in our judges. So, I actually think proposing what these Republicans are proposing to do to cut defender services is really hypocritical because essentially you're saying we don't want the next group of judges to be prepared for their job.
▶ 1:54:43We are going to cut up and coming a USA's opportunity for growth because we're going to be cutting uh public defenders. And that's not even talking about how this goes against the Constitution, which as I read it says that you get due process, you get speedy trials, and you get effective counsel. I'm talking about a much bigger problem.
▶ 1:55:06Because suffice it to say, if you cut public defenders, if you cut defense, then not only are you abandoning the Constitution, but you really are going to eliminate the need for judges. and then everybody can turn the black robes in because you you you can't do anything if you don't have defense. And in my mind, that is a very slippery, dangerous, serreptitious slope to be on.
▶ 1:55:33So, Judge Scutter, as an AUSA, I'm assuming that your docket included both civil and criminal cases. Correct. Um, mainly criminal. Okay. And so my understanding is that the priority are the criminal cases because of speedy trial rights.
▶ 1:55:49And a speedy trial is dependent upon a qualified defense attorney who can advance a case, who knows the value of a case, who understands pre-trial services, and who can work with and manage interpreters, investigators, witnesses, and the prosecution. And investigators and interpreters are also on the chopping block right here. And a case cannot be adjudicated without a defense attorney, without public defenders, without these community public defenders. You can't enter a plea. You can't even go to trial without a defense attorney.
▶ 1:56:20And these cuts, for the record, these cuts, public defenders, CGAs, well, not CGAs, but public defenders and community defenders would stabilize the courts and upend your calendars because the cases that have to move the fastest would stall. And those are the criminal cases. And I I want to say in 23 and 24 there were 66,000 criminal cases filed and and 113 pending. There were 347,000 civil cases filed and 633,000 pending.
▶ 1:56:51And you know who needed public defenders? The January 6ers. I want to enter into the record, Mr. Chair, from the national memo. Public defenders do more for January 6 suspects than Trump ever will. 60% of the January 6ers had a public defender as their counsel. We without without objection be placed in the record. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:57:19I know that my time is up, but I just want to say even Trump said that it was defense counsel, it was his defense council where he learned that the FBI was making mistakes, procedural and substantial misdirection.
▶ 1:57:39I'll be nice and say it that he was able to uncover partisan blind spots and bring them to light because of defense council and Republicans want to cut this money that is not just stated in the constitution that people have a right to but it is the only thing that keeps the courts going and with that I yield back. I thank the j gentle lady. I'm now recognized myself.
▶ 1:58:05Uh and I'll note that uh the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 is when we began paying for uh uh the defense. So the gentle lady is right that it's become critical. But it also in fact is not a constitutional right, is it? It's in fact something that our founders for the first 200 years did not think that paying for uh the uh uh the defense was mandated.
▶ 1:58:33uh that in fact it's the result of a statute. So I hope the gentle lady uh would share with me that uh as we fund we are funding something that we created in relatively modern times. With that I'd like to ask a question from a budget standpoint. One of them is uh your budget every year exceeds inflation in your request doesn't it? I don't know if it exceeds it. It does this year.
▶ 1:59:02it that it that that is something certainly that impacts our the chairman of the full committee made it clear when he was asking those questions that you're you're looking at a 10 12% request uh and in some cases more. So if if we give you the cost of living increase, nothing more, nothing Are we cutting you or in fact are we baselining you?
▶ 1:59:28And in a in light of a $2 trillion deficit, do you think you have no no reason to try to find ways to spend less to do your job than every other part of government? Is that a fair We are very costconscious and the No, no. I I really judge I I've loved your testimony, but let's let's be this is now main straight budget.
▶ 1:59:54The court system has the same pressures we have, which is how do we in fact stop a government that is taking more tax revenue in constant dollars from the American people than we ever have before and still spending two trillion more than we take in? Do you believe that the court should participate to the greatest extent possible in finding those cost savings?
▶ 2:00:17The court is very aware of that we are spending taxpayer dollars and we do have a full subcommittee of the budget committee that looks for cost containment measures. We are looking at ways in in space because our space budget is 1.2 million. Okay. I'll take I'll take that as a yes, you agree that you should be. Um the uh I asked you earlier about whether consolidating the various different uh services would help.
▶ 2:00:46I'd like you to take that back for the record that in fact having three different sets of over uh bureaucracy if you will for security in addition to other subsets of your security budget whether some form of consolidation would eliminate some of the administrative people. Uh as the chairman said, we've got 677 or so federal judges uh and plus senior status.
▶ 2:01:12Uh the question is are there overheads that can be cut while still fully empowering those judges? Uh the uh today included cyber security, but I would be remiss if I didn't ask a rhetorical question, but it's an important one. It's perennial one.
▶ 2:01:31If we took the money from Pacer instead of it being for better or worse a slush fund of the court, would you be championing uh along with the gentle lady from California that that should be a free service?
▶ 2:01:45And in light of the fact that as Washingtonians uh at times every one of our museums is free free to the entire public and yet we we charge to get the the results of what is in fact a public record the record of the court. Is it fair to say that one of the things that we should be looking at is the question of whether in a modern day recorded information which is part of the overhead of government.
▶ 2:02:13we have no choice but to record it when the cost of delivering it has become less and less and more dimminimous whether or not we should be charging at all and certainly whether we should be charging a tax that makes it a profit center for the courts. Yeah, Mr. Mr. Chairman, thank you um for the observations and the question. As you know there um Congress has considered uh this before and there's been quite a robust dialogue between the branches on the chief justice chews me out every time we talk about it.
▶ 2:02:44I'll I'll leave that to him. In uh if if Congress were were to make the choice um to make all all documents for everybody, you know, free so to speak. It it's not free in this sense. we we the judiciary we still have to maintain uh those systems, operate them and secure them. So there would need to be some alternative source of funding from somewhere to allow us to do that. Okay.
▶ 2:03:11And you'd agree that the fact that it the uh the budget doesn't take a a uh a hit on the maintenance of ba pacer because it's a revenue source. But how much did you receive last year in discretionary funds as a result of I don't know the answer to that off the top. But it had a surplus which was spent on other things. Yeah.
▶ 2:03:36It's all that all that uh money as you know it it's governed by statute and it's electronic public access funds and there we invest it right back in the system to maintain it and to upgrade it respecting the legal you know limits of it. So, we can't take those Pacer funds and use them, for example, for something in salaries and expenses or defenders. They're it's governed by statute what we could use those funds for.
▶ 2:04:01And a chunk of it goes back into maintaining an I I've always heard about the chunk that goes back in. But I I I asked that question because Judge Cutter, we're talking about cyber security. We're talking about Pacer having been part of the leak of cyber security.
▶ 2:04:18And I asked the question of if it has surpluses uh if the clear uh intent of Congress has been that you have discretion but you have discretion based on the assumption that it's a reinvestment in the system then when you ask for more money to modernize cyber security and when you opine that you don't have enough should we be scrutini is it fair for us to scrutinize where you've spent that money for the last decade and why uh the system
▶ 2:04:48is not more modern since it does charge its own fees. Yeah. I I I see here this is this is approximate but in in fiscal 24 we received aboutund call it 150 million 145 to 150 million in pacer receipts that way and that's that is money that we absolutely today rely and depend upon to maintain and operate that to to provide the access that you're recognizing.
▶ 2:05:16So, if it were um you know to dry up in whole or in part, we would absolutely need Congress's support with some stream of funding to be able to maintain that system so as to provide the public good that you're recognizing. Well, and I'm I'm not uh uh per se saying I want to uh make it make it free, although it is uh free to a lot of the users uh pursuant to the will of Congress uh in various ways.
▶ 2:05:44I asked the question because it will not surprise you that I've had more than a few of the prime vendors to government say if you gave us that much money and told us we had to immediately upgrade the system and then maintain it uh we could do it on monies similar to what you spend. And so there are competing factors who have you're maintaining a system but you're maintaining it in the arcane old way.
▶ 2:06:13there are better ways to maintain it and ways to modernize it. And so, uh, Judge Scutter, the question I have for you is, would you consider, in fact, the question of could we leap forward to a system that was substantially immediately at a best practices level if that if if Congress could give you the authority to essentially contract and pay forward over a long period of time?
▶ 2:06:42Obviously, a long-term contract does require a commitment to the funding. That is something that's within the power of this committee to do to in fact give you the ability to have a 20-year contract or whatever is be appropriate with a requirement that they meet those those and future practices. Would that be empowering to you since that's the reason for this hearing today? Yeah, I would, Mr.
▶ 2:07:07Chairman, this the the effort to modernize and better secure our case management system is a huge priority right now and an intense one and you're recognizing that with your question. It absolutely requires resources.
▶ 2:07:23We um very much depend upon the Congress uh for that and getting about the replacement of our current system and getting a modern secure one that moves quickly and draws upon outside expertise to achieve that. We absolutely share that objective. Good. Well, I think the ranking member and I will will undoubtedly be talking about this. Uh earlier when uh Mr.
▶ 2:07:49Swellwell referred to and I'm trying to wrap this up as quickly as possible uh referred to his uh uh uh Marshall's act. I want to make sure that for the record that you know that I took it seriously that although uh at least from this chair I'm considering in a sense the opposite. I'm considering uh spinning off the marshalss to DOJ and then consolidating all of your other needs and giving you the budget to do it.
▶ 2:08:18Uh I do find an ambiguity between the role of Wyatt Herp, if you will, and the other historic marshals and many of the things that happened. Now that doesn't mean that the marshall you trust today would not be transferred to your direct control and would somehow disappear.
▶ 2:08:37I believe the Marshall service has a sort of a twothirds one-third role and we need to ask the question of would it be more efficient to hold uh DOJ responsible for their portion hold you responsible for yours break down the budget in that way and I've already uh because of Mr.
▶ 2:08:55Swellwell's suggestion uh spoken to the uh chairman and subcommittee chairman of the conflicting appropriations to see if in fact uh they have a problem with and it was indicated they didn't. So I want to make sure you understand we are taking it serious. Mr. Swallowwell came here to make that clear. Um and at least from my my vantage point he makes a good point.
▶ 2:09:19It may not be done the way he anticipated, but I would hope you would come back uh after consultation uh and ask the question of can we do better with the three separate uh forms of security to give a single point of accountability uh to the process and I I I think the answer you'll you'll give us will be yes. Um I want to I would recognize the gentle lady if she has a question. I do not have a question, Mr.
▶ 2:09:49Chair, but I did want to enter a few things into the record. I see you have your Constitution. Without objection, the entire Constitution will be placed in the record. Well, I'm I'm just going to just share a little portion of it because I don't want people to think that I said that the Constitution is talking about funding.
▶ 2:10:06But I did want to enter into the record the Sixth Amendment, which does say that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state. And of course, then the sentence goes on and on. So yes, the constitution does say that you have a right to a speedy trial for criminal prosecutions and in order to have a trial, you do need a defense attorney of some kind.
▶ 2:10:33I would also like to enter into the record uh asking unanimous consent, of course, Mr. Chair, this uh Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wayight, which established the right to appointed counsel. Okay. And so that is why in 1964 we had the Criminal Justice Act. And then just because I know lawyers like to read, I want to enter into the record an article.
▶ 2:11:01A third thing, federal defender services serving the system or the client. Without objection, all will be placed in the record. Thank you, sir. which and this article actually shares the history of how all of this came about because prior to 196 Without objection, the gentle lady may answer all of her comments in the record too. Federal cases, the right to counsel for those financially unable to retain counsel was the general responsibility of the bar and the court.
▶ 2:11:30Courts would often appoint unwilling or inexperienced lawyers without compensation for services or necessary expenses. And to just close, to get public defender services, the defendant must first submit and have approved a financial affidavit. So I want all of those things in the record as we are talking about objection defender services to talk about why it is so important. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I thank all of our our folks today and the witnesses.
▶ 2:11:59And then I will go to my favorite part second most favorite part of this which is oops back here. This concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee.
▶ 2:12:25We ask that each of you, if you'll agree, to receive additional questions for the record uh and feel free to provide ex extensions of your answers for the record and we'd ask that both be done within five legislative days with which I will tell you will be after the 4th of July based on our calendar.
▶ 2:12:48Without objection, all members will have those five legislative days in order to submit written questions of witnesses and additional materials for the record. Without objection, this hearing stands adjourned.