 Our panel, our final and third and final panel of today consists of Task Force members Ned Madira and, pardon me, I'm going to use my cheat sheet here. John Mills and Judge Delprior and Thomas Sager, Tommy Preston. And we are honored to have a presence from the federal bench today. We thank you for coming, Judge Norma Shapiro from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. You may begin. Thank you. Good afternoon, Lady Olson and the other panel members. It's quite intimidating to be the only one speaking on the quote, federal perspective. But as a federal trial judge, I hold my position for life on good behavior. So I'll proceed by thanking you for allowing me as chair of the ABA Standing Commission on Federal Judicial Improvements to testify about federal court fiscal problems. Frankly, our problems pale in comparison with the threats to the state judiciary. But the Task Force mission statement includes the federal courts as an object of concern, so I'm honored to express my personal views with the hope they'll help you when you're extremely timely and important tasks. In recent years, the federal judiciary has not fared as badly as the state judiciaries in terms of the funding it's received. But the current budget situation is unlike any other than judiciary is faced. When there was a budgetary impasse earlier this year and fewer of the federal government shut down, the administration thought the courts could function for only two or three weeks. Fortunately, when the 2011 fiscal budget was adopted, the judiciary received almost a 1% increase above fiscal year 2010 appropriations. While not nearly the growth the judiciary has enjoyed in the past, it was far better than the steep funding cuts made to other federal programs and agencies, perhaps because of the cost control measures instituted in the last few years under the initial leadership of the late Chief Justice Rehnquist. The congressional emphasis on deficit reduction suggests even a modest 1% increase may not be obtainable in the future. The judiciary is expected to receive less money in 2012 than it has in 2011 at a time when the workload continues to grow and our need for defense criminal lawyers increases as well. With no increase in the 2012 funding levels, court staff may have to be reduced below the number of people working in our probation and free trial services offices and clerk offices in the circuit district and bankruptcy courts. And criminal trials will be delayed for failure of funds to pay defense counsel. But our biggest problems, apart from judicial salaries and the consequent effect on morale and tenure of judges, are judicial vacancies and the politicization of the confirmation process. There hasn't been an omnibus judge bill for years. The administrative office has requested Congress to establish 88 new judgeships based on workload statistics. A bipartisan group of senators has introduced the Emergency Relief Act of 2011, Senate 1014, to address some of the greatest judgeship needs. It provides for 10 additional temporary judgeships in California, Texas and Arizona and would make permanent two additional temporary judgeships. But as of May 23, 2011, there were 86 vacancies of 53 pending nominations. 40 are pending in committee, only 13 are pending on the Senate floor. While there's been some welcome movement on confirmation votes recently, especially for the district courts, there are still 33 judicial emergencies. And I thank our ABA Washington office Denise Cardman for providing me with those statistics I haven't been able to keep count myself. Our Constitution established federal courts of limited jurisdiction. The Federalist Papers make clear that our founding fathers contemplated well-functioning state judiciaries. In the December 1995 long-range plan for the federal courts, Judge Edward R. Becker wrote, judicial federalism relies on the principle that the state and federal courts together comprise an integrated system for the delivery of justice in the United States. It follows from this fundamental view of the nature of our federal system of government that the jurisdiction of the federal courts should complement not supplant that of the state courts. The great majority of litigation occurs in state courts, as is shown by charts prepared by Professor Judith Resnick and Yale Law students with the help of the National Center for State Courts. I call to your attention now only three. The full set of 14 are attached to my written remarks that I will make part of your official record. In 2001, there were 37 million filings in state courts. In contrast, the number of filings in federal court totaled only one and a half million bankruptcy cases and 318,000 civil and criminal cases. The number of federal judges at both the district and circuit level was 853 in 2001. Now state courts employ a large number of limited jurisdiction judges, such as small claims judges in many states, as well as general jurisdiction trial level judges. From 1975 to 2008, the years for which statistics are available, the number of general jurisdiction judges alone has nearly doubled from 65,000 to 11,800. So even when the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction, it's usually concurrent. For example, diversity cases, discrimination cases, product liability cases, mass torts, etc. We require, the federal courts require, exhaustion of state court remedies and habeas cases and complaints by prisoners about conditions of confinement. If access to state courts is reduced by their inability to function, federal courts will be overburdened by those able to gain alternative access and our funding problems become much more serious. As our case loads increase, so do the delays in having a trial. And ADR or private judging and settlement, whether or not justified, will become more and more necessary. The loss of access to state court is usually the loss of a lower cost alternative, affecting the middle class as well as the poorest of our citizens. Court underfunding in the United States may also compromise this country's efforts to promote the rule of law abroad. United States statements that access to neutral tribunals for the enforcement of contracts is essential to a well-functioning economy sounds hollow if we don't lead by example. Now you've heard of the adverse effects of the loss of court funding on the economy, the loss of jobs, the detrimental effect on commerce both in trustate and interstate. But to me those efforts are secondary. The real issue is loss of liberty. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist said our courts are jewels in the crown of the Constitution. Without courts adequately funded our right to liberty is a hollow phrase. Most of our citizens form a view of their rights from the functioning of our state courts, if not our TV courts. We the people are fascinated by the courts and the ABA representing 400,000 lawyers, law professors, bar executives, administrators and judges can't let them starve to death. I've been a judge for 32 years. I'm an activist judge and proud of it because I devote the time not required for my work to trying to preserve, protect and defend not just the Constitution but the judicial system so essential to a government under law with liberty and justice for all. For years first as an active judge and now as a senior judge I've worked as a member of the ABA for judicial education, judicial independence now fair and impartial courts and judicial outreach. After reading the transcript of your hearing in Atlanta it's obvious to me that more time and energy must be devoted to funding our state courts. Like judicial accountability, judicial independence depends on adequate financing. The effort has already begun with Ned Madeira's directing our attention to state courts as the least understood branch and justice as the business of government conference last year when legislators and chief justices, lawyers and administrators were convened by him and justice Mark Martin to a national conference co-sponsored by the ABA and the National Center for State Courts. Many worthwhile recommendations resulted from that conference but the problem which you hope to address is the implementation. Because the preservation of our branch of government is essential to a free society I have the temerity to make a few personal suggestions that the ABA could engage in summarized by education, advocacy, cooperation and coordination, media utilization and continuity. The ABA has done wonders in the field of education, especially with civics education for children. As important as this is as a long term solution, the current crisis requires adult education as well. Just as the ABA has focused on judicial independence and funding for the Legal Services Corporation on ABA Day in Washington judicial funding must be the theme of law day all over the country. Judges have to feel free of ethical restraints in explaining the importance of court funding to the administration of justice. A judicial division book by Judge Richard Frune, Judicial Outreach on a Shoe String, describes many means of judicial outreach costing little or nothing but to utilize the vast national resources of the ABA there has to be a coordinator, a staff person or persons whose job description is to make this happen and hopefully situated in our Washington office where so many national organizations also have their offices. Judges and lawyers usually effective advocates still need materials supplied to them for these non-traditional activities. As the Federal Administrative Office provides scripts, power points, speakers bureau, there should be a staff position with an obligation to do that. One would assume lawyers were terrific at advocacy, but we need some contact with organizations which have perfected methods of communicating, marketing or lobbying the public, especially voters, legislators, the business community, etc. Marketers, political consultants and lobbyists have something to teach us. Working with other national groups that share our concerns is essential. You've heard from some of their representatives so I don't need to review their value but I do need to reemphasize that you need staff and organization to accomplish that. There's a limit to what volunteer lawyers can and will do, particularly when it requires coordination. Access to news, print, radio and TV are important, but the use of the social media has become essential. Ability to understand the Internet and utilize all the modern devices of communication may be most important and don't forget how increasingly influential bloggers have become. I'll mention litigation, but when lawyers resort to courts for what are generally deemed political questions, they're rarely successful. That shouldn't preclude the ABA from assisting litigants in key cases or filing amicus briefs if justified under ABA policy. And then finally, this battle can't be won in a day. Citizens we have convinced grow older. Legislators come and go as often as every two years. The economy changes. Procedures must be established to remind those responsible of the importance of court finances. Our efforts are only beginning and they must be coordinated for sustainability. Time doesn't permit me to elaborate on these suggestions or discuss them with you, but the task is not for the summer soldier or the part-time patriot. And like most worthwhile tasks, it takes time and money. We must strive to solve this problem, not for ourselves or for lawyers or judges, but for the citizens of our country whom we're privileged to serve. Thank you for the opportunity to express some thoughts on the importance of preserving or restoring or making a well-functioning justice system. And I'd be pleased to try to answer any questions now or later. Thank you. I'm going to go down and offer a chance for each of our panelists to ask a question. And if no one asks, I will end up asking. I'm going to ask all of our witnesses on our session to offer one either creative solution that you have or one that you may have heard earlier in today's proceedings that you think is the best or wisest of the solutions that have been offered up. So we're really going to push at this stage in our work for creative solutions to this problem. Now, would any of you like to ask the first question or shall that be it? I'll make the first statement if I may. I've had the privilege of appearing before Judge DiPlaro, one of these 50 years or so, and she really understated one thing. She is an activist. I taught him legal writing and law school. We have a skit that we can do back and forth only not that she was older than I am because she chose to graduate from high school when she was 15. I took a more leisurely route. I mean, it goes on and usually the crowd breaks up. Norma, one thing that we haven't touched and I don't mean to stand by you, but a point that I don't think has come up this morning or discussions that have subdued dear to the heart of the National Center for State Courts, and that is the concept of federal funding to help the state courts through the State Justice Institute and perhaps other entities. And I think that it has got a lot of merit. Unfortunately, the State Justice Institute has been grossly underfunded as a bad trend line over the last years. But in order for the state courts to do some of the pilot project work that is going to be required moving forward, federal funding would certainly help. Have you had any background or feeling on this other than your support? Well, not until I read it in the materials that you provided. I think I've concentrated on what the American Bar Association can do because that's my experience and background. I think that they can recommend that. I think that on ABA Day in Washington, they've been very successful in preventing the demise of the Legal Services Corporation. They might start to re-institute the funding for the State Justice Institute. I think it's important. I would like to see Congress fund the federal courts and raise our salaries, perhaps, but I'm not allowed to say that. The AO warned me that we're not pushing for increases in federal funding salaries, but I think that if the federal government mandates the states to do something in the present state of financing that the federal government should provide the funds to do it personally. I'm not speaking for the administrative office or the president or those Congress. I'm just giving you my personal views. And Judge, we appreciate that. Compound question. First, I assume from your testimony that you believe that the federal courts are still underfunded. Yes, and have been for years. And although underfunded, I think you indicated that you've probably been cut less than you might have been because of efficiency measures and because of your use of a formula. Well, we have, I was speaking at lunch, I think about my own court. We have volunteer lawyers on an employment discrimination panel, and we have volunteer lawyers who represent prisoners in condition of confinement cases. In habeas cases, we pay. And of course, in trials, criminal trials, they get government provided attorneys. So it's fair to say that state courts and asking for support will be better off if they are demonstrating efficiency. Absolutely. I think that legislators are under a misimpression that we like to waste money and that we sit there thinking of what we can do to buy $200 toilet seats or something. I don't believe we do that, but I hope not. We have some problems with the General Services Administration. And we'd like to take over managing our own courthouses. I would particularly like it because then I wouldn't freeze in the winter and die of the heat in the summer. Welcome. I've been struggling with this, so I'd like to get your thoughts on the whole concept of the federal underfunding situation, which does not feel as severe as the state's challenges. Do you think our efforts on behalf of the federal underfunding issue will detract from or otherwise undermine our efforts on behalf of the state courts? Well, if you have only one pool of funds, if you give to one, you don't give to the other. And the federal court budget is what, perhaps a half of 1% of the national? I think it's a question of priorities. And courts to me are essential to a free society. A free society is very important to me. And I think that we should do everything we can to get the funds to make it possible. I think sometimes that people would rather have access to the courts, even if taxes were raised than... I mean, what's behind all this is the unwillingness to raise taxes and to feel you have to find the money for everything from one limited pool. And as long as you have to do that, I suppose, giving to one detracts from the other. I'm proud of the federal courts. I think we do a good job. It's too expensive, but that's perhaps because of what lawyers charge, not what judges charge. And I haven't noticed a lack of work. I know the poor people don't have access, but some people do, because we're seeing an awful lot of discrimination cases right now. All the people who have lost their jobs come to our court. In Pennsylvania, we have termination at will, so that unless they can show discrimination for race, religion, ethnicity, they don't get very far. Thank you. Tommy. Judge, I was really excited about you talking about education and the role that the ABA should play in not only educating the youth of our country in understanding the court system, but also adult education. And I was wondering if you could elaborate just a little bit on specifically what we could do in the ABA to address that issue. Well, the ABA has a wonderful division or department or something of education with a great many professionals. When it comes to Law Day May 1st, you get a whole book of things you can do and speeches you can give, and the entire legal community gets all excited about some particular thing. It's been jury duty one year. I can't remember all the themes of Law Day, but one theme ought to be support your courts that without the courts, you're up a creek. And I think if you could imagine a country without courts, it wouldn't be one where most of us would want to live. And I do believe, as I said in my prepared remarks, you'll notice I didn't talk as much about the federal courts as how the federal courts are damaged by ineffective state courts. And I think that's an important point to make. We need the state courts. We need them to function properly quite apart from the fact that it's the moral and right thing to do. It's where most people know about the state courts, even if it's a traffic court, a small percentage of people come to the federal courts, I think. So they're important to us, and I think that we have to support them and see that they're adequately funded. And if you go back and read the long-range studies of the federal courts, I quoted from Judge Becker, but there's been one more reason. They all make perfectly clear that the federal courts have a vested interest in the proper functioning of the state courts. And I went back in preparation for this and read the Federalist Papers, and it was fascinating. And they never intended for the federal courts to dominate the state. It was quite the other way around. I'd be happy to talk to any of you who want to discuss these things privately. In my office or yours, as you want. Thank you for letting me come. Thank you very much, Judge Shapiro.