tone has been the best, and you might expect that from me, but when i say that i'm saying other people haven't had the right to tone, either party. so he'll be an interesting study but you know, he makes a point himself, the three biggest deals that have been made in the last four years were between mitch mcconnell and joe biden, and i understand in the white house they call joe biden the mcconnell whisperer. because they served together. they know how to make it work. that's a valuable talent that we need more of. and we need to take advantage of it. >> david jackson, u.s.a. today. >> a lot of people were wondering what might have happened to the healthcare law if you were in charge of passing it? how do you think things might have been different in what's the future for obamacare?

>> first of all, i have no idea. we have failed to pass meaningful comprehensive healthcare legislation for over a century. the fact is we passed something in 2010, some i look back with -- and i look back with great satisfaction. was it's perfect bill? absolutely not. i think most people fail to understand how much commonality there is. there is very little difference between republicans and democrats about the fact that we still have a cost problem. we intend more on heck neck the united states than india has nit entire gdp or brazil or russia. $9,200 per year this year. costs have come down dramatically as a result in part of the passage of the affordable care act. i'd emphasize only in part but nonetheless they have come down. we still have an access problem.

30 million people uninsured. serious quality problems. at the don't rise to the top ten in the top 20 different criteria for performance in health today. so, on those three challenges, we find very little disagreement. the causes are also areas for which there is little disagreement, and i think even the goal. we want to build a high-performance, high-value healthcare market place with better access, better quality and lower cos, and there's a great deal of consensus. i think those who oppose the affordable care act really ought to be forced to to say if it's not aca, how do we address cost, access and equality, and achieve the high performance, high value healthcare market place. if it isn't this, what? and virtue critics that have come up with a plan that would allow us the confidence and knowing that is a viable alternative. in fact there are no viable alternatives to the affordable care act today.

at least on the table. so, i'm still hopeful that over time, we can come to the realization that repealing the affordable care act is just not a viable option. finding ways to improve it certainly is, and there's plenty of opportunities for us to do that. >> you think the law as written now will survive? >> i do. i am totally confident it will survive. it may not look the same as it does today but we made history in january, and very little was said or done about it. for the first anytime all of american history, if you have a preexisting condition you can get health insurance. if you have a preexisting condition you're not going to be charged more than somebody else. if you're a woman you're not going to be charged more than a man. there are no more annual limits or lifetime limits. if you're a young adult you can signed up on your parents plan. even those little things are ones i don't think the american people are ever going to be prepared to give up.

and so you have 20 million people now who have insurance who didn't have it before or didn't have the quality of the care they have today. so, i think within the next couple of years that number could easily be 50 million. so, we're on a trend towards a change in the healthcare dynamic of major consequence and the aca is here for good, i think. >> let me briefly comment on that. first of all i think it would have been different had tom been the secretary. it wouldn't have been probably every republican voting against it. he would have worked to signeds' way to make it's more bipartisan. i do think that the congress next year will vote to repeal it. i don't no whether it will be just to repole repeal or repeal and replace, and the president will veto and it they will do two or three whacks at it.

they're going to come back to the medical device tax. they're going to probably went to do being some the mandates. so they're going to fix the pieces. to the president's credit, obviously he won't like that but he did say, correctly, never has been a bill passed that was perfect. maybe there's some areas where we could make some changes. we could tweak it in a way nat would be beneficial to the people. but i don't think republicans, based on the election, cannot try to make some changes in obamacare. >> just to add, democrats want to make changes, too. >> the medical device. >> concern about the interpretation about whether federal subsidies can flow to states that don't have state exchanges is a significant concern, and clarifying that language. there's a couple -- lower income

don't haste at work. now -- if democrats can describe it is a improving, you might be able to pass something. >> a perfect segway for my question. the supreme court agreed to hear a case on whether federal subsidies on federalry run exchanges are legal under the law. in the past, these technical fixes to legislation were fairly routine. you'd go back and clarify -- >> almost always. almost always on major bill we would have technical correction almost immediately. >> right now looks like there's going to be political warfare over making a technical foreclosure the aca. ...

>> >> they're both known to be a little independent sometimes. in he would take off on his own. but frankly i like that. they need to be ranking

reverend and the chairman of finance committee to the most important committees in the congress. >> ice age you would agree to whatever the failings of leadership. and others to compromise or not. doesn't have to generate that i know what i thought before the to change that in the interest of this. gore are the voters that just elect people with a different mind-set?

>> but if i could jump in the senators are a good group. to be in the state offices. they did that come here to blow this place up. so i.m. encourage by the quality of the republicans that were elected. but i of against the top. but obama has to engage more and needs more people talking to him. when i wanted to talk to clinton i would pick up the phone and call him or push. people just say he will not talk to us bowater they doing about that?

you have to get around stuff. but i think obama needs to be to show some movement. i think boehner would like to. and that is where it begins. >> i am encouraged by the rhetoric and to make washington work better. with the approval rating of 14 percent right now, the lowest voter turnout in 72 years that 36 percent. so there is ample reason for everyone who was elected recently to make washington work better bet there are two reasons we have not talked about. one is the erosion of power

and stature of the house. the more they are dysfunctional the more they give power to somebody who isn't. so if they take executive action, that is what is happening. congress is in a position to ask themselves will we become increasingly irrelevant because we are incapable to address our nation's problems today? i don't think anyone wants to be guilty of that. i emily's amazed as i travel abroad the intense curiosity people have about of mark -- america in foreign lands. i amassed all the time why is washington so dysfunctional? as we convince the overall it is the best way to govern if we cannot showcase it how do we make that around the

world cuxhaven that is a transparency had is worldwide as it sends the enormously powerful message to those who are not allies of ours to suggest they ought to be looking elsewhere. >>'' even if that requires collaboration or compromise. it is also true cost is added deeply damaging recession for tens of

millions of people. and a lot of what we have a season in the congress has been an expression think will our economy is starting to put forward a more visible case with the external factors the you cannot emphasize enough. we our social creatures. and the state group of people connected a collaborative ways that these are the least interesting but the schedule cannot yesterday to coordinate the house and senate to operate at the same time. not trying to run the

country but more where they do spend time together. the idea that congress should sit together to be supported by leadership and they can get to know each other and lastly that the rules will change a little bit. it is a significant step by the republican party to have a high quality candidate in the midterm election. that is not quiet it is incredibly aggressive i hate the word republican establishment but that vast majority they are tired of the dysfunction and you will see that response to the

movement that changed of rules of it it takes a while for that to happen but it is not just bipartisanship but i think the people who do are in greek and then you'll start to see a shift in the process. >> in mississippi this year we had a ferocious primary that floored me. in talking to haley barbour. but '70s of our brutal obol sides. but to little but that is

good quality. but to put that all together. but just to ask you both whether it all these discussions with the policy center it is like on the one hand or the other hand. i am of skeptical about what you said because i keep coming back to people just like ted crews today one -- to name one. my question is with the idea

but we are at a point of the problem is more of the republican side if there are too many people who come here to stand their ground. that is the basis because the voters want people to stand their ground. but it is all well whole different level now. could you address that question if one side is more to blame than another? >> i disagree with that there are problems. even an economist showed a circle and over the years

there is no center so we have those in the republican party and in the democratic party. and she has say, dray of france and it was supported by partisan but you cannot get it moved because they said no we will not let you do that. fetishes from dodd/frank so we do have a problem in the b-2 clarify itself through 2016 that i am assuming we will come up with a viable candidate in the general election. a.m. to be is diplomatic as i can help but is the governor or former governor. period. know senator.

[laughter] >> but what senator warren would bring down to get their way that is the action perk you never would have done that either. >> i think the leadership needs to find a way to deal sparingly. but quite frankly i would not put up with some of that stuff. that is some of the dumbest things i ever saw. i looked at it as though life to the american people if you cannot tolerate that. that is one of the things imus a beard -- about earmarks there is rewards and punishment. now particularly the republican leader there is

not much you can do for or against but it is the problem and mitch will have to deal with that. by he is involved with rand paul. i am not advocating that he says and does things that shot people and it is reaching out. because of the leadership. into deputize the specific they don't step away from a. so talk about moving quickly is an issue. there will be a cavalry

charge. said to come up with somebody to get elected to have that tactical challenge more than harry in those the police stand your ground is the right thing to do and don't want to compromise. and the advice is absolutely right. the more you can bring them in quickly that the stand your ground types look at the vintages of common ground. but mitt has a bigger challenge than harry in that regard. >> but there is some

asymmetry that the balance is pretty reasonable but again, speaker boehner and nancy pelosi kim pass any legislation in the day once. but the question is if the leadership given up that power. but then you'll start to see collaboration that was intentionally designed to isolate their edges. >> i want to extend an apology to my colleague. and also lowe's senators for coming and thanks for doing this. we appreciate it.

[inaudible conversations]

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to give my remarks while seated at my desk. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: and i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: for hours and hours. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: i come to the floor today with a spirit of reflection and optimism about our future. i'm also compelled towards an honest assessment of where we are as a body, of the promise of what we can achieve when we don't shy away from compromise and what we can't achieve w >> >> the public service is

hard work and extremely noble and honorable calling. here in the united states said that we have a unique ability and responsibility to do big things. ignite innovation in our schools with the fostering of global change from policies. at the same time to touch individual lives from case manager report one on one that touches people in their darkest hour per our love the senate the gravity of the issues than fighting for west virginia. i've learned to love this as a 27 year-old is an a tiny coal communities of the mitt

west virginia and is set my moral compass and gave me direction. where everything in my real life actually began. i've learned how little i knew of the problems that people face their and other places in the country. and what a humbling experience that was. my time there was transport -- to its formative. with every vote i have cast. it is where my beliefs were bolted down and where my passions met my principles. and where i came to understand out of the everyday struggles we could of larger cells -- our souls and grow greater.

but it would be hard put to work would matter. and you'll have to of commits your whole self by pushing a heavy rock uphill. because in a split-second otherwise to go tumbling backwards into the abyss. even today in west rigid and too many are struggling. i call them hard-working but i should say hard surviving but they are hard working and trying to survive.

they're scared of their possibilities. in the their inadequacies. par that the strangers were bad but that is the way people are. they don't want to change so change comes slowly. so they fight twice as hard. and nothing stops us. there is fast dignity madam chairman and honor to help people. you cannot let go of this. i a believed to do good and right the injustices.

this is why the senate must me up place to be unrelenting driven only by the duty and trespassed upon us for those who brought us here at is everything else should be put aside politics led us here but this is where we shed the campaigning or we should. to listen to bridge differences to govern or truly make a difference. to be through the all consuming policy work through the round tables and hearings back in our states.

and must be the real need of the people we serve. so the policy starts with listening. to see the faces of our constituents policy in terms of faces. you see your constituency and hear them out and understand their needs and problems. you get to know them very well. especially a small state like western virginia and listening to colleagues is absolutely necessary. good policy is born out of compromise. it is not easy but it can happen when we truly listen to each other it very well could. we separate our campaign selves from the public

service solis. the cruelty destroys our ability to fulfill. it is hard to build a working relationship without the honest and open approach with our colleagues colleagues, republican or democratic. but we must build the relationship because we can do so much. listening and compromise on the national commission on children in the 1990's, i was the chair of that commission that included a bipartisan group of officials with the experts from various fields from all backgrounds. there were many of us, 32. we were all over the country.

and we debated and rekey into a trust. that was not in dispute. and where there we're reading at the time i handed the gavel to the most republican member. someone i had trusted. in that shocked people. but it helped with the consensus. in the end we were proud to vote for 32 / zero with the legislation we put forward

and included those policies. the new republican and child tax credit for the first time in a major expansion of the earned income-tax credit. but it worked because we listened to one another and respected one another. and we wanted to come to an agreement. it was clear. it was obvious. there was. 32 nothing. unbelievable but it happened. is that possible these days? yes. i believe we can see the spirit again as we address the future of the children's health insurance program

known s-chip provides health care to children and pregnant women nationwide and 40,000 of those are in west virginia. chip is so important to me because it offers health care tailored to children with mental and dental health care tailored to children. it is in fact, better coverage than the affordable care act provides children. from the early days i have seen the lack of medical care and what it can extract from a child's well-being and self-esteem. many of you know the names of children without proper access for health care and that is to be health care --

fight for. it has been a bipartisan effort driven by the names of real kids and even senator hatch was instrumental in its creation. and continue to be strong advocates. it has opened doors for those who desperately needed to get it into the doctor's office and now can do so. but every door that chip opens will be closed to loom carry chip fending through 2015. i don't know what the prospects for that hour but all i know is if they are not done properly the doors close and those at had access don't anymore.

and that is unconscionable to me. with get the faces of those children in your own states. and think about that. the individual faces. and when any corporate ceo comes to my office i show them the birthday gifts for our four children. and pitcher of hard-working coal miner whose face is honest, but hurting and very proud. that picture means so much to me because it embodies the spirit of those that i am here to serve. in is silently reminds us why we must work to a common

ground this is not about democrats or republicans but the people that are here to serve with different viewpoints. senator north carolina and iron not on the same side of every vote. biliary very good friends. chephren chip made years ago when i was serving on the president's commission and he was the mayor is wyoming going slightly crazy to build houses fast enough for all those coming in to get the coal. he also had to sideburns. [laughter] on a great day in january 2006 west virginia was frozen and disbelief when we learned 12 trapped miners were killed in the

mine in the central part of this day. with best days that struggled to make sense the first to did not even visit but caving to learn to share in a van the grief to offer support in the community. together out of tragedy and to forge a compromise on legislation with the strong is safety improvements in the generation. only 16 states mine the

coal. to this day the senator kerrey's of picture of one of the miners. not in the wallet he carries today but in the wallets back in atlanta i don't care where it is but it is in his wallet every single day. we knew as public officials compromising to need the men to govern which is why we read there. and it is our responsibility. and with said domination of the innovation and invention and creative problem solving was eroding and we knew that.

and to keep our jobs and future more secure. we answer that call with a bipartisan compromise for the reauthorization act. i would never forget that. this legislation makes historic investment through math and education. senator kay bailey hutcheson , senator alexander. because they thought they worked out the details pretty well. and by unanimous consent for pro but instead of retreating to party corners

to compromise in that center i'll write there. we wandered up and down. we had a little money some of you took the million dollars off for a move to the programs to satisfy kay bailey or lamar alexander. and had a $44 billion bill over five years we did not have to have a vote. day tenaciously worked. madam president it was absolutely beautiful. just beautiful. $44 billion program for our nation. together we passed the bill

to catapult us to success. and it requires persistence to demand collaboration and trust and compromise. and it is so worth it. and driven by the process to create policy. it is blinding and intense and could be frustrating or heartbreaking. and there is no greater reward. we have to know who and what to fight for with their own personal views. we have to know and understand those and be ready to take a long time, much longer than we thought. five or 10 years makes no difference. keep at it and don't let it

go. because some combination will say that's okay. then we have ourselves of bill. and then the faces of the people that we try to help burger in my case better too often left behind. the senate facing serious policy issues caring for veterans coming home from infrastructure and making our economy work for everyone. these are the core responsibilities. i am proud to be a part of some of measure of progress an even though we had an impasse and though the senate will rise to the mission to address the biggest issues. and in some way that will have been. as a governing body we must not allow recent failures to take root or mean too much.

we must not be focused on at the sec -- episodic batches of issues but work towards problem solving. no one else will step in if we don't. the truth was on full display of few weeks ago when the senate move to move forward to protect the nation and these are views that i have strong views and their taking seriously my 40 years on the intelligence committee because of global threats as several becomes more connected we depend on a highly treated professionals at nsa to zeroing in on those threats. there is only 22 of them. they are highly trained.

they have taken the oath of office to protect our nation. i don't think we have any excuse to outsource our intelligence worked. i work, the commerce community i see what they do when they can get away with it. everybody from cramming or all kinds of nice things. it is the job of government to redress this issue. the private sector and free market alone cannot solve those types of problems event should not. it is a government responsibility.

but nobody can show me privacy. to be influenced or broken into by the nsa. hardworking people could be destroyed by circumstances beyond their control. of course, it is much easier to say than do but to many children come into a world where circumstances precluded the opportunities they should have. you cannot discount those challenges to go hungry or about health care or have no place to call home.

when they cannot or solve the problems it is government's responsibility to step been every time. then when there isn't enough profit then we step in to expand broadband. and it covers 97 percent of all schools in the country. and in the private sector decides say cannot make enough for the sickness of the children we must act. it is who we are as an institution. rework to control to give them a fair shot that introduces the smallest

library is for access to a 49 grade class does it mean there will but they can read no health care is fundamental as well. we cannot keep a job if sick but providing that care is not always as profitable as some would like so we make sure millions of americans under the affordable care act. my friend sam is one of the faces i would never forget. when battling childhoods leukemia with a lifetime insurance cap was a savage consequence they walked away

from this courageous little fighter. his parents who were schoolteachers were will left with heart wrenching decisions like getting divorced in order to qualify for medicaid. it did not matter. he lost his battle with cancer. but today under the affordable care act to make sure no insurance companies could abandon someone when they need health of those. health care reform never erred takes away the heartbreak of sick kids. and drove us to say no more and we would change the law. . .

act of 1992, long-forgotten. we had to step in and stop some coal companies from walking away from benefits which they had promised, by contract, to retired coal miners and their widows, folks who are mostly in their 70's and 80's. passing the coal act was enormously important to our country. it not only prevented in absolute terms a national coal strike in 1993, but it delivered on the promise of lifetime health benefits earned by 200,000 retired coal miners and their widows. they would not have been taken care of if those companies had had their way. nor can we rely on the private sector alone to take care of our

veterans. it's government's duty to provide the health care they earn. we do this thri through community-based clinics and improved services for ptsd, brain injuries and family support. it is expensive. bob portman and i sort of wanted to pass a bill which would cause the military, the department of defense, give all people entering the military mental health screening, not when they came back from iraq or afghanistan or somewhere else but before they went in, and then on an annual basis do that again to build a database, to make sure we knew that we could take care of them better when they came home. we rightly asked the government to take on some of society's most fundamental needs. l when i founded -- when i founded emmons, it was a community of hardworking people

on their own trying to survive. the free market had not made madessured thasurethat communitd good roads or school buses or any clean drinking water or safe jobs, but from my point of view they deserved all of those. they deserved to have their shot. working together to deliver on the needs of places like emmonds speaks to our core human connection and to an aspiration for the greater good. that is what drove me into public service. it's not something i could help. i just had to -- i had to do it, to help people with everything that i have. every individual in every community like emmonds deserves to have public officials who

will fight the big fights and the personal ones, the case work, extending a hand on those personal challenges is incredibly meaningful work. our constituents face these heights with herculean courage but not always the resources to solve the problems in front of them. people like the 8-year-old who needed a bone marrow transplant, a procedure that in 1990 was considered experimental. our office intervened. we helped that boy get that transplant, and he's still with us today. as a senator, you take on those fights with the same vigor as any policy or ideological deba debate, and you are equally proud when you win and you equally hurt when you lose. when i came to west virginia 50 years ago, i was searching for a

clear purpose for my life's work. i wanted the work to be really hard, and what i got was an opportunity to work really hard, along with a real and utterly spiritual sense of mission. this work demands and deserves nothing less than everything that we have to give. i will miss the senate. some days i don't want to leave, but it's time. which brings me to some profoundly important notes of gratitude. to my colleagues, i say "thank you." i have mentioned some -- i could mention so many. you're dedicated, you're brilliant, and you're public servants. i love you for putting up, which

have to, particularly with the way elections are these days. i respect you for it so much. thank you for fighting alongside me. thank you for challenging me. to my staff, a senator is really nothing without his staff -- or her staff. and there is not a more committed, talented, and deeply passionate staff in the united states senate. to my starvetion you liv staff,r breathe your work every day. you inspire me with your endless capacity for addressing injustice and for fighting for people who need you and come to you in need. you never turned a single west virginian away. i glory in my gratitude to you. to my family who has sacrificed

so much, i thank you. i have been selfish in my devotion to my work, and i have been vastly inept in balancing family and work. public service is not encouraging of balance. sharon, you are everything, an extraordinary mother, a remarkable businesswoman, and you are a public servant. you have been a visionary in public broadcasting. our entire nation to indebted to your efforts to educate and inform us. the impact that you continue to make on public life is truly remarkable. any achievement i am proud of i share with you eternally.

our children, john, valerie, charles and justin, have all been very thoughtful and endlessly supportive in my absences, and my grandchildren bring me so much joy and i hope to see a whole lot more of them. and to west virginia, thank you for placing your faith in me. i know it was hard at first. and giving me the greatest reward: the chance to fight for meaningful and lasting opportunity for those who are too often forgotten but absolutelily -- absolutely deserve the best. my fellow west virginians, i am forever inspired by you and i am forever transformed by you. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

>> representatives steve king of iowa and fill lofgren of california have introduced legislation that lets federal judges choose when to allow cameras in court proceedings. wednesday the house judiciary subcommittee on courts held a hearing. this is two hours. >> the subcommittee will come to order wife objection the -- declare reeses at any time. we welcome our guests today.

unfortunately, representative and chairman and the ranking member will not be able to make the meeting -- the hearing in the beginning. they may be here later on. and request of them i stated i would explain why they are not here. for members of the public who are here today or may otherwise be observing our hearing, i'm representative tom merino from pennsylvania, and i will be chairing the legislative hearing today. i well recognize myself and then congressman from florida for initial opening statements. i will then recognize the chairman of the full committee

representative and the ranking member to make their introductory remarks. with that explanation, today's legislative hearing is on hr917, the sunshine in the courtroom act of 2013. the bill was introducedby our distinguished colleague, representative steve king in april of 2013 and includes three additional membered of the judiciary committee, representative chafes, lofgren and deutsche, as original cosponsors, subsequent to the introduction, two additional members of the house signed on in support. representative king and lofgren are present with us this morning and will soon be recognized to testify on the reasons they believe the legislation should be enacted. in addition, to representatives king and lofgren, we have two additional witnesses who will testify on a second panel. they're the honorable julie robinson, united states judge for the district of kansas, who

will appear on behalf of the judicial conference of the united states, and mr. mickey ostereicher, the general counsel of the national press photographer's association on nppa. the principle authority contained in hr917 is in section 2b, which provides, subject to certain exceptions, the presiding judge, which is defined in the bill of each federal appellate court and district or trial level court, is authorized to permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting or televising to the public any proceedings over which the judge provides. provisions would apply this authority to the supreme court of the united states as well as united states circuit courts of appeals and district courts. the purpose of hr917 as with similar bills introduced in prior congresses is meant to

address the long-standing practice of the federal courts, which with few exceptions, prohibits the live electronic recording of media coverage or proceedings from inside the courtroom in general, proponents for the legislation believe existing prohibitions are a hinderance on transparency, education, and general public awareness of our law and judicial processes. due to limited access to the actual proceedings. as one of our witnesses will testify today, the ability to disseminate information via electronic coverage of courts proceedings, is a critical cop opponent indoorsing the public the modern equivalent of attending and observing proceedings in sum, opponents believe a potential harm outweighs the benefiteds. chief among their concern is this proposition that the legislation has the potential to impair substantially the fundamental right of citizens to a fair trial, while undermining court security and the safety of jurors, witnesses, and other

trial participants, including judges. beyond the general questions of whether cameras should be permitted in federal court proceedings are a myriad of additional questions that include where and when they should be permitted, whether consent of the parties should be required, whether the courts should control the operation and dissemination of materials, and whether congress would be required to provide additional fundings and resources to the court. today's hearing presents an opportunity to discuss inn detail the issues implicated by these fundamental questions. with that i conclude my opening remarks and recognize our acting ranking member from florida who is cosponsor of the bill that is the subject of today's hearing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to our colleagues for their leadership on this issue. judicial conference policy in the federal rules of criminal procedure prohibit the

televising of spirit couple and federal court proceed little involving some of the most critical legal issues facing our nation. these policies impose severe limitations on the welcome's ability to observe court proceedings, interpreting laws that impact the daily lives of americans. these policies shroud the supreme court and federal court proceedings in secrecy and can raise questions in the mind of the public on the administration of justice. chief justice berger wrote of the important of public access to courtroom writing that trial courtroom is a public place where the people generally and representatives of the media have a right to be present and where their prince has been thought to enhance the integrity and quality of what takes place. while richmond newspaper addressed public access to criminal proceed osgood, public as sees has been extended to civil trials as well. you can walk into the state or federal courtroom in america, seraphs benches of seats to accommodate public audiences

interesting in watching the legal proceedings. the supreme court has public seating available to accommodate a lukey few. courtroom seating accommodates the nation tradition of court watching. for cases on important legal issues finding an available seat in the courtroom can be difficult if not impossible. moats people now received stipulations on important proceedings from press reports in various forms of media outlets 'don't belt me wrong. i appreciate the work that scott cuss blog dot bus the supreme court and federal court need to recognize and adopt to the changes to permit the next generation of courtroom watching access. the act would improve u.s. supreme court and federal court transparency by increasing public acceptablity to proceedings.

under the bill judges on a penal or the chief justice of the supreme court would have the discretion to permit the photography, the broadcasting, televising of proceedings. the bill also includes numerous protections for their parties involved that would permit the judge or judges to closed the court proceedings to be televised. the bill permits a judge or judges to consider if ted televising the proceed booth violate the due produce right0s a party involved and in addition a witness in the court proceed could go request to have their face and voice disgilessed -- disguised, and would not per -- the presiding jump of a court would have the discretion to create rules and disciplinary measures that could be enforce against members of the media in the interests of preserving justice and fairness. the supreme court and our federal courts hear and consider some of the most important issues facing our country. the proceed examination thingses issued impact every facet of the lives of americans.

that's justifies one of many examples. a three-judge panel in the d.c. court of appeals heard argument on the nsa's collection of phone data. the u.s. supreme court federal courts have heard and hear cases involving the affordable care act, immigration laws, interpretation of the second amendment, housing and foreclosure issues, political campaign cases and other pressing issues and yet very few people have an opportunity and most people never have the chance to observe the proceedings in person. public access to critical cases in the supreme court or federal courthouses is limited to the very few who can wait in line for hours and sometimes days or who can hire a person to stand in line for them. the limited public access to the supreme court and federal court proceedings is inconsistent with the role of media and media recording devices are permitted in state supreme courts. time the u.s. supreme court and federal court practices changed. i'd like to thank again my

colleagues, congressman king and congressman lofgren for their work and strong leadership on this critical issue. broadcasting the supreme coward and federal court proceedings will inslur the public has full access to oral argument on important issues and help ensure thatis is carried out for all to see. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, congressman deutch. aid like to now represent the distinguished member. >> mr. chairman, today's legislative hearing on hr917, the sunshine in the courtroom act of 2013, is one that raises substantial and important questions that have been the focus of this commitee's attention before. the question surrounding whether and under what circumstances federal court proceeding should be televised or otherwise made available via electronic mediums is not novel but ones congress and the federal judiciary have

considered in various forms for many years. in fact legislation to auzethri broadcast or television coverage of federal court proceedings been introduce bed members typically with bipartisan support. in every congress dating back to at least 10 5th. most recently the committee reported a version of this legislation in 20 70 when a bill sponsored by representative steve chabot, was reported favor blimp hr917, the sunshine in the courtroom act of 2013, and the 2007 bill are substantially similar. the bill sponsor, representative steve king, stated in his written testimony this motivation and i believe in introducing this bill that congress has the constitutional authority to act and the duty could use that authority to expand public access to our courts. proopinion anyones of the bill believe that the values of transparency, accountability and education will only be enhanced

by expand public access to our federal courts however, the principle opponents opponents om threats courtroom legislation are the supreme court of the united states and the judicial conference of the united states. the latter of which functions as the policymaking body for the lower federal courts. each would be impacted by the enact of hr917 which authorizes the presiding judge of a court to allow cameras and recording devices to be operated in federal court proceedings subject to certain exceptions and qualifications. i appreciate judge robinson's appearance today, and believe it is vitally important that the judicial conference and the supreme court avail themselves of each opportunity to participate in the committee's consideration of legislation that impacts our justice system. this is particularly true in matters that relate to the administration and operation of the federal judiciary. perhaps spurred by this committee's action in 2007 the judicial conference authorized a three-year pilot project in 2010

to evaluate the effects of cameras being used in district courts and related matters. 14 courts volunteered for the project, which is ongoing, limited to civil proceed examination scheduled to conclude in july 2015. following the pilot's conclusion the federal judicial center will prepare a report and provide to the judicial conferences committee on court administration and case management. it is then expected that cach will provide a report to the judicial conference regarding the possible future use of cameras in district courts. not withstandingstanding the ong nature of the pilot, the -- this legislation will have the potential item pair the fundamental right of citizens to fair trial and undermining court security and the safety of jurors, witnesses, and other trial participants, including judges. it is clear the views of proponents opponents are strongly and sincerelyd