audio and visual recording of supreme court proceedings would potentially do the same. and i think that whatever the results of televising senate proceedings, and i was only facetious when i said i would take a pass. i do think that it has been a step in the right direction of providing more transparency and disclosure and understanding on the part of the public. now i'll let you and the public be the judge of how it views us but i think in general americans should understand the challenges as well as the role that their institutions face. and since my time has expired, and i want to thank you again for being here and i am not at all dismissive of the points that you've made, on the

contrary i have great respect for them, but perhaps we can provide you with some more information that would be persuasive in the advantages and the positives in those kinds of greater availability or accessibility. >> and we are back live on capitol hill here on c-span 3. the dirkeson senate office building for the senate judiciary committee. they're meeting to mark up legislation that would permit, require televising u.s. supreme court proceedings. senator grassley there in the middle of your screen of iowa the cosponsor of the legislation s-1945 along with democrat dick durbin of illinois. the markup session should get under way in just a little bit. also on capitol hill today the senate's in session and later today we'ill take a vote on whether to work on the surface transportation bill. in the house meanwhile they're voting on the stock act.

a slightly different version than what the senate passed last week and that is under way now. votes should be imminent in the u.s. house. you can follow that on c-span.

senate judiciary committee member chuck grassley of iowa one of the cosponsors of legislation that would require televising supreme court proceedings, this ahead of a major court case in march, the health caremedi organizations including c-span have asked the court to cover

all five and a half hours of that court case, looking at the president's health care law. the bill, again, s-1945, sponsored by senator dick durbin of illinois and senator grassley of iowa. this committee hearing markup session should last until about 11:30 eastern this morning. there's senator durbin. later this morning we'll bring you live coverage from the conservative political action conference here in washington.

that is judiciary committee chairman patrick leahy addressing his chair getting ready to gavel in this markup hearing on legislation requiring televising supreme court proceedings.

>> senator grassley, senator blumenthal, senator feinstein. senator schumer moment ago. we have six in the room, a couple others out in the anteroom so i think we'll check if you have no objection and get started. >> we should get started.

>> usually once we get started people show. today the committee can move forward with the hearing we held last month. three would fill emergency judicial vacancyies ies in illi and also today we have an emergency procedure. senator grassley has asked to proceed on the bipartisan bill to televise the united states supreme court proceedings. now we have the power to use technology to allow greater access to public proceedings of the government so all americans can witness the quality of justice in this country not just those who have the opportunity to be physically at one of the hearings or -- which each one of us has the opportunity to do

when we want. some of us are members of the bar but many americans don't get to see it. with technology it would deepen americans' understanding of the work of the supreme court, allow all americans to see the continuing importance of the constituti constitution. this is especially important when decisions of the supreme court are daily affecting the lives of hard working americans. next week the supreme court begins arguments on challenges to the affordable care act. this important case will decide whether people's elected officials have the power under our constitution to enact legislation, regulating the health insurance market to make health care more affordable, hold insurers more accountable, to expand coverage to all americans and to make our health

care system more sustainable. so the supreme court's decision whatever they decide will impact all americans. because of that there is tremendous public interest in witnessing these historic arguments both on the part of those who supported the bill and those who opposed it. now technically it is so that the supreme court proceedings are open to the public but there are only a few dozen of the general public who can take time off from work, in this case stand in line all night long to get in and only a small handful will be able to see the proceedings. the court does not even provide live audio streaming. the american public is keenly

interested in requiring all americans to be insured, which began as a republican idea and whether that is going to be upheld and despite our public and private outreach to the supreme court there is yet no indication those proceedings will be made widely available to the american public on the day of the argument. i believe they should. i'm long in favor of open government. that is why i am a supporter of the freedom of information act. our democracy works best when americans have readache cess to their government. the most recent hearings on supreme court nominees we made arrangements to accommodate thousands of individual spectators during that time in our hearing room. in addition make sure the hearings are broadcast live. we even streamed the proceedings on our website. these technologies welcomed the american people in the role that

our constitution continues to play in our democracy. the senate has been televising its proceedings for more than 25 years. i believe the other body longer. state supreme courts have been televising their proceedings for years. now i know that some of the justices are not fans of televising their proceedings. i realize two or three members of the supreme court may not be in favor of this couple hundred million americans maybe on the other side, however. i understand they don't want to be made fun of to an unflattering video club or be quoted out of context. but that happens to the rest of us in public service all the time. it's not particularly pleasant but is part of our democracy and those of us who don't have lifetime positions are willing to put up with it. we try to counter misstatements by making sure the record is available to fair minded people. last october members of this

committee, members of the senate judiciary committee held a hearing to consider the role of judges under the constitution. we were joined by justices scalia and justice breyer, two people who represent different philosophies on the court. i appreciate their willing participation at a public hearing. i thought the discussion was informative and useful. senator blumenthal asked the justices why they did not open their supreme court proceedings through television. to quote senator blumenthal to give the public the benefit of seeing it first hand. and the discussion on the phone, justice breyer responded there may come a time when everything is viewed visually and it just seemed weird not to broadcast the argument. well, sometime i think that time has come. so many cell phones are equipped with video camera, with the advent of youtube, the internet. there is very little not able to

be viewed. so it's time for the supreme court as part of america to open its arguments to the american people, not just those members of the supreme co have a seat reserved in the hearing room. the supreme court justices are, after all, public officials whose decisions directly affect the lives of americans. they give speeches. they do book tours where they make money. some even attend fundraisers. i don't know how anyone who voted in the name of the first amendment to distort our election process to allow unlimited donations by super pacs can proclaim their own public proceedings should not be accessible to the american people. four days ago more than 11 million americans watched the super bowl. no one would have tolerated having that game being recorded and broadcast days later.

or its plays being transcribed and released at the end of the week. well, some of us whose team didn't do as well as we might have liked probably would have liked that, but we could all either exalt or suffer together in real time. so the outcome of the supreme court argument next month goes to the heart of our democracy. but it also affects americans a lot more than the outcome of a football game, which does get televised. now is the time for the supreme court's public proceedings to become truly accessible to the millions of americans going to be affected by its ruling. senator grassley, i know that you've taken a strong position on this and i yield to you. >> before i compliment you on your remarks, i think we're pretty united on our side when you get enough people here that we want to hold over the four judges that are on the agenda

for today and then of course take up the bill. and i'm going to put -- unless there's a great dissent in this committee expressed against the bill i'm going to first of all associate myself with your remarks, thank you very much for the thoroughness of them. they are much more thorough than what i have in my remarks and i'll put my remarks in the record and i also thank senator durbin for his leadership on this issue of the bill. but you, mr. chairman, just laid out a very, very compelling argument for the passage of this legislation, and i hope we can get it passed. and i thank senator durbin as well. i would like to take some time to speak about anothersue that yesterday. judge emmett sullivanf district court, d.c. district, issued an opinion ordering the public release of a 500-page report outlining serious

misconduct by the justice department attorneys from the public integrity section during the prosecution of senator stevens. in the opinion judge sullivan discussed the tortured history of the stevens prosecution, specifically he noted that after a public indictment, a public trial, a public conviction, and a press conference celebrating the guilty verdict, the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct arose. he also noted that only as the evidence of misconduct became clear and harder to refute, did the justice department dismiss the indictments and vacate the verdict. however, the justice department also stepped in to protect the prosecutors. the justice department initially sought to prevent any misconduct review by the court arguing instead of an internal review. the prosecutors' conduct via the office of professional responsibility.

to his credit, judge sullivan did not allow this and instead appointed a special investigator to investigate and prosecute justice department attorneys responsible for the prosecution of senator stevens. following the completion of this investigation, the special investigator produced a 500-page report that found, quote, the investigation and prosecution of senator stevens were permeated by this systemic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence, which would have independently corroborated his defense and his testimony and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of the government's key witnesses, end quote. this is an incredible finding and one that as judge sullivan put it has, quote, led to a continuing national public discourse on prosecutorial misconduct and whether and what steps should be taken to prevent it, end of quote. i agree with judge sullivan. the public has a right to know

that the special investigator found what the special investigator found and how pervasive the misconduct was inside the public integrity unit at justice department. the american people need to hear the truth about what happened, not simply trust the justice department's internal review process. in addition to judge sullivan's decision to release the independent report, the justice department should follow up in public the final report issued by opr. at our oversight hearing in november general holder stated in response to a question from senator hatch calling for the release of the final report, quote, that is up to the people of opr. what i have indicated was that i want to share as much of that as we possibly can given the very public nature of that matter and the very public decision that i made to dismiss the case, end of holder quote. despite the attorney general's purported desire to make this

information public, his initial comment that it is, quote, up to the people at opr, end of quote, to make that decision, leads me to believe we aren't likely to ever see that report. the justice department has routinely blocked the release of opr investigations citing privacy laws and employee rights of attorneys and agents guilty of misconduct. the attorney general ultimately oversees opr and if he truly wants that information made public he should order it released upon conclusion of the investigation. between the misconduct of the stevens case and the notorious operation fast and furious where the justice department knowingly walked guns to mexican drug cartels which may have led to the death of a federal agent it's easy to see why so many elected officials and american people have lost faith in the leadership of the justice department. these public failures paint a picture of a department where

bad decision making rules the day, a department where attorneys prosecuting a sitting u.s. senator under a republican administration systemically concealed, quote, significant exculpatory evidence, end of quote, that would have damaged the testimony and credibility of key witnesses. a department where whistle blowers who don't go along are sure to face retaliation from supervisors and then are forced into bureaucratic limbo to adjudicate their cases. a department where one assistant attorney general prepares a letter to a senator saying that atf doesn't allow guns to cross the border while another assists an attorney general is in mexico the same day advocating a plan to let guns cross the border as an investigative strategy which was explicitly forbidden by the deputy attorney general a month later. something is wrong and it's easy to see why the public is outraged.

further, the over reaching by the justice department impacts us here in congress republican democrat. for example legislation addressing online infringement hits a road block on the floor in part because of the public doesn't trust the current justice department to do the right thing and instead i heard from many constituents on this point during my 36 town meetings in january the american people are worried that the justice department will use power for political censorship in the case of that law. even though all of us probably here know that there is a need for us to do something to stop stealing of property. that's the kind of impact that distrust has had and affects us all. the stevens prosecution and these other examples are serious problems that i hope will be addressed not to mention the fact that the failed prosecution cost the taxpayers threefold. first the cost to investigate and prosecute. second the cost of the special

investigators and third the defense attorneys paid to defend the prosecutors from contempt charges. the defense attorneys alone cost taxpayers 1.8 million. the cost alone is reason enough to discuss these cases in the committee here in our oversight capacity and even hold hearings to get to the bottom of what's going on. the public's confidence in the department is questioned. the best thing the department can do is to be transparent and accountable, something that was promised not only by the president but also by many confirmation hearings of various people working there, the transparency promise has not yet been realized. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. as you know, i applauded attorney general holder for his decision to drop the prosecution of senator stevens, which he did. the prosecution which as you pointed out was begun the last administration. i welcomed judge sullivan's

decision and made public next month the results of his investigation. i say it publicly i want to get these results so that our whole committee can be briefed. i've expressed time and time again my concerns about the prosecutorial conduct or misconduct during the stevens trial as stated so publicly. and not just because it was a -- another senator who was prosecuted but i feel that that kind of misconduct can be allowed then everybody is in jeopardy and we will have, once we have these -- this report -- we will have a briefing of the committee about it. i would note i want to yield to the senator durbin as the chief sponsor of the bill before us. i note we have senator blumenthal, senators blumenthal,

koonce, frank and klubachar. we have ten people here. there has been a request on the part of the republicans to put over george levi russel and christine baker and others so under the rule they will be put over. i will have them on the agenda next week because at least a couple of these judges reflect judicial emergencies and as you know we've been asked by everybody from the chief justice of the united states on to do something about this ever growing number of judicial emergency vacancies and we will move in that next week. to look back on s-1945 the bill to permit the televising of the supreme court proceedings, sponsored by senators durbin, grassley and klobuchar, corn, and blumenthal and schumer, i

would note my own support of this bill and i will vote for it. senator durbin? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me say at the outset i understand that putting over the judicial nominees is proforma and not a reflection on them personally and i would advise the committee i'm sure all the nominees are important. in illinois the two are going to fill vacancies that have resulted in a judicial emergency in some portions of our state. i might also note the nominee john tharp is senator kirk's first federal judicial nominee. he and i work closely together to approve both of these nominees in a bipartisan basis and i hope that the next time we meet maybe as soon as next week we can send our colleague who is recovering the good news that

not moving this bill more quickly. with his trademark humility senator specter did that and i'm happy to say that i got the message and conveyed it to senator leahy and now we are here. mr. chairman, the supreme court justices are appointed for a lifetime. they make decisions that change the lives of americans as much or more as anything we do in congress. yet the so-called public hearings of the supreme court are open only to 250 americans on a real time basis. just how important is it in a democracy to bring the proceedings of an important american institution like the supreme court into full view of