[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 54 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4007-S4008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 791. A bill to amend the Federal rules of Criminal Procedure; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Video 
Teleconferencing Improvements Act. This bill will expand the use of 
video teleconferencing in criminal court matters, and promote a safer 
and more efficient federal court system.
  The federal courtroom, just like all society, is benefiting from 
constant advances in technology today. Video teleconferencing is one 
example of this movement. It allows proceedings to operate more 
efficiently and at lower costs, while maintaining many of the benefits 
of communicating in person.
  The use of video teleconferencing is becoming increasingly common in 
federal district and appellate courts for various proceedings, such as 
prisoner civil rights complaints and certain appellate matters. The 
state courts are also benefiting from video technology in many ways, 
including for pretrial criminal proceedings. However, in federal court, 
the use of this technology in criminal matters is almost nonexistent 
because the federal rules apparently require the defendant's physical 
presence in court.
  This legislation would amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
to allow the judge to hold pretrial proceedings, including the 
defendant's arraignment and initial appearance, through video 
teleconferencing. It would also allow for the sentencing to occur in 
this manner in special, limited circumstances.
  Today, some districts have extremely high volumes of criminal cases 
that they must process. This is especially true in the Border States, 
where the number of immigrants who are caught crossing the Mexican 
Border or committing crimes in the United States has skyrocketed and 
continues to rise. This creates a great burden and expense on the 
Marshals Service, which must transport the prisoners, often for very 
long distances from the holding facility to a far away courthouse. This 
type of transportation in creases the possibility for escape and can 
create a security risk for law enforcement, court personnel, and the 
public.

[[Page S4008]]

  Pretrial proceedings are often very short and routine. If they can be 
conducted through video, the inmates can stay at the secure facility, 
greatly decreasing risk and costs. If Marshals could spend less time on 
other duties, such as apprehending dangerous fugitives from justice. 
Moreover, this process would help the courts efficiently manage their 
increasing caseloads.
  Similarly, I believe that video teleconferencing could be very 
important for sentencing defendants in certain limited circumstances. 
This is especially true when there is a safety or security risk in 
transporting the prisoner to the courthouse.
  For example, in an ongoing case in South Carolina, a dangerous repeat 
offender was sentenced to a long prison term at the maximum security 
federal prison in Florence, Colorado. However, the court of appeals 
required that he be sentenced again. The Federal Bureau of Prisons 
considered him a danger to transport. He had a long history of 
psychiatric problems and violent behavior, including repeatedly 
assaulting prison guards and other inmates. In this case, he had even 
threatened the sentencing judge and the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Rather 
than transporting the prisoner back to South Carolina, the judge 
resentenced him by video teleconferencing. However, the case is now on 
appeal, and there is legal precedent not allowing this practice. In my 
view, there is simply no reason why a judge should be prohibited from 
sentencing by video in these circumstances.

  This legislation is not an attempt to eliminate criminal defendants 
from appearing in person before the judge. Defendants would still be in 
court for all phases of the trial, which this bill would not effect. In 
fact, criminal trials must be conducted in person because the accused 
has the constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. 
Further, even with these changes, the judge would maintain the 
authority to hold any pretrial or sentencing proceeding in person if he 
wished. This bill would simply give him the authority to conduct 
certain routine matters, other than the trial, through video 
teleconferencing.
  The Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference has been considering 
this video technology for some time, and recently proposed some of the 
specific changes that are included in this legislation. I hope they 
will provide judges discretion to conduct pretrial proceedings by video 
teleconference, and go even further than the formal proposals that they 
have considered to date.
  My legislation will help eliminate legal impediments to the 
reasonable use of video teleconferencing and help courts take advantage 
of new technology. These reforms are needed today.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 791

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Video Teleconferencing 
     Improvements Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF VIDEO TELECONFERENCING FOR THE 
                   INITIAL APPEARANCE.

       Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Video Teleconferencing.--Video teleconferencing may 
     be used to conduct an appearance under this rule.''.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF VIDEO TELECONFERENCING FOR THE 
                   ARRAIGNMENT.

       Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Arraignment'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--Arraignment''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Video Teleconferencing.--Video teleconferencing may 
     be used to arraign a defendant.''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF VIDEO TELECONFERENCING FOR CERTAIN 
                   PROCEEDINGS.

       Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``Except as otherwise provided in this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 
     10, the'';
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) when--
       ``(A) the proceeding is the sentencing hearing; and
       ``(B)(i) the defendant, in writing, waives the right to be 
     present in court; or
       ``(ii) the court finds, for good cause shown in exceptional 
     circumstances and upon appropriate safeguards, that 
     communication with a defendant (who is not physically present 
     before the court) by video teleconferencing is an adequate 
     substitute for the physical presence of the defendant.''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall apply 
     to a criminal complaint filed after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
                                 ______