[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2914-2915]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              PUBLIC TRUST

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we live in a time when public trust in all 
of our government institutions is at an alltime low and unfortunately 
continues to deteriorate. Recent polls indicate public confidence in 
Congress is at 11 percent, which is a record-low approval rating.
  Americans have been skeptical of politicians in general and Congress 
in particular from the beginning of this Republic. It is a healthy 
skepticism which reflects the freedoms that are part of our democracy 
and the right of people to disagree with leadership with impunity under 
our Constitution, with some limitations. So I take it in historical 
context but still cannot escape the reality that the numbers today are 
lower than ever.
  The legislative branch is not the only branch of government the 
public holds in low regard. Polls also indicate that the U.S. Supreme 
Court has recently received its second lowest approval rating in 
history.
  One way those of us who serve in government can increase public trust 
and confidence is to be more transparent about how we operate and the 
standards to which we are held. The recent passage of the STOCK Act in 
the Senate is an indication of a continuing effort to alert the public 
to what we do as Members of Congress which bears scrutiny.
  I make a disclosure each year, which goes beyond the requirements of 
the law, and many others do as well. The STOCK Act will bring many 
Members of Congress to an even higher level of disclosure--as they 
should be. One way we can increase our confidence in the institutions 
of government is to address those aspects which add to transparency and 
add to trust.
  I think it is time for the Supreme Court to provide more transparency 
and accountability in two specific areas: First, the Supreme Court 
should allow live television cameras to broadcast open Court sessions 
so the general public can see firsthand how the Court operates and 
arrives at critical decisions that literally change our lives. Second, 
the Supreme Court should formally adopt the Judicial Code of Conduct, 
which currently applies to all other Federal judges but for some 
inexplicable reason does not apply to Justices of the Supreme Court. 
The Court should also make public the other ethics rules it follows.
  The Supreme Court decisions impact the lives of every American, but 
access to open sessions of the Court is incredibly limited. As a 
result, the Court's proceedings and the way it arrives at decisions are 
a mystery. Most Americans will never see the Supreme Court at work 
unless they are willing and able to travel to Washington, DC, and wait 
in line for hours or sometimes sleep outside overnight on the pavement 
in an effort to secure one of 250 seats in the Supreme Court courtroom.
  In a democratic society that values transparency and openness, there 
is no valid justification for such a powerful element of our government 
to operate largely outside the view of American people.
  I am pleased to have partnered with Senator Chuck Grassley, my 
Republican colleague from Iowa, on the Cameras in the Courtroom Act, S. 
1945. He and I continue the work of our former colleague, Senator 
Specter, on this important issue. Our bill would require televising of 
all open sessions of the Court unless a majority of the Justices 
determine that doing so would violate due process rights of one or more 
of the parties before the Court. We give to the Court the last word on 
any given argument or case as to whether it will be public and 
televised.
  In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court is going to consider the 
constitutionality of one of the most important pieces of legislation to 
be considered by Congress and signed by the President in decades--the 
affordable care act. During the yearlong congressional debate on health 
care reform, every hearing, floor debate, and vote was accessible to 
every American with a television set or a Webcast and a computer, at 
all times. The American people should have the same opportunity to 
watch the open session of the Supreme Court as it considers the 
constitutionality of health care reform legislation. On this point, 
there is bipartisan agreement. Despite our strong disagreements about 
the substance of the affordable care act, Democrats and Republicans 
from both Chambers have written to the Supreme Court, urging them to 
permit live video and audio broadcasts of the health care reform 
argument.The Court should allow live broadcasts of the health care 
reform hearing and all other open sessions of Court since each of the 
Court's decisions has the potential to have a transformative impact on 
the lives of so many Americans.
  There are some who say we should not allow cameras in the Supreme 
Court because only bits and pieces of Court proceedings would be 
televised, and they might be taken out of context. That reminds me of 
an editorial from a few years ago, and here is what it said:

       Keeping cameras out to prevent people from getting the 
     wrong idea is a little like removing the paintings from an 
     art museum out of fear that visitors might not have the art 
     history background to appreciate them.

  Similar arguments were made when consideration was given to 
televising these proceedings. Nevertheless, for two decades the 
legislative sessions and committee meetings in the Senate and the House 
have been broadcast live, and the legislative branch is better for it. 
The majority of States permit live video coverage in some or all of 
their courts. It is time the Supreme Court did the same.
  Mr. President, I am sure you have found when you have gone back home 
there are people who watch C-SPAN nonstop. I have literally had people 
in my hometown of Springfield come up to me in the grocery store and 
say: Is Senator Bernie Sanders feeling well? I saw him sitting at his 
desk, and he looked a little bit pale.
  They follow it with such close regard for the Members and the 
speeches that it is a surprise to many of us who live in this 
institution and work in it every day.
  In my view, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act is a reasonable approach 
that balances the public's need for information and transparency with 
the constitutional rights of those who appear before the court. As in 
past

[[Page 2915]]

years, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act enjoys bipartisan support.
  I thank Senators Klobuchar, Cornyn, Schumer, Harkin, Gillibrand, 
Begich, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Blumenthal, for cosponsoring 
the bill. These Senators, as well as Senator Grassley and myself, 
believe public scrutiny of Supreme Court proceedings will produce 
greater accountability, transparency, and understanding.
  I thank Senator Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
for scheduling my bill, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act, for a vote in 
the Judiciary Committee. It was reported out with a strong bipartisan 
vote, and it is now pending on the Senate calendar. The bill has been 
cleared by every Democratic Senator for a vote by the full Senate. I am 
still hoping we can bring it to the floor as quickly as possible.
  Mr. President, now I would like to touch on a related issue. Just as 
Supreme Court hearings should be televised to the American people, so 
too should the Court's ethical standards be available for review by the 
public. The ethics rules for all branches of government should be clear 
and public. When ethics decisions arise in the Senate--for example, the 
Senate Ethics Committee is responsible for enforcing the rules for 
Senators and our employees. Everyone knows the standards and 
expectations for Congress because they are a matter of public record. 
That cannot be said for the Supreme Court of the United States.
  Our Supreme Court has publicly adopted some limited ethics rules but 
not others. The Court does not have an ethics office, nor is it subject 
to the judicial conference which regulates all other Federal judges 
outside the Supreme Court. Instead, as the highest Court in the land, 
the Supreme Court polices itself, and it asks the American people to 
just trust them. Of course, I have the highest respect for the 
Justices' abilities and their judgment. It has been my honor to come to 
know some of these Justices personally over the years. But if the 
public is asked to trust the Justices to police themselves, we are at 
least entitled to know the rules by which they play.
  To its credit, some of the Supreme Court's ethics rules are already 
pretty clear. Through an internal resolution, the Supreme Court has 
adopted the same financial restrictions that apply to all other Federal 
employees. I recently sent a letter--along with Senators Leahy, 
Whitehouse, Franken, and Blumenthal--to John Roberts, the Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court, asking him to publicly release one of the Court's 
resolutions which says that the Justices will follow the same 
regulations on outside employment, honoraria, and income that apply to 
other justices. The Chief Justice agreed to our requests and publicly 
released this resolution for the first time since it was adopted in 
1991. I applaud Chief Justice Roberts' action. I encourage him and the 
other Justices to continue on this path by releasing all of their 
ethics rules.
  Nevertheless, there is more work for the Supreme Court to do to 
increase transparency and accountability. The Court should either adopt 
a court resolution agreeing to follow the judicial code of conduct--the 
same ethics code that applies to all other Federal judges--or adopt and 
publicly disclose their own ethics code. Many have called for the 
Supreme Court to adopt the Judicial Code of Conduct.
  In response, Chief Justice Roberts has explained that the Justices 
use the code as one source of guidance but not the only source to 
decide ethics questions. Given that they already apply the code in 
practice, it seems a logical next step for the Court to adopt its own 
resolution formally affirming this practice or they can adopt a 
resolution making it clear which ethics rules do or do not apply.
  All of the Justices deserve respect for the difficult and weighty 
decisions they face. But as some of the most powerful members of our 
government, it is not too much to ask of them to make their ethical 
standards open and clear. By making their ethics rules more 
transparent, the Justices will foster greater public trust and 
confidence in the Court and its decisions.
  In conclusion, let me emphasize that I have a high regard for the 
Supreme Court and all of its Justices. I do not intend to question or 
impugn any Justice with my suggestions. But let's be clear; we live in 
an era where there is a great deal of mistrust in government 
institutions, starting with Congress but through all branches of 
government. At the same time modern technology enables us to provide 
the American people with more access to the workings of government 
which could help to reduce some of this mistrust.
  I, and many of my colleagues in the Senate, have worked for many 
years to increase openness and transparency in Congress and the 
executive branch. I encourage the Supreme Court to take the same 
approach. Televising Supreme Court proceedings and making public the 
Court's ethics rules would be a good start. The American people deserve 
to be able to watch the Supreme Court arguments and cases that can 
affect their lives, and they deserve to know the ethical standards that 
govern the Court when it decides cases.

                          ____________________