[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 48 (Thursday, March 25, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3448-S3449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Feingold, and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 721. A bill to allow media coverage of court proceedings.


        legislation to allow media coverage of court proceedings

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, along with Senator Schumer and others, 
today I am introducing legislation that would make it easier for every 
American taxpayer to see what goes on in the federal courts that they 
fund. The bill, which would allow the photographing, electronic 
recording, broadcasting, and televising of Federal court proceedings, 
is needed to address the growing public cynicism over this branch of 
government.
  Fostering a public that is well-informed about the law, including 
penalties and offenses, will, in turn, foster a healthy judiciary. As 
Thomas Jefferson said, ``[t]he execution of the laws is more important 
than the making of them.'' Because federal court decisions are far-
reaching and often final, it is critical that judges operate in a 
manner that invites broad observation.
  In addition, allowing cameras in the federal courtrooms is consistent 
with the founding fathers' intent that trials be held before as many 
people as choose to attend. Also, the First Amendment requires that 
court proceedings be open to the public, and by extension, the news 
media. The public's right to observe them first-hand is hardly less 
important. Put differently, the Supreme Court has said, ``what 
transpires in the courtroom is public property.''

[[Page S3449]]

  In 1994 The Federal Judicial Center conducted a pilot program that 
studied the effect of cameras in a select number of federal courts. 
Their findings supported the use of electronic media coverage and 
found, ``small or no effects of camera presence on participants in the 
proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the administration of justice.'' In 
addition to this three year study in the federal courts, we are 
fortunate to be able to draw upon the experience of state courts. A 
committee in New York established to study the effect of cameras in 
courtrooms concluded, ``Audio-visual coverage of court proceedings 
serves an important educational function, and promotes public scrutiny 
of the judicial system. The program had minimal, if any, adverse 
effects.'' 15 states specifically studied the educational benefits 
deriving from camera access and all of them determined that camera 
coverage contributed to greater public understanding of the judicial 
system.
  The use of state courts as a testing ground for this legislation as 
well as the Federal pilot program make this very well trod ground. We 
can be extremely confident that this is the next logical step and the 
well documented benefits far outweigh the ``minimal or no detrimental 
effects''. Yet, despite the strong evidence of the successful use of 
cameras in state courtrooms, we are going the extra mile to make sure 
this works in federal courtrooms by adding a 3 year sunset provision to 
our bill. This will give us a reasonable amount of time to determine 
how the process is working and whether it should be permanent.
  The two leading arguments against cameras in federal courtrooms are 
easily countered. First, there is a fear that courtrooms will 
deteriorate into the carnival-like atmosphere of the O.J. Simpson 
trial. However, the O.J. Simpson case is obviously an exceptional and 
isolated instance. Not every court case is or need be like the Simpson 
case. It is this image of court proceedings that this bill is designed 
to dispel. Furthermore, even the minimal effects of a camera in a trial 
setting do not apply to an appellate hearing that has no jury and 
rarely requires witnesses.
  The second argument against greater public access to court 
proceedings is the legitimate concern for the witnesses' safety when 
they are required to testify. This concern has merit and is therefore 
addressed in our bill. Technological advances make it possible to 
disguise the face and voice of witnesses upon request, thus not 
compromising their safety.
  Allowing greater public access to federal court proceedings will help 
Americans fulfill their duty as citizens of a democratic nation to 
educate themselves on the workings of their government, and their right 
to observe and oversee the fundamental and critical role of the 
judiciary. The evidence compiled by 48 states and a federal study 
clearly supports this bill, the Constitution demands this bill, and the 
American people deserve this bill.
  For all these reasons, I urge others to join me and my colleagues in 
supporting our attempt to provide greater public access and 
accountability of our federal courts.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Grassley and 
Schumer in sponsoring the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.''
  Our democracy works best when our citizens are fully informed. That 
is why I have supported efforts during my time in the Senate to promote 
the goal of opening the proceedings of all three branches of our 
government. We continue to make progress in this area. Except for rare 
closed sessions, the proceedings of Congress and its Committees are 
open to the public, and carried live on cable networks. In addition, 
more Members and Committees are using the Internet and Web sites to 
make their work available to broader audiences.
  The work of Executive Branch agencies is also open for public 
scrutiny through the Freedom of Information Act, among other 
mechanisms. The FOIA has served the country well in maintaining the 
right of Americans to know what their government is doing--or not 
doing. As President Johnson said in 1966, when he signed the Freedom of 
Information Act into law:

       This legislation springs from one of our most essential 
     principles: A democracy works best when the people have all 
     the information that the security of the Nation permits.

  The work of the third, Judicial Branch, of government is also open to 
the public. Proceedings in federal courtrooms around this country are 
open to the public, and our distinguished jurists publish extensive 
opinions explaining the reasons for their judgments and decisions.
  Forty-eight states, including Vermont, permit cameras in the courts. 
This legislation simply continues this tradition of openness on the 
federal level.
  This bill permits presiding appellate and district court judges to 
allow cameras in the courtroom; they are not required to do so. At the 
same time, it protects non-party witnesses by giving them the right to 
have their voices and images obscured during their testimony. Finally, 
the bill authorizes the Judicial Conference of the United States to 
promulgate advisory guidelines for use by presiding judges in 
determining the management and administration of photographing, 
recording, broadcasting or televising the proceedings. The authority 
for cameras in federal district courts sunsets in three years.
  In 1994, the Judicial Conference concluded that the time was not ripe 
to permit cameras in the federal courts, and rejected a recommendation 
of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee to authorize 
the photographing, recording, and broadcasting of civil proceedings in 
federal trial and appellate courts. A majority of the Conference were 
concerned about the intimidating effect of cameras on some witnesses 
and jurors.
  The New York Times opined at that time, on September 22, 1994, that 
``the court system needs to reconsider its total ban on cameras, and 
Congress should consider making its own rules for cameras in the 
Federal courts.''
  I am sensitive to the concerns of the Conference, but believe this 
legislation grants to the presiding judge the authority to evaluate the 
effect of a camera on particular proceedings and witnesses, and decide 
accordingly on whether to permit the camera into the courtroom. A 
blanket prohibition on cameras is an unnecessary limitation on the 
discretion of the presiding judge.
  Allowing a wider public than just those who are able to make time to 
visit a courtroom to see and hear judicial proceedings will allow 
Americans to evaluate for themselves the quality of justice in this 
country, and deepen their understanding of the work that goes on in our 
courtrooms. This legislation is a step in making our courtrooms and the 
justice meted out there more widely available for public scrutiny. The 
time is long overdue for federal courts to allow cameras on their 
proceedings.
                                 ______