[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5836-S5838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Smith 
        of New Hampshire, Mr. Allard, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 986. A bill to allow media coverage of court proceedings; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Sunshine 
in

[[Page S5837]]

the Courtroom Act.'' This bill will give federal judges the discretion 
to allow for the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting and 
televising of federal court proceedings. The Sunshine in the Courtroom 
Act will help the public become better informed about the judicial 
process. Moreover, this bill will help produce a healthier judiciary. 
Increased public scrutiny will bring about greater accountability and 
help judges to do a better job. The sun needs to shine in on the 
federal courts.
  Allowing cameras in the federal courtrooms is consistent with our 
Founding Fathers' intent that trials be held in front of as many people 
as choose to attend. I believe that the First Amendment requires that 
court proceedings be open to the public and, by extension, the news 
media. The Constitution and Supreme Court both support the fundamental 
principles and aims of this bill. The Supreme Court has said, ``what 
transpires in the courtroom is public property.'' Clearly, the American 
values of openness and education are served by using electronic media 
in federal courtrooms.
  There are many benefits and no substantial detrimental effects to 
allowing greater public access to the inner workings of our federal 
courts. Fifteen states conducted studies aimed specifically at the 
educational benefits derived from camera access to courtrooms. They all 
determined that camera coverage contributed to greater public 
understanding of the judicial system.
  Moreover, the widespread use in state court proceedings show that 
still and video cameras can be used without any problems, and that 
procedural discipline is preserved. According to the National Center 
for State Courts, forty-eight states allow modern audio-visual coverage 
of court proceedings under a variety of rules and conditions. My own 
State of Iowa has operated successfully in this open manner for 20 
years. Further, at the federal level, the Federal Judicial Center 
conducted a pilot program in 1994 which studied the effect of cameras 
in a select number of federal courts. That study found ``small or no 
effects of camera presence on participants in the proceeding, courtroom 
decorum, or the administration of justice.''
  I would like to note that even the Supreme Court has recognized that 
there is a serious public interest in the open airing of important 
court cases. At the urging of Senator Schumer and myself, Chief Justice 
Rehnquist allowed the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral arguments 
before the Supreme Court in the 2000 presidential election dispute. The 
Supreme Court's response to our request was an historic, major step in 
the right direction. Since then, other courts have followed suit, such 
as the live audio broadcast of oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit 
in the Microsoft antitrust case and the televising of appellate 
proceedings before the Ninth Circuit in the Napster copyright case. The 
public wants to see what is happening in these important judicial 
proceedings, and the benefits are significant in terms of public 
knowledge and discussion.
  We've introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act with a well-
founded confidence based on the experience of the states as well as 
state and federal studies. However, in order to be certain of the 
safety and integrity of our judicial system, we have included a 3-year 
sunset provision allowing a reasonable amount of time to determine how 
the process is working before making the provisions of the bill 
permanent.
  It is also important to note that the bill simply gives judges the 
discretion to use cameras in the courtroom. It does not require judges 
to have cameras in their courtroom if they do not want them. The bill 
also protects the anonymity of non-party witnesses by giving them the 
right to have their voices and images obscured during testimony.
  So, the bill does not require cameras, but allows judges to exercise 
their discretion to permit cameras in appropriate cases. The bill 
protects witnesses and does not compromise safety. The bill preserves 
the integrity of the judicial system. The bill is based on the 
experience of the states and the federal courts. And the bill's net 
result will be greater openness and accountability of the nation's 
federal courts. The best way to maintain confidence in our judicial 
system, where the federal judiciary holds tremendous power, is to let 
the sun shine in by opening up the federal courtrooms to public view 
through broadcasting. And allowing cameras in the courtroom will bring 
the judiciary into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.
  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. 986

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

     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Presiding judge.--The term ``presiding judge'' means 
     the judge presiding over the court proceeding concerned. In 
     proceedings in which more than 1 judge participates, the 
     presiding judge shall be the senior active judge so 
     participating or, in the case of a circuit court of appeals, 
     the senior active circuit judge so participating, except 
     that--
       (A) in en banc sittings of any United States circuit court 
     of appeals, the presiding judge shall be the chief judge of 
     the circuit whenever the chief judge participates; and
       (B) in en banc sittings of the Supreme Court of the United 
     States, the presiding judge shall be the Chief Justice 
     whenever the Chief Justice participates.
       (2) Appellate court of the united states.--The term 
     ``appellate court of the United States'' means any United 
     States circuit court of appeals and the Supreme Court of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDING JUDGE TO ALLOW MEDIA COVERAGE 
                   OF COURT PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Authority of Appellate Courts.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the presiding judge of an appellate 
     court of the United States may, in the discretion of that 
     judge, permit the photographing, electronic recording, 
     broadcasting, or televising to the public of court 
     proceedings over which that judge presides.
       (b) Authority of District Courts.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any presiding judge of a district court of the United 
     States may, in the discretion of that judge, permit the 
     photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or 
     televising to the public of court proceedings over which that 
     judge presides.
       (2) Obscuring of witnesses.--
       (A) In general.--Upon the request of any witness in a trial 
     proceeding other than a party, the court shall order the face 
     and voice of the witness to be disguised or otherwise 
     obscured in such manner as to render the witness 
     unrecognizable to the broadcast audience of the trial 
     proceeding.
       (B) Notification to witnesses.--The presiding judge in a 
     trial proceeding shall inform each witness who is not a party 
     that the witness has the right to request that the image and 
     voice of that witness be obscured during the witness' 
     testimony.
       (c) Advisory Guidelines.--The Judicial Conference of the 
     United States may promulgate advisory guidelines to which a 
     presiding judge, in the discretion of that judge, may refer 
     in making decisions with respect to the management and 
     administration of photographing, recording, broadcasting, or 
     televising described under subsections (a) and (b).

     SEC. 3. SUNSET.

       The authority under section 2(b) shall terminate 3 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to once again be an original 
cosponsor of the Grassley-Schumer bill on cameras in the courtroom. I 
strongly support allowing cameras in federal courtrooms for a simple 
reason. Trials and court hearings are public proceedings. They are paid 
for by the taxpayers. Except in the most rare and unusual 
circumstances, the public has a right to see what happens in those 
proceedings. We have a long tradition of press access to trials, but in 
this day and age, it is no longer sufficient to be able to read in the 
morning paper what happened in a trial the day before. The public wants 
to see for itself what goes on in our courts of law, and I think it has 
a right to do so.
  Experience in the state courts--and the vast majority of states now 
allow trials to be televised--has shown that it is possible to permit 
the public to see trials on television without compromising the rights 
of a defendant to a fair trial or the safety or privacy interests of 
witnesses or jurors. Concerns about cameras interfering with the fair 
administration of justice in this country I believe are overstated.
  Let me note also that I believe the arguments against allowing 
cameras in the courtroom are the least persuasive in the case of 
appellate proceedings, including the Supreme Court. I had the

[[Page S5838]]

opportunity to watch the oral argument at the Supreme Court late in 
1999 in an important case dealing with campaign finance reform. It was 
a fascinating experience, and one that I wish all Americans could have. 
Of course, the entire country was able to hear audio feeds of the two 
oral arguments in Bush v. Gore only hours after those arguments were 
completed. Hearing those arguments directly was an important and 
positive public educational experience. Seeing the arguments live would 
have been even better. I do not believe that a discreet camera in that 
courtroom would have changed the argument one iota.
  There is no question in my mind that the highly trained and 
prestigious judges and lawyers who sit on and argue before our nation's 
federal appellate courts would continue to conduct themselves with 
dignity and professionalism if cameras were recording their work. These 
proceedings are where law is made in this country. The public will 
benefit greatly from being able to watch federal judges and advocates 
in action at oral argument.
  The bill that my friends from New York and Iowa are introducing today 
is a responsible and measured bill. It gives discretion to individual 
federal judges to allow cameras in their courtrooms. At the same time, 
it assures that witnesses will be able to request that their identities 
not be revealed in televised proceedings. This bill gives deference to 
the experience and judgment of federal judges who remain in charge of 
their own courtrooms. That is the right approach.
  My state of Wisconsin has a long and proud tradition of open 
government, and it has served us well. Coming from that tradition, my 
approach is to look with skepticism on any remnant of secrecy that 
lingers in our governmental processes at the federal level. When the 
workings of government are transparent, the people understand it better 
and can more thoroughly and constructively participate in it. And they 
can more easily hold their elected leaders and other public officials 
accountable. I believe this principle can and should be applied to the 
judicial as well as the legislative and executive branches of 
government, while still respecting the unique role of the unelected 
federal judiciary.
  Cameras in the courtroom is an idea whose time came some time ago. It 
is high time we brought it to the federal courts. I am proud to support 
the Grassley-Schumer bill, and I hope we can enact it this year.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley in 
introducing this legislation to permit federal trials and appellate 
proceedings to be televised, at the discretion of the presiding judge.
  Former Chief Justice Warren Burger once said of the U.S. Supreme 
Court, ``A court which is final and unreviewable needs more careful 
scrutiny than any other. Unreviewable power is the most likely to 
indulge itself and the least likely to engage in dispassionate self-
analysis . . . In a country like ours, no public institution, or the 
people who operate it, can be above public debate.''
  I believe that these words are applicable to the entire federal 
judiciary. As such, I strongly support giving federal judges discretion 
to televise the proceedings over which they preside. When the people of 
this nation watch their government in action, they come to understand 
how our governing institutions work and equip themselves to hold those 
institutions accountable for their deeds. If there are flaws in our 
governing institutions--including our courts--we hide them only at our 
peril.
  The federal courts are lagging behind the state courts on the issue 
of televising court proceedings. Indeed, 47 out of the 50 states allow 
cameras in their courtrooms in at least some cases. Moreover, a two-
and-a-half year pilot program in which cameras were routinely permitted 
in six federal district courts and two courts of appeals revealed near 
universal support for cameras in the courtroom.
  Our bill would simply afford federal trial and appellate judges 
discretion to permit cameras in their courtrooms. It would not require 
them to do so. Furthermore, to protect the privacy of non-party 
witnesses, the legislation would give such witnesses the right to have 
their voices and images obscured during their testimony.
  I eagerly anticipate Senate passage and the day when openness is the 
norm in our federal courtrooms, not the exception.
                                 ______