[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Page 6764]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to once again support the 
Grassley-Schumer bill on cameras in the courtroom. This proposal was 
reported by the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote in the last 
two congresses, and I very much hope we can get it signed into law this 
year.
  When the workings of Government are transparent, the people 
understand their Government better and can more constructively 
participate in it. They can also more easily hold their 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 
Federal judiciary.
  We have a long tradition of press access to trials, but in this day 
and age, it is no longer sufficient 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 should be allowed to 
do so.
  Concerns about cameras interfering with the fair administration of 
justice in this county are, I believe, overstated. 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 defendant's right to a 
fair trial or the safety or privacy interests of witnesses and jurors. 
There is no question in my mind that the highly trained 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.
  Let me note also that I believe the arguments against allowing 
cameras in the courtroom are least persuasive in the case of appellate 
proceedings, including the Supreme Court. In fact, I had the 
opportunity to watch the oral argument when the Supreme Court 
considered the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold bill in 2003. 
It was a fascinating experience, and one that I wish all Americans 
could have. Of course, the entire country was able to hear delayed 
audio feeds of the two Supreme Court oral arguments in Bush v. Gore and 
the arguments on affirmative action. This allowed the public and 
important look at the making of decisions that affect them in a 
profound way. Seeing the arguments live would have been even better. I 
do not believe that a discreet camera in the courtroom would have 
changed the character or quality of the arguments one iota.
  My State of Wisconsin has a long and proud tradition of open 
government, and it has served us well. Coming from that tradition, I 
look with skepticism on any remnant of secrecy that lingers in our 
governmental processes. Trials and court hearings are public 
proceedings, paid for by the taxpayers. Except in the most rare and 
unusual circumstances, the public is entitled to see what happens in 
those proceedings.
  The bill that my friends from Iowa and New York have proposed 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.
  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.

                          ____________________