[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 36 (Thursday, March 6, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3276-S3277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Allen, 
        Mr. Craig, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Allard, and Mr. 
        Talent):
  S. 554. 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 the Courtroom Act of 2003, a bill to allow media coverage of court 
proceedings. This legislation will provide Federal judges with the 
statutory authority to exercise their discretion to allow the 
photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting and televising of 
federal court proceedings.
  During the 107th Congress, the Judiciary Committee reported identical 
legislation favorably, by a vote of 12 to 7. It's my hope that the full 
Senate will have the opportunity to act on this bill as early as 
possible in the 108th Congress.
  Sunshine bill will help the American people to become better informed 
about the judicial process. Moreover, this bill will help to produce a 
better judiciary. Increased public awareness and scrutiny will bring 
about greater accountability and help judges to do a better job.
  Allowing cameras in the Federal courts is consistent with the intent 
of our Nation's Founders that trials should be held in front of as many 
people as choose to attend them. In my view, the First Amendment to the 
Constitution requires that court proceedings must be open to the public 
and, by extension, to the news media. As the Supreme Court has said, 
``what transpires in the courtroom is public property.''
  Clearly, the basic American values of openness and education are 
served by allowing electronic media access to Federal courtrooms. There 
are many beneficial and no substantial detrimental effects to allowing 
greater public access to the inner workings of our federal courts. 
Fifteen States have conducted studies aimed specifically at the 
educational benefits that are derived from camera access to courtrooms. 
They all determined that camera coverage contributes to greater public 
understanding of the judicial system.
  Moroever, the experience of the States with electronic media access 
to judicial proceedings demonstrate 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, all fifty States 
allow at least some degree of camera access to judicial proceedings 
under a wide variety of rules and conditions. My own State of Iowa, for 
example, has operated successfully in this open manner for more than 20 
years.
  Furthermore, at the Federal level, the Federal Judicial Center 
conducted a pilot program in 1994 that studied the effects of allowing 
camera access to courtrooms. The study found ``small or no effects of 
camera presence on participants in judicial proceedings, courtroom 
decorum, or the administration of justice.''
  Based on the experience of the States, as well as state and Federal 
studies, Senator Schumer and I are introducing this bill with a well-
founded confidence that it represents sound public policy. 
Nevertheless, in order to provide a mechanism for Congress to study the 
effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change 
permanent, we have included a three-year sunset provision in our bill.
  The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that there is a 
strong public interest in electronic media access to important court 
cases. At my urging and that of Senator Schumer, Chief Justice 
Rehnquist permitted the delayed audio broadcasting of the oral 
arguments before the Supreme Court in the historic 2000 presidential 
election dispute. The Supreme Court's response to our request was a 
major step in the right direction.
  It is important to emphasize, that this bill does not require any 
Federal judge in any Federal court to allow camera access to judicial 
proceedings. Rather, it simply gives Federal judges the discretion to 
allow cameras or other electronic media access if they see fit. The 
bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by 
giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured.
  This piece of sunshine legislation will bring greater openness and 
accountability to the Nation's Federal courts. The best way to maintain 
confidence in our Federal judiciary, which has tremendous power, is to 
let the sun shine in by allowing judges to exercise their discretion in 
opening Federal courtrooms to public view through the broadcasting and 
televising of judicial proceedings. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
co-sponsoring the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
       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

[[Page S3277]]

     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.
                                 ______