[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 46 (Monday, April 18, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3822-S3823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mr. Craig, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Allen, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
        DeWine, and Mr. Allard):
  S. 829. 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.'' 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 have said, ``what transpires 
in the courtroom is public property.'' Clearly, the American values of 
openness and education

[[Page S3823]]

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 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, all 50 states allow for some 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 
over 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, the Supreme Court has allowed for 
audio broadcasting in other landmark cases. 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 camera 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. 829

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sunshine in the Courtroom 
     Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. SUNSET.

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