HR 1751 RFS 
SEC. 21. SPECIAL PENALTIES FOR MURDER, KIDNAPPING, 
AND RELATED CRIMES AGAINST FEDERAL 
JUDGES AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
OFFICERS. 
(a) MURDER.—Section 1114 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended— 
(1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘Whoever’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(b) If the victim of a murder punishable under this 
section is a United States judge (as defined in section 
115) or a Federal law enforcement officer (as defined in 
115) the offender shall be punished by a fine under this 
title and imprisonment for any term of years not less than 
30, or for life, or, if death results, may be sentenced to 
death.’’. 
(b) KIDNAPPING.—Section 1201(a) of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following: ‘‘If the victim of the offense punishable under 
this subsection is a United States judge (as defined in sec-
tion 115) or a Federal law enforcement officer (as defined 
in 115) the offender shall be punished by a fine under 
this title and imprisonment for any term of years not less 
than 30, or for life, or, if death results, may be sentenced 
to death.’’.
HR 1751 RFS 
SEC. 22. MEDIA COVERAGE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS. 
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress makes the following 
findings: 
(1) The right of the people of the United States 
to freedom of speech, particularly as it relates to 
comment on governmental activities, as protected by 
the first amendment to the Constitution, cannot be 
meaningfully exercised without the ability of the 
public to obtain facts and information about the 
Government upon which to base their judgments re-
garding important issues and events. As the United 
States Supreme Court articulated in Craig v. Har-
ney, 331 U.S. 367 (1947), ‘‘A trial is a public event. 
What transpires in the court room is public prop-
erty.’’. 
(2) The right of the people of the United States 
to a free press, with the ability to report on all as-
pects of the conduct of the business of government, 
as protected by the first amendment to the Constitu-
tion, cannot be meaningfully exercised without the 
ability of the news media to gather facts and infor-
mation freely for dissemination to the public. 
(3) The right of the people of the United States 
to petition the Government to redress grievances, 
particularly as it relates to the manner in which the 
Government exercises its legislative, executive, and
HR 1751 RFS 
judicial powers, as protected by the first amendment 
to the Constitution, cannot be meaningfully exer-
cised without the availability to the public of infor-
mation about how the affairs of government are 
being conducted. As the Supreme Court noted in 
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth of 
Virginia (1980), ‘‘People in an open society do not 
demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is 
difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited 
from observing.’’. 
(4) In the twenty-first century, the people of 
the United States obtain information regarding judi-
cial matters involving the Constitution, civil rights, 
and other important legal subjects principally 
through the print and electronic media. Television, 
in particular, provides a degree of public access to 
courtroom proceedings that more closely approxi-
mates the ideal of actual physical presence than 
newspaper coverage or still photography. 
(5) Providing statutory authority for the courts 
of the United States to exercise their discretion in 
permitting televised coverage of courtroom pro-
ceedings would enhance significantly the access of 
the people to the Federal judiciary.
HR 1751 RFS 
(6) Inasmuch as the first amendment to the 
Constitution prevents Congress from abridging the 
ability of the people to exercise their inherent rights 
to freedom of speech, to freedom of the press, and 
to petition the Government for a redress of griev-
ances, it is good public policy for the Congress af-
firmatively to facilitate the ability of the people to 
exercise those rights. 
(7) The granting of such authority would assist 
in the implementation of the constitutional guar-
antee of public trials in criminal cases, as provided 
by the sixth amendment to the Constitution. As the 
Supreme Court stated in In re Oliver (1948), 
‘‘Whatever other benefits the guarantee to an ac-
cused that his trial be conducted in public may con-
fer upon our society, the guarantee has always been 
recognized as a safeguard against any attempt to 
employ our courts as instruments of persecution. 
The knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to 
contemporaneous review in the forum of public opin-
ion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judi-
cial power.’’. 
(b) AUTHORITY OF PRESIDING JUDGE TO ALLOW 
MEDIA COVERAGE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS.—