[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                       FIGHTING FOR A FREE PRESS: PROTECTING 
                          JOURNALISTS AND THEIR SOURCES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND 
                              LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-70

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                             __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-389                     WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                    
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
MATT GAETZ, Florida                      Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
CHIP ROY, Texas                          Georgia
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ADAM SCHIFF, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             J. LUIS CORREA, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          ERIC SWALWELL, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TED LIEU, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida                  BECCA BALINT, Vermont
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
Vacancy

                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                         CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair

TOM McCLINTOCK, California           MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, 
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina               Ranking Member
KEVIN KILEY, California              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   CORI BUSH, Missouri
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        BECCA BALINT, Vermont

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
         AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Thursday, April 11, 2024

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution and Limited Governmentfrom the State of Texas.....     1
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from 
  the State of Pennsylvania......................................     3
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary 
  from the State of Ohio.........................................     5
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     6

                               WITNESSES

Catherine V. Herridge, Investigative Journalist
  Oral Testimony.................................................     8
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    11
Mary Cavallaro, Chief Broadcast Officer, News & Broadcast 
  Department, Screen Actors Guild--American Federation of 
  Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA)
  Oral Testimony.................................................    13
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    15
Sharyl Attkisson, Investigative Editor, Managing Editor, ``Full 
  Measure with Sharyl Attkisson''
  Oral Testimony.................................................    19
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    21
Nadine Farid Johnson, Policy Director, Knight First Amendment 
  Institute, Columbia University
  Oral Testimony.................................................    26
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    28

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
  and Limited Government, for the record.........................    50

A letter from Randa Soudah, Senior Vice President, Associate 
  General Counsel, Employment Law Paramount Global, to the 
  Honorable Chair Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Ohio, Feb. 23, 2024, submitted by 
  the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from 
  the State of Pennsylvania, for the record

 
  FIGHTING FOR A FREE PRESS: PROTECTING JOURNALISTS AND THEIR SOURCES

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, April 11, 2024

                        House of Representatives

        Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:41 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Roy, Jordan, McClintock, Bishop, 
Hageman, Armstrong, Scanlon, Nadler, Jackson Lee, and Balint.
    Mr. Roy. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time. We welcome everybody to today's hearing on 
a free press and protecting journalists.
    I'll remind everybody that the guests in the chamber are 
guests, and you're free to be here, but this is no audience 
participation in the hearing. This is a hearing, and we're 
going to conduct it accordingly.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

        Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that 
        cannot be limited without being lost.                            
                 Thomas Jefferson

Those words were true when Thomas Jefferson wrote them in 1786, 
and they are still true today. The First Amendment to the 
Constitution guarantees freedom of the press and prohibits the 
Federal Government from making any law abridging that freedom.
    In his concurrence in The New York Times v. The United 
States, Justice Hugo Black stated,

        In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free 
        press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role 
        in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the 
        Governors.

The Framers of the Constitution haled the freedom of the press 
as the most important political liberty and the keystone on 
which all our other freedoms rely.
    As is still the case today, journalists are often the first 
to expose government abuse, waste, fraud, and encroachments on 
the personal freedoms we hold dear. Sadly, the freedom of the 
press is under attack in our country from multiple angles: The 
White House, activist judges, and mainstream media networks.
    For example, the Obama White House illegally spied on 
investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson by allegedly hacking 
into her cell phone and computer to determine the identity of a 
confidential source. We also saw the Obama Administration take 
an adversarial position regarding freedom of the press when it 
sought to silence anyone blowing the whistle on the Federal 
Government's waste and abuse by seizing the phone records of 
Associated Press reporters and editors who use source materials 
to write stories. The phone records seized were not just those 
owned by the Associated Press, but also personal, home, and 
cell phones.
    The seizure of these records was such an alarming step by 
the Federal Government that a coalition of 50 news 
organizations, including ABC, CNN, The New York Times, and The 
Washington Post, submitted a letter of protest to then-Attorney 
General Eric Holder about the raid, which stated that the 
administration's actions called into question the very 
integrity of the Department of Justice policies toward the 
press and its ability to balance on its own its police powers 
against the First Amendment rights of the news media and the 
public's interest in reporting on all manner of conduct.
    The Obama Administration's war on a free press showed us 
that Executive interference has a chilling effect that 
disincentivizes whistleblowers and sources from coming forward 
with critical information. That chilling and eventually 
freezing out effect harms the quality and integrity of 
journalism on a major scale.
    Meanwhile, we have seen the Biden-Garland Justice 
Department arrest and prosecute journalist Steve Baker, who was 
reporting from the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6th on the 
events that took place inside the Capitol. We also recently saw 
a Federal Court order investigative journalist Catherine 
Herridge to identify a confidential source and then hold her in 
contempt when she exercised her First Amendment right to 
maintain the source's confidentiality.
    First Amendment advocates on both sides of the aisle have 
warned that government actions such as this could have 
devastating consequences for a free press. Around that same 
time, CBS News terminated Ms. Herridge's employment and took 
unprecedented actions with regards to her belongings, including 
source materials.
    CBS News officials reportedly boxed up and seized some of 
the materials in her office, including her investigative files 
and laptop computer, with the intent to search through items to 
segregate materials Ms. Herridge developed or worked on for CBS 
News. CBS News' planned surge through Ms. Herridge's materials 
threatened to trample on her First Amendment rights and could 
have divulged confidential sources stemming from her previous 
work with other networks.
    Along those same lines, we have also seen the Federal 
Government seek to impermissibly shape news story, even 
coercing social media companies to sensor and remove content on 
their platforms relating to foreign influence peddling by the 
President and his family.
    Today's hearing is about defending our fundamental liberty 
and protecting journalists and their sources from these 
attacks. We will examine the Federal Government's infringement 
on the freedom of the press and examine the prospects for a 
Federal shield law.
    On July 19, 2023, the House Committee on the Judiciary with 
a vote of 23 to 0--that doesn't often happen in the House 
Judiciary Committee--23 to 0 favorably reported on the Protect 
Reporters from Exploitative State Spying, or PRESS Act. In 
January of this year, the full House passed the PRESS Act by a 
voice vote. The PRESS Act was written to prohibit the Federal 
Government from compelling journalists to identify a source, as 
well as any records, contents of a communication, documents, or 
information obtained or created by journalists in the course of 
their work.
    The significance of the PRESS Act cannot be understated. It 
ensures a free press independent from an Executive Branch that 
seeks to attack or harass journalists to identify their 
confidential sources.
    Now, that the House has done its job and stood up to fight 
for the freedom of the press, it is now the Senate's turn to 
take up this legislation to continue Congress' commitment to 
protecting our fundamental freedoms. Our constitutional 
guarantee of a free press is under attack. It is our job to 
stand up for that right and protect journalists and their 
sources.
    I look forward to hearing from all our distinguished 
witnesses today who will all bring unique personal and 
professional perspectives to this important issue.
    Please note that a joint schedule of Congress is scheduled 
for 11 a.m. and the Committee will recess for the duration of 
that session and gavel back in shortly after.
    I now yield to the Ranking Member for her opening 
statement.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The necessity for and guarantee of a free press is one of 
the fundamental pillars of our democratic republic, predating 
and inspiring both our Constitution and the First Amendment.
    We all know that a democracy only truly works when its 
citizens are properly informed, and a free press contributes to 
this goal by ensuring truth and accountability from those in 
power. A free press informs the American people of important 
policy issues and government actions that may impact their 
lives and crucially can reveal incompetence, corruption, 
deceit, fraud, or bad faith by political candidates and 
government officials.
    Thus, attempts by government actors and would-be leaders to 
undermine the press, whether by promoting conspiracy theories 
and lies, attacking members of the press with whom they 
disagree, or undermining the press' ability to obtain vital 
information, are an assault on the pillars of our democratic 
foundation.
    One particularly pernicious way this occurs is when the 
government seeks to compel journalists to disclose the identity 
of confidential sources, and I think it's important at the 
outset here to talk about the different ways where the 
government can compel. It's one thing for the government to 
seek access to confidential sources. It's another when a court 
is enforcing the law that is written because Congress has 
enacted to create a shield law.
    So, confidential sources provide crucial information to 
reporters that helps them to share full and impactful stories 
with the public, and government attempts to undermine the 
confidentiality of those sources erodes the press' ability to 
perform that function. If the press cannot protect its sources, 
then important truths may never come to light, and Americans in 
our democracy suffer.
    Unfortunately, under both Republican and Democratic 
administrations, going back decades, we've seen the government 
in attempts to crack down on leaks seize phone and email 
records from journalists or seek to compel them to reveal the 
identities of their sources.
    For example, the Trump Administration's Department of 
Justice seized phone records from three Washington Post 
reporters and tried to obtain their emails in an attempt to 
identify confidential sources. The Trump DOJ similarly 
attempted to obtain these types of records from reporters at 
CNN and The New York Times. That's, of course, on top of that 
administration's other troubling threats to press freedom, such 
as tracking, detaining, and interrogating journalists reporting 
on conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border.
    In response to these and other instances, the House four 
times since 2007 passed with overwhelming bipartisan support a 
Federal reporter shield law. That's legislation to protect 
journalists and prevent the government from compelling them to 
reveal their confidential sources with certain exceptions.
    In fact, former Vice President Mike Pence, then a Member of 
this Committee, first introduced such legislation in 2005. More 
recently, Representatives Kevin Kiley and Jamie Raskin helped 
spearhead passage of H.R. 4250, the Protect Reporters from 
Exploitative State Spying Act, or the PRESS Act.
    As mentioned, that bill passed the House this past January 
unanimously by voice vote under suspension of the rules. That 
is, as the Chair noted, after this Committee had reported it 
favorably by a bipartisan 23 to 0 vote.
    The PRESS Act would, among other things, create a qualified 
Federal statutory privilege that protects journalists from 
being compelled by a Federal entity to reveal confidential 
sources and information. The bill also protects third-party 
service providers, such as telecommunications carriers and 
interactive computer services, from being compelled by the 
government to reveal information on a journalist's account or 
device.
    Unfortunately, despite the House repeatedly and with strong 
bipartisan support passing some form of Federal reporter shield 
legislation, the Senate has yet to act.
    Today's hearing should be an opportunity to spur the Senate 
to action. We're concerned that our Republican colleagues 
appear to have squandered that chance at a substantive hearing 
and instead are trying to crank up some right-wing conspiracy 
theories. Make no mistake, we intend to move forward and try to 
promote both the PRESS Act and our constitutional protections.
    There is, of course, little evidence of ideological bias at 
CBS News, as has been suggested, and even if those allegations 
were true, Congress would risk exceeding its constitutional 
authority by intervening. Private news organizations, whether 
CBS, MSNBC, or FOX, speak through their journalist employees.
    If Congress tried to punish or shape news coverage, either 
directly through legislation or indirectly through a pressure 
campaign, it would run afoul of the spirit, if not the letter, 
of the First Amendment and potentially violate the news 
organizations' free speech rights and its right to editorial 
control over its own content.
    So, today, we hope to inquire further from our witnesses 
about the importance of a Federal Shield Act and why it is long 
past time for Congress to enact it. Our democracy is already 
under assault on numerous fronts, and we should not be adding 
fuel to the fire. So, let's focus instead on something that 
would actually protect press freedom, would be completely 
within our Article I authority and duties, and let's talk about 
the critical need for a Federal reporter shield legislation.
    I thank our witnesses for being here. I yield back.
    [Disturbance in hearing room.]
    Mr. Roy. The Committee will be in order.
    I thank the Ranking Member, the gentlelady from 
Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her opening statement.
    I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Jordan, for his opening statement.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the Chair.
    It's not just the press that's under attack. Every single 
liberty we enjoy under the First Amendment's been assault in 
the last couple of years.
    I mean, you think about it, your right to practice your 
faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition the 
government, free press, free speech, every right we enjoy. 
Americans were--a couple of years ago, Americans were told they 
couldn't go to church on Sunday. Think about that.
    Two-and-half years ago, I spoke to the New Mexico 
Republican Party in Amarillo, Texas, because they had to go to 
Texas to get the freedom to assemble because they couldn't do 
it in their own darn State where they pay taxes because their 
Governor wouldn't let them.
    Your right to petition the government, you want to petition 
your Member of Congress, you couldn't do it in Congress, 
because the Speaker wouldn't let you in your own darn Capital 
you pay for.
    The most important too are the free press and free speech. 
We're going to hear about the press today, what's happened to 
two of our witnesses and how freedom of the press, how they 
went after Ms. Attkisson, what happened to Ms. Herridge. This 
is scary.
    Then just a couple of weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago I 
went to the argument--and this should frighten us all--I went 
to the argument in front of the Supreme Court. We had a Justice 
of the United States Supreme--this is the big censorship case, 
something this Committee's spent a lot of time on where Big 
Government pressures Big Tech and Big Academia to censor 
speech, not just conservative speech, all speech. That's 
frightening.
    We went to the argument in front of the Supreme Court. One 
of the Justices said to the Solicitor General from Louisiana, 
Counselor, your position has the First Amendment hamstringing 
the government. That's exactly what it's supposed to do, for 
goodness' sake.
    So, this is about the First Amendment, and a free press is 
essential to having a robust First Amendment and free debate in 
our culture. If you don't have free debate, if you can't settle 
your disputes by arguing and debating, the alternative is 
frightening.
    So, there is no more important hearing than this, and I 
want to thank our Chair and I really want to thank our four 
witnesses for being here. This is of critical importance. You 
know what? This is why we have to pass the Press Shield Act. 
The House has got it. Let's hope the Senate and the White House 
can figure this out.
    We passed this so we don't have this stuff happening to Ms. 
Herridge that's happening right now, where she's--we actually 
had a situation in this Committee room. We got some Members of 
this Committee who were there that day, where my colleagues on 
the other side--we had Matt Taibbi on the witness stand, and we 
had colleagues on the other side pressuring him to divulge his 
sources in a hearing in Congress, for goodness--I don't know. 
To me, that's scary as well.
    So, this is a critically important hearing with some great 
witnesses. I look forward to hearing their testimony and the 
questions that follow.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
    I'll now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full 
Committee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, over the course of the last two decades, 
repeated overzealous prosecution of leaks to the press have 
made it clear that Congress needs to enact a Federal reporters 
shield law. Congress must protect journalists from being 
compelled to reveal their confidential sources to ensure the 
free flow of information in matters related to the public 
interest.
    During the 117th Congress, when I was Chair of the 
Committee, we came together in a bipartisan vote to past the 
PRESS Act, which would protect journalists and their 
confidential sources from compelled disclosure except in 
certain rare circumstances. It later passed the House in 
similar bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, the Senate did not 
act on the bill.
    I was pleased, however, when the Committee, under Chair 
Jordan's leadership, built on this strong action and moved the 
PRESS Act once again in this Congress in a unanimous vote of 23 
to nothing. It again passed the House by voice vote.
    I think even a casual observer of the 118th Congress 
understands just how rare it is for me, Chair Jordan, and 
practically the entire House all to agree on the need for the 
same piece of legislation.
    We have repeatedly come together to advance an important 
bill on a bipartisan basis. We continue to share the goal of 
seeing this legislation become law. That is why it is 
disappointing that, according to news reports, this hearing has 
not really been called to serve as a forum for building greater 
support for the bill, as the title of the hearing might 
suggest. Instead, it appears that its true purpose is to 
provide a forum to discuss allegations that Chair Jordan has 
made surrounding the termination of one of our witnesses by a 
news organization and to advance a false narrative about media 
bias.
    I am sympathetic to anyone who's been abruptly laid off 
from their job, and I understand the resentment that someone 
can feel against their former employer. In fact, CBS laid off 
800 people, one of whom happened to be a close personal friend 
of mine. Even if any allegations of so-called political bias 
made today are true--and to be clear, I have no reason to 
believe that they are--Congress is not the proper forum for 
these personal grievances to be aired or resolved.
    As we listen to the testimony today, we should remember 
that news media organizations have their own First Amendment 
rights, which include the right to exercise editorial judgment 
about what does and does not get reported as news. News media 
organizations also ultimately speak or act through their 
employees and agents.
    Barring some other unlawful reason for termination, like 
race or sex discrimination, Congress does not have the 
authority to meddle in the relationship between reporters and 
their employing news organizations, especially if it is to 
intervene in a purported conflict over what story to 
investigate or not to investigate. To do so would, in my view, 
run afoul of the First Amendment.
    Indeed, some might even say that this very hearing is an 
example of the government jawboning the news media over its 
coverage or lack of coverage of a particular subject and then 
improper intrusion into the affairs of the press.
    If the history of overwhelming bipartisan support for the 
PRESS Act is any indication, I would hope that we have 
universal agreement on the dais that the government should 
respect the independence of the free press and that we should 
continue our work to protect journalists from being compelled 
to reveal their sources. That is where our focus should 
properly lay. We should be jawboning the real barrier to 
achieving important protection from press freedom, the U.S. 
Senate, which for the fourth time is sitting on a reporter--on 
the Federal reporters--is sitting on Federal reporters shield 
legislation that the House passed in overwhelmingly bipartisan 
fashion.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member for his opening 
statement.
    Without objection, all other opening statements will be 
included in the record.
    We will now introduce today's witnesses.
    Ms. Catherine Herridge. Ms. Herridge is an award-winning 
journalist who most recently served as the Senior Investigative 
Correspondent for CBS News from 2019-2024. Previously, she 
served as the Chief Intelligence Correspondent for FOX News 
from 1996-2019.
    Ms. Mary Cavallaro. Ms. Cavallaro is the Chief Broadcast 
Officer for the News and Broadcast Department at SAG-AFTRA, a 
position she has held since 2010. Ms. Cavallaro is responsible 
for seeing--overseeing the negotiation and administration of 
over 250 labor agreements with network and local broadcast 
employers nationwide.
    Ms. Sharyl Attkisson. Ms. Attkisson is a five-time Emmy 
award-winning journalist and a recipient of the Edward R. 
Murrow Award for investigative reporting. She has been a 
journalist for 30 years and is currently the Managing Editor 
and host of ``Full Measure.''
    Ms. Nadine Farid Johnson. Ms. Farid Johnson is the Policy 
Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia 
University. She previously worked at PEN America, the State 
Department, and in private practice as a patent litigator.
    We will begin by swearing you in.
    Would you please rise and raise your right hand?
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in 
the affirmative.
    Thank you, and please be seated.
    Please know that your written testimony will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you 
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
    Ms. Herridge, you may begin.

               STATEMENT OF CATHERINE V. HERRIDGE

    Ms. Herridge. Good morning, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member 
Nadler, Chair Roy, and Ranking Member Scanlon, and the Members 
of the Subcommittee. I'm here today with a deep sense of 
gratitude and humility. I appreciate the Subcommittee taking 
the time to focus again on the importance of protecting 
reporter sources and the vital safeguards provided by the PRESS 
Act.
    As you know, in February, I was held in contempt of court 
for refusing to disclose my confidential sources on a national 
security story. I think my current situation can help put the 
importance of the PRESS Act into context.
    One of our children recently asked me if I would go to 
jail, if we would lose our house, and if we would lose our 
family savings to protect my reporting sources. I wanted to 
answer that in this United States, where we say we value 
democracy and the rule of a vibrant and free press, that it was 
impossible, but I could not offer that assurance.
    The bipartisan PRESS Act, which came out of this House 
Committee, would put an end to the sort of legal jeopardy that 
I have experienced firsthand in the Federal Courts. Without the 
legislation, more journalists will run the uncertainty of the 
contempt gauntlet in the future.
    This legislation will provide protections for every working 
journalist in the United States, now and for the next 
generation. The legislation provides strong protections at the 
Federal level for reporters and their sources. It would block 
litigants and the Federal Government from prying into a 
reporter's files except when there's an imminent threat of 
violence, including terrorism and in defamation cases.
    At the State level, similar rules are already in place to 
protect press freedom. It is my sincere hope that the passage 
of the PRESS Act will provide similar protections at the 
Federal level. I hope that I am the last journalist who has to 
spend two years in the Federal Courts fighting to protect my 
confidential sources.
    My current situation arises from a Privacy Act lawsuit. I 
am only a witness in the case. It is not common for these cases 
to reach the stage of holding a reporter in contempt. When such 
cases happen, they have profound consequences, impacting every 
journalist in the United States.
    Forcing a reporter to disclose confidential sources would 
have a crippling effect on investigative journalism, because 
without reliable assurances of confidentiality, sources will 
not come forward.
    The First Amendment provides protection for the press 
because an informed electorate is at the foundation of our 
democracy. If confidential sources are not protected, I fear 
investigative journalism is dead. Each day I feel the weight of 
that responsibility.
    As you know, I was held in contempt of court for upholding 
the basic journalistic principle of maintaining the pledge of 
confidentiality to my sources. I have complete respect for the 
Federal Court and the judicial process, and I'm not here to 
litigate the case. It will play out before the Appellate Court 
in Washington, DC. The fact that I have been fighting in the 
courts for two years and that I am now facing potentially 
crippling fines of $800 a day to protect my reporting sources 
underscores the vital importance of the PRESS Act.
    When you go through major life events as I have in recent 
weeks, losing your job, losing your company health insurance, 
having your reporting files seized by your former employee, and 
being held in contempt of court, gives you clarity.
    The First Amendment, the protection of confidential 
sources, and a free press are my guiding principles. They are 
my North Star.
    When I was laid off in February, an incident reinforced in 
my mind the importance of protecting confidential sources. CBS 
News locked me out of the building and seized hundreds of pages 
of my reporting files, including confidential source 
information. Multiple sources said they were concerned that by 
working with me to expose government corruption and misconduct 
they would be identified and exposed.
    I pushed back. With the public support of my union, SAG-
AFTRA, the records were returned. CBS News' decision to seize 
my reporting records crossed a red line that I believe should 
never be crossed again by any media organization in the future.
    The litigation and being held in contempt have taken a toll 
on me and my career. This is not a battle you can fight alone. 
I am grateful for the support of fellow journalists and 
multiple First Amendment organizations, including the Reporters 
Committee for Press Freedom, the Freedom of the Press 
Foundation, the Coalition for Women in Journalism, the Knight 
First Amendment Institute, the Society of Professional 
Journalists, as well as the Columbia Journalism School of which 
I am a graduate. I have also been fortunate to have the support 
from my former employer as I continue to fight this case. Not 
many journalists could count on a former employer, in this case 
FOX News, to support a costly and vigorous defense of the First 
Amendment.
    That is why the PRESS Act comes at the right time, when 
independent journalism and news platforms are expanding 
opportunities for reporting diverse voices that strengthen our 
democracy.
    I know I join many journalists who are encouraged by the 
recent comments of the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer who 
said he hopes to have the legislation through the Senate and on 
the President's desk this year.
    I deeply appreciate the Committee's commitment to this 
legislation and holding this public hearing.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Herridge follows:]
    
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Herridge.
    Ms. Cavallaro, you may begin.

                  STATEMENT OF MARY CAVALLARO

    Ms. Cavallaro. Good morning. Thank you, Committee Chair 
Jordan, Subcommittee Chair Roy, Committee Ranking Member 
Nadler, Subcommittee Ranking Member Scanlon, and distinguished 
Members of this Subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify 
on, ``Fighting for a Free Press: Protecting Journalists and 
Their Sources.''
    My name is Mary Cavallaro. I serve as the Chief Broadcast 
Officer for SAG-AFTRA, a national union of over 160,000 members 
that represents professionals in the entertainment and media 
industries. I am responsible for overseeing the union's 
collective bargaining agreements with our news and broadcast 
employers across the country.
    I was invited here today for the purpose of providing 
testimony in support of the most basic of First Amendment 
principles: Protecting journalists from being compelled to 
reveal their sources and the critical nature of the 
confidential source relationship.
    Government intrusion on the relationship between a reporter 
and their sources undermines the foundation of the freedom of 
press. A free press is essential to our democracy. To quote 
Walter Cronkite, a longtime SAG-AFTRA member, ``Freedom of the 
press is not just important to democracy; it is democracy.''
    While SAG-AFTRA's core responsibility is to negotiate, 
administer, and enforce the collective bargaining agreements 
under which our members work, the union is also charged with 
advocating on behalf of our members for legislation that 
directly impacts their work and their profession.
    SAF-AFTRA's legislative work has recently focused on 
artificial intelligence, protecting intellectual property, and 
restricting noncompete clauses in employment contracts, all of 
which are important initiatives. For decades, the union has 
enthusiastically supported the passage of a Federal reporter 
shield law.
    We thank the House Judiciary Committee for its leadership 
on this issue and its bipartisan unanimous passage of the PRESS 
Act at the Committee level. We also thank the entire U.S. House 
of Representatives for its unanimous passage of this vital 
legislation in January 2024, and call on the U.S. Senate to 
expeditiously pass this legislation and send it to President 
Biden for signature.
    If signed into law, the PRESS Act would establish the first 
Federal press shield law in United States history and will 
significantly strengthen press freedom by safeguarding 
journalists and their confidential sources.
    The PRESS Act creates a Federal statutory privilege to 
shield journalists from being compelled to reveal their 
confidential sources and prevents Federal law enforcement 
agencies from abusing subpoena power to access journalists' 
email and phone records. This long-overdue legislation 
represents a significant leap forward, not just for 
journalists, but for the sanctity of journalism itself and for 
the constitutional right to freedom of the press.
    SAF-AFTRA stands in solidarity with journalists, their 
employers, and press advocacy groups who share the common goal 
of a Federal shield law for journalists.
    The PRESS Act is bipartisan legislation that guarantees and 
protects our most basic of First Amendment principles. The 
freedom of the press to disseminate information to the public 
free from government interference of any kind is essential to 
our democracy. Protecting a journalist's relationship with a 
source is critical to allowing stories to be told and essential 
to holding our elected officials and others to account for 
their actions.
    The press is America's watchdog, responsible for serving 
the public interest by working to uncover and investigate 
government and corporate abuse, overreach, and malfeasance. Any 
form of government control over journalists could shield the 
instinct of a potential source to come forward and tell their 
stories to journalists, depriving the American people of 
critical information and the ability to hold those in power 
publicly accountable.
    Recent events and ongoing litigation involving journalists 
and their employers and their shared concern for protecting 
sources have created some renewed interest and energy around 
this issue. SAG-AFTRA is hopeful that this interest and energy 
will be used in a productive and nonpartisan way to move the 
PRESS Act forward.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to speak before this 
Subcommittee today, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Cavallaro follows:]
    
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Cavallaro.
    Ms. Attkisson, you may begin.

                 STATEMENT OF SHARYL ATTKISSON

    Ms. Attkisson. Good morning. It's an honor to be here and 
also to get to meet Catherine, finally.
    In decades of reporting nationally at CNN, CBS, PBS, and 
for the last nine years on my TV show, ``Full Measure,'' 
countless news stories that I broke or facets of them could not 
have been reported without sources whose identities needed to 
be protected. To name just a few, Enron, BP oil spill, TARP 
bank bailout, follow-the-money investigations on taxpayer 
spending, congressional oversight, congressional fundraising, 
prescription drug and vaccine dangers, Haiti earthquake aid, K 
Street lobbying, green energy failures, waste and fraud at the 
Red Cross, Firestone Tires, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious.
    The last 12 stories I mentioned, thanks to some information 
provided by sources who could not be quoted by name, received 
recognition from the Emmy Awards. Multiply that by thousands of 
reporters and countless stories, and it's fair to argue that a 
lot of important facts would never have been exposed if 
journalists couldn't ensure protection of our sensitive 
sources' identities.
    Today's managed information landscape makes it more 
difficult for journalists and our sources to report on ethical 
lapses, wrongdoing, and crimes. More often than not, the truth 
teller, when named, is smeared and ruined, while the wrongdoers 
carry on. They escape accountability and may even get promoted. 
They've seen what's happened to Assange and Snowden, their 
earth-shattering revelations quickly eclipsed by organized 
efforts to distract by controversializing them.
    So, it makes sense to ask, what's the impact if we can no 
longer assure our sources that we can protect their identities? 
It's not a new concern. Years ago, after adverse court 
decisions started coming down on this front, I was at CBS, and 
we began having to consider whether a confidential source in a 
story would be OK with ultimately having his identity revealed 
if a judge ordered it.
    Obviously, the answer was often no. I could no longer 
provide assurances to a whistleblower who feared for his career 
or safety that I could guarantee protection of his identity.
    Some stories still got done, but many became nonstarters. 
There's no way to quantify with any certainty what we've lost, 
but I don't think there are many investigative reporters who 
would say it's not having an impact.
    Their ideas to help such as the PRESS Act that would 
generally bar Federal agencies from forcing telecommunications 
firms to turn over records belonging to journalists, but it's 
important to note that some of the most egregious intrusions on 
press freedoms don't happen that way.
    Our intelligence agencies have been working--pardon me. 
This is important. I need to clear my throat.
    Our intelligence agencies have been working hand-in-hand 
with telecommunications firms for decades, with billions of 
dollars in dark contracts and secretive arrangements. They 
don't need to ask for permission to access journalist records 
or those of Congress or regular citizens. Current efforts to 
reauthorize section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act relate to this. There's a lengthy record of 
government surveillance abuses to be found in just the little 
we've been able to learn about.
    Intelligence officials have misled Congress about 
surveilling U.S. citizens, even spying on journalists and 
political figures, their staff, and allies. It's been a known 
problem for decades. An inspector general report in 2020 found 
the FBI violated Woods Procedures safeguards in every single 
wiretap audited.
    Pardon me.
    In just 29 FISA applications reviewed, there were 409 
errors. Even when caught and pressed, the FBI only had fessed 
up to half of them. It was all brushed off as innocent mistakes 
and poor training, as usual.
    It's been 11 years since CBS News officially announced that 
I was targeted by unauthorized intrusions into my work 
computer. Subsequent forensics unearthed government-controlled 
IP addresses used in the intrusions and proved that not only 
did the guilty parties monitor my work in real time, but they 
also accessed my Fast and Furious files, got into the larger 
CBS system, planted classified documents deep in my operating 
system, and were able to listen in on conversations by 
activating Skype audio.
    I sued after it was clear the Department of Justice would 
not hold its own accountable. The case is the first we know of 
in which a journalist spied on by the government received a 
clerk's default against an agent working for government parties 
in a surveillance operation. It's a small victory because he 
was soon reported dead, which means we can't access potential 
information leading to the larger players. Besides that, I've 
learned that wrongdoers in the Federal Government have their 
own shield laws that protect them from accountability.
    Making sure journalists can protect their sources and do 
the constitutionally protected job that we do is critical, but 
new laws won't necessarily impact dishonest players in 
government who have proven more than capable of and willing to 
skirt laws to access the information they want.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Attkisson follows:]
    
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Attkisson.
    Ms. Farid Johnson, you may begin.

               STATEMENT OF NADINE FARID JOHNSON

    Ms. Farid Johnson. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member 
Nadler, Chair Roy, and Ranking Member Scanlon, and the Members 
of the Subcommittee, for convening today's hearing. It is an 
honor and a privilege to present this testimony.
    The mission of the Knight Institute, where I serve as 
policy director, is to defend the freedoms of speech and the 
press in the digital age. Our work is concentrated on the 
intersection of First Amendment freedoms and new technology, 
and dedicated to protecting and promoting a system of free 
expression that serves contemporary democracies.
    Our press freedom projects, like all our work, focus on 
fortifying the infrastructure of First Amendment law and values 
to meet 21st century pressures. For journalists and media 
organizations, those pressures are formidable. They stem from 
surveillance tools in both government and private hands that 
create new vulnerabilities for reporters, powerful government 
and private entities that are fiercely resistant to public 
oversight and accountability, and the capacity of machines to 
generate and disseminate news and news-like creations.
    The Institute is the leading voice for the First Amendment 
rights of journalists and news organizations to publish vital 
information in the public interest. Our aim is to strengthen 
the constitutional and statutory protections that will minimize 
threats and ensure that journalists and news organizations can 
carry out their vital work.
    No single piece of legislation is as strongly correlated 
with these efforts as the bipartisan Protect Reporters from 
Exploitative State Spying, or PRESS Act, introduced in this 
Congress by Representative Kiley of the Subcommittee, co-
authored by Representative Raskin, and passed in the House.
    Modern news gathering requires that reporters are able to 
give assurances of confidentiality to their sources. 
Testimonial protections for journalists are essential to core 
First Amendment values. Yet, the Supreme Court jurisprudence on 
the protection of journalist source materials is ambiguous. In 
its 1972 seminal case on the topic, Branzburg v. Hayes, the 
Court acknowledged that news gathering is not without First 
Amendment protections but did not delineate what the 
protections might be.
    The murkiness of the Branzburg decision has led to 
confusion about its holding and inconsistency in its 
application. Illustrating this is the patchwork of Federal 
Circuit Court tests that has emerged in the 52 years since the 
Court's decision. The differences in approach result in 
unpredictability and inconsistency and ultimately compromise 
the ability of journalists to do the work we need them to do.
    Without strong First Amendment protections, journalists are 
less likely to be able to engage confidential sources, as fewer 
of them will come forward. When that flow of information stops, 
it means the American public is less informed.
    Despite widespread shield laws and court-recognized 
reporters' privileges across the States, the precarious 
landscape of the Federal level remains, meaning congressional 
action is urgently needed. For these reasons, the Knight 
Institute fully supports the bipartisan PRESS Act. It is 
critical to a free press, protecting journalists from State-
sanctioned surveillance, and reaffirming their First Amendment 
rights.
    Passing the PRESS Act is also important because of the 
changing nature of what it means to be a journalist today. We 
know that in the digital age a significant amount of important 
reporting is done by journalists who do not fit a traditional 
mold. Whether writing for The Washington Post or offering a 
subscription on Substack, journalists should be afforded a 
clear, consistent, predictable protection from policies that 
account for a range of legitimate and valuable journalistic 
activities.
    Clarifying who qualifies for protection via a Federal 
shield bill is critical to preventing misguided attempts by the 
government to compel journalists and media outlets to reveal 
source information in contravention of their First Amendment 
rights. It would also ensure durability across administrations, 
leading to less uncertainty for journalists and media outlets 
across the country.
    The PRESS Act addresses this issue, offering definitions 
that account for the broad landscape of journalism today, 
better protecting an appropriately wide swath of reporters and 
reporting activity. The Act also commendably protects 
journalists' communications, ensuring that information held by 
third-party phone and internet providers is not secretly seized 
by the government. These provisions are critical to protecting 
journalists' First Amendment rights.
    There are, of course, situations in which competing 
interests will be at play in the determination of whether 
compelling the disclosure of information gained in the course 
of an investigation or other journalistic act is warranted. The 
PRESS Act appropriately addresses these concerns as well with a 
series of exceptions.
    In sum, passage of the PRESS Act into law would provide 
critical support to the free press, thereby benefiting all 
Americans.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Farid Johnson follows:]
    
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Farid Johnson.
    We will now proceed with questions under the five-minute 
rule. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from California, 
Mr. McClintock.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
    We've seen a growing number of increasingly aggressive acts 
by the Federal Government and its agencies to suppress debate 
in many different forums: The IRS intimidation of Tea Party 
activists through its abuse of its authority, the use of 
intelligence in law enforcement agencies to suppress vital 
information, such as the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop, 
or dissenting views on COVID, all that turned out to be factual 
and correct.
    The beating heart of a democracy is freedom of speech. 
That's the right of every citizen to express their opinions 
freely. It's by this discussion that we have the tools to sort 
out fact from fiction or wisdom from folly or right from wrong. 
That's how a free society finds its way. A free press is 
absolutely fundamental to that process. Without it, the people 
cannot make informed decisions or hold their government 
accountable for its actions.
    Human nature being what it is, we all know that the most 
closely guarded secrets of the government are not those that 
are marked top secret; it's those that are marked embarrassing. 
It's precisely those embarrassing facts that are most important 
for the public to know.
    Now, I agree with the ranking members that CBS has the 
right to shape its own coverage, no matter how biased it might 
be. When the government pressures any news outlet, or for that 
matter any private party, to suppress or shape its coverage, 
that crosses a very bright and dangerous line.
    So, Ms. Herridge, do you know if CBS' actions were 
influenced by the government in any way?
    Mr. Roy. Use your mike.
    Ms. Herridge. Pardon me. Pardon me.
    Congressman, I'm not someone who's known to offer 
speculation. So, I can't really answer that question directly.
    Mr. McClintock. OK. Fair enough. With all the travail that 
you've been dragged through by the government, has anybody 
within the government been held accountable for these acts 
against you and your freedom?
    Ms. Herridge. Congressman, based on my experience, I feel 
that we're in a very dangerous place as journalists. I'm facing 
crippling fines, up to $800 a day, for protecting my 
confidential sources. I'm fortunate that that has been stayed, 
pending the appeal.
    Mr. McClintock. Who's responsible for that, though? I mean, 
who are the actors within the government that are waging war 
against the freedom of indivisuals--journalists like yourself 
to report the facts that the American people need to form their 
own opinions?
    Ms. Herridge. Well, if you're referring to my particular 
case, I want to be respectful of the ongoing litigation. It's 
in front of the Appellate Court. I want to emphasize that I am 
only a witness in that case.
    Mr. McClintock. Let me ask you this. Has anybody been held 
accountable for these acts against you?
    Ms. Herridge. No.
    Mr. McClintock. OK. Ms. Attkisson, what's your experience?
    Ms. Attkisson. Well, I think it's interesting to hear 
people say--and I agree with this--that the government should 
not be intervening in news coverage. In my experience at CBS, 
that happens every day. Members of the Committees, heads of 
Committees, Members of Congress, and the White House call the 
bureau in Washington, DC, contacts that they have, editors, and 
managers up in New York, to try to shape our coverage and--
    Mr. McClintock. Well, that I don't find particularly 
objectionable, as long as there is no force or threat of force 
behind that. Do you find that to be the case or--
    Ms. Attkisson. I don't know what was said. I just know they 
called. There's no physical force threatened, but there 
certainly is a great deal of pressure weighing on the networks 
in terms of their coverage.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, what about government Acts directly? 
Have you encountered such intimidation yourself directly from 
the government or is that all kind of channeled through your 
employers?
    Ms. Attkisson. Well, I felt a great deal of pressure 
channeled through my employers. I was told that certain stories 
weren't going to air because we were getting phone calls, and 
even though there was nothing wrong with the stories, let us 
just let it rest for a day. Let's pick it up another time. 
They're really mad this time.
    There was no objection over the content of the story or the 
facts. It was just--as I was told, they just didn't like it or 
it's a story that they felt was unfavorable at times.
    Mr. McClintock. If they were offering additional facts that 
might have been ignored, if they were offering different 
opinions, that's freedom of speech. If behind those suggestions 
was the threat of force, that's a completely different matter. 
Do you agree?
    Ms. Attkisson. Yes. My position was, when political 
officials call into the newsroom, there should be a policy 
where we tell them, if they object to something or have a 
factual issue, that they should put it in writing and send it 
in. There are these extensive conversations that go on behind 
the scenes. I only know about a few of them, a relative few of 
them. I'm sure they happen in other scenarios as well.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from California.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member for any questions 
he might have under the five-minute rule.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Attkisson, the question of FISA aside--and you know 
that FISA's renewal is currently controversially before the 
Congress--should I read or hear your testimony to say that the 
PRESS Act would not be sufficient?
    Ms. Attkisson. In my view, to handle some of the problems 
we've discussed, I'm not saying it shouldn't be passed, and I'm 
not an expert on what--
    Mr. Nadler. No, but is it not sufficient?
    Ms. Attkisson. Yes, I think that won't handle.
    Mr. Nadler. What else should we do?
    Ms. Attkisson. Well, I think it's a global problem that has 
to do with sending a message of oversight to the intelligence 
agencies that we know have for decades violated rights and made 
policies that are contrary to Constitution and so on.
    I don't think there's been an effort they think is serious. 
I feel like the intelligence agencies feel like they're running 
the Committees here rather than the Committees conducting 
oversight of them and that there needs to be something they 
understand that they would be held accountable when they do 
things. I don't know what that looks like in practice, but I 
don't think the law is--
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Ms. Farid Johnson, in the Branzburg case, the Supreme Court 
declined to recognize the First Amendment privilege for news 
gatherers. What is the source of Congress' authority to provide 
such a privilege by statute?
    Ms. Farid Johnson. Congress is absolutely authorized under 
the Constitution to provide this privilege to create 
legislation and promulgate legislation by statute to ensure 
that these rights are enshrined further into law. In fact, my 
understanding is that in Branzburg the Court invited Congress 
to do so. So, we are really pleased that the House has acted in 
this regard, and we look forward to the Senate doing so as 
well.
    Mr. Nadler. Ms. Farid Johnson, according to your written 
testimony, in the decades since the Supreme Court decided 
Branzburg, many Federal Circuit Courts have recognized some 
form of qualified reporters' privilege. In that case, why is it 
so important that we step into author a statutory reporter's 
privilege like the PRESS Act?
    Ms. Farid Johnson. That's right, sir, exactly. It's because 
the law is unsettled. You have different landscapes across the 
country where different Circuit Courts have different 
interpretations of Branzburg. Actually, there is a decision at 
one point where a Circuit Court judge said that the Branzburg 
case is something like as clear as mud, right? It really has 
not allowed for a clear understanding of that landscape.
    With congressional action, the PRESS Act would reduce chill 
on sources. It would help journalists do the work we need them 
to do, because it would provide clarity in that landscape that 
is now muddled and uncertain.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Ms. Farid Johnson, as we have heard, Ms. Herridge is 
currently subject to a civil contempt order by a Federal judge 
in Washington, DC, in a case where she has refused to provide 
testimony regarding her confidential sources that may be 
relevant to the private litigants' case against the government. 
It so happens that the government defendants accused of 
wrongdoing in that case include the FBI.
    If the PRESS Act were law, would it have applied to Ms. 
Herridge in her current circumstances? Is it important that 
reporters who may be a third party to litigation brought by a 
party other than the government also receive protection for 
their First Amendment interests?
    Ms. Farid Johnson. I do believe the PRESS Act, had it been 
enacted at the time of litigation, would have played a role in 
this, because the most important thing that the PRESS Act does 
is that it forecloses the government from compelling journalist 
disclosure of their sources.
    Yes, I do believe it is important for there to be this 
protection for journalists across the board.
    Mr. Nadler. So, you believe it would protect--it would stop 
the litigation against Ms. Herridge?
    Ms. Farid Johnson. I believe vis-a-vis the compelling of 
sources it would have played a role, yes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member.
    I will now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming for 
questions under the five-minute rule.
    Ms. Hageman. Good morning, ladies, and thank you for being 
here to address such an incredibly important issue.
    Ms. Herridge, I'd like to start with you. About two months 
ago, you were held in contempt and levied daily fines of $800 
per day for your refusal to disclose your sources. This is 
deeply concerning. What's more concerning, you are not the 
first.
    In an article related to your case, The Washington Post 
reported how, in 2005, five national reporters were held in 
contempt and levied fines of $500 per day. In 2008, a USA Today 
reporter was held in contempt and faced daily fines of $5,000. 
All these instances where reporters upheld their journalistic 
integrity and protected their sources to ensure good reporting 
for the American people, only to face rebuke and heavy-handed 
enforcement by the courts which are intended to protect the 
First Amendment.
    Ms. Herridge, how fundamental to reporting is the 
protection of your sources?
    Ms. Herridge. Congresswoman, I have not lost a night's 
sleep about my decision to protect my confidential sources. 
That is the core of who I am as a journalist. I am facing 
contempt fines because I am upholding the most basic principle 
of journalism. If you cannot offer a source a promise of 
confidentiality, as a journalist, your toolbox is empty: No 
whistleblowers coming forward, no government official with 
evidence of misconduct or corruption. What that means is that 
it interrupts the free flow of information to the public. As 
we've all recognized, journalism is about an informed 
electorate which is the bedrock of our democracy.
    If you had asked me 37 years ago when I started working 
that I would be in the Federal Courts living a legal nightmare 
to protect my sources, I would never have believed it.
    I told you a story about my son. I would like to finish it. 
At the end of the conversation, he said, ``Mom, you do what it 
takes. I've got your back.''
    I thought, if a teenager understands how sacred this pledge 
is for every journalist, certainly Congress can pass the PRESS 
Act and codify these guarantees that will prevent cases like 
mine in the future.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you for that.
    Do you think that the heavy-handed nature of these fines is 
to compel quick disclosure of sources and not give reporters a 
choice--a similar choice the way that you've exercised yours?
    Ms. Herridge. Congressman, just ask yourself: How many 
journalists can withstand fines, in my case, of $800 a day? 
Mine's being stayed pending the appeal. In another case you 
cited, it was $5,000 a day. These fines are designed that you 
have to disclose your sources. You have to burn them. In a 
marketplace where we have this explosion in independent 
journalism and smaller outfits, they cannot withstand these 
fines. They cannot mount a costly and vigorous legal defense of 
the First Amendment.
    That is why I think this is such a dangerous time and why 
the PRESS Act can codify these guarantees and it can happen 
with a very strong, in fact, the strongest bipartisan message 
about the importance of the freedom of the press.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, it doesn't just apply in your industry. 
We have other agencies, and I think that it's a sign of a 
tyrannical government when we give them the ability to levy 
fines like this.
    An example that I will use is that the EPA has the 
authority to levy fines of $59,000 a day, and they do so, and 
that's how they will force people into settlements and consent 
decrees, even if they are not necessarily guilty. They cannot 
withstand the pressure that they bring to bear when you have a 
government that has that kind of authority.
    So, I think that it applies in the First Amendment context 
with our journalists, but I think it's a bigger issue that we 
as Congress need to address across the board because, again, I 
will use the word, it results in tyranny when you give agencies 
or officials that kind of authority.
    One thing that has been mentioned is that 32 States and 
Washington, DC, have shield laws. However, not all States do, 
and there is no Federal shield law, as each of you have 
described. As seen in your case and the case of others, this 
has then resulted in the courts actually being enlisted to 
compel disclosure of your resources--of your sources.
    In instances such as your case, what does a hostile court 
system do for the protection of a free press?
    Ms. Herridge. I think it presents another very significant 
challenge for journalism.
    As my colleague, Sharyl Attkisson, said, when you are 
working with a whistleblower or you're working with a 
government source who has access to real information--and what 
I mean is information that is so important to get to the public 
so they can make up their own minds, especially about 
controversial issues--if you can't offer that assurance, 
nobody's playing ball with you.
    As a journalist, you are always asking yourself, in the 
marketplace where we are today, what kind of assurances can I 
provide? Can I go to the mat for this person? I've always 
believed that I'm willing to go to the mat. I think I've shown 
that in this contempt case. Not everyone is going to be able to 
have that opportunity.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, I thank you. I thank you for your 
bravery. I thank you for what you've been willing to expose.
    I thank you all for being willing to stand up to the 
tyranny that we're seeing and the attack on the First 
Amendment. It is critical for the freedom of every single 
person in this room. So, thank you.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming.
    I will now recognize the gentlelady from Vermont, Ms. 
Balint.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    One of the things that I've noticed in this Committee and 
in my Subcommittees is that my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle often overpromise and underdeliver. We are told 
repeatedly that there are conspiracy theories. We have a 
government that is going after individual and private citizens. 
This is the narrative over and over and over again. As a new 
one to this Committee, I'm always so disappointed when I feel 
like there's actually a lot that we agree on. Press freedoms 
and the PRESS Act is something that we were able to all come 
together on, and that's where our attention should be. We 
should always make sure that we have a free and protected 
press.
    Now, what I'm hearing is really about employment disputes 
with news agencies that are now being conflated into some kind 
of conspiracy theory, once again, of the government going 
after, in this case, not just private individuals but the 
press. Personal grievances, witness' personal grievances are 
not actually attacks on the First Amendment and the free press. 
From what I've heard from this hearing so far and the materials 
that we were given in preparation of this, it seems pretty 
clear to me that most of the allegations that have been made so 
far involve disputes over what are essentially employment and 
editorial decisionmaking by private news organizations in the 
context of news gathering, public reporting, which we all 
desperately need in this country.
    Ms. Balint. As I said, we came together to support the 
PRESS Act. We all agree that it's an important piece of 
legislation to protect.
    I wish we spent more time in this Committee really talking 
about important issues and not, once again, having the 
colleagues overpromise and underdeliver.
    If I believed every single time of the conspiracy theories 
that are pulled before this Committee, I would have to believe 
that there was a boogeyman behind every corner, under every 
rock. It's absurd, it's absolutely absurd, and it prevents us 
from doing the real work that we need to do to protect a free 
press, which we desperately need.
    Now, Ms. Farid Johnson, could you explain to us what is 
jawboning? Could you explain that to us?
    Ms. Farid Johnson. Yes. Jawboning is the act of coercion by 
the government to an entity to get it to--well, in the case 
we've seen so far, to get it to change its positioning, 
programming, what have you, in terms of what it presents to the 
public.
    Ms. Balint. Do you have concerns about congressional 
hearings such as this one or statements that officeholders make 
that could be intended to influence editorial decisions at news 
organizations?
    Ms. Farid Johnson. News organizations are entitled to 
decide for themselves what subjects to cover, and the First 
Amendment protects the editorial decisions they make about 
their news coverage.
    It would be unconstitutional for any government official to 
attempt to coerce a news organization through legal threats or 
exercise of a State's coercive power.
    Ms. Balint. Could jawboning be considered unconstitutional?
    Ms. Farid Johnson. Well, as you know, we filed an amicus 
brief in the Murthy case that is before the Supreme Court. What 
we talked about there is we have said publicly, actually, that 
the government has an important role to play as a participant 
in public discourse, including trying to persuade, for example, 
social media platforms to change their policies, but not to 
engage in coercion to do so. There is a line there, and that 
line is critically important.
    Ms. Balint. Ms. Farid Johnson, what does it mean for free 
public discourse if public officials can informally intimidate 
or influence editorial decisionmaking, such as in a hearing 
such as this one?
    Ms. Farid Johnson. The critical thing is that it cannot be 
coercion. We want to ensure that the First Amendment 
protections that are afforded to news organizations, for 
example, are maintained. So that would mean that there cannot 
be that level of influence cannot go into coercion. Again, of 
course, we believe the government has an important role to play 
in terms of public discourse.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you so much, Ms. Farid Johnson. I really 
appreciate your time.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Vermont.
    We're going to do one more round of questions before we 
break for the Prime Minister. So, I'm going to recognize the 
gentleman from North Dakota.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I don't think people go into investigative reporting to get 
rich. I think it's an incredibly important service that was 
disappointing.
    I just want to react a little bit. I don't think being held 
in contempt, either civilly or criminally, is either (A) a 
conspiracy theory or (B) part of an employment dispute. You're 
either going to be civilly held in contempt and fined until you 
disclose your source or, worse yet, you're going to be put in 
an 8  10 with bars on the window--that's what contempt 
means--for not disclosing a source.
    So, if there's a more chilling effect on the right of the 
free press and right for North Dakota citizens to be informed 
about what's going on, I'd like to know it.
    Ms. Herridge, you've been held in contempt. Do you feel 
like that's part of an employment dispute?
    Ms. Herridge. I want to have complete respect for the legal 
process. My case is being litigated. No, these are separate 
matters, Congressman.
    Mr. Armstrong. I'm hopeful soon that the Senate will take 
up the PRESS Act and add a Federal shield law for reporters 
being compelled to reveal confidential sources.
    Ms. Attkisson, I am under the impression that reporters in 
most States have shield law protection, but Federal judges and 
courts are not bound by the same laws?
    Ms. Attkisson. I'm terribly sorry, I'm not familiar with 
the status of the States versus--
    Mr. Armstrong. Well, I know in North Dakota we have a 
shield law, and in a lot of different States they do.
    In 2011, you reported on the Obama--and I want to back up 
just a sec.
    We act like this is new stuff, but this has been going on 
for a long time. We've had a lot of talks about the DOJ, 
Twitter, Section 230, and liability and immunity and all those 
things. In 2011, you reported on the Obama Administrations's 
Operation Fast and Furious operation, in which ATF purposely 
allowed licensed firearm dealers to sell weapons to illegal 
straw buyers.
    Were confidential sources and information critical to 
informing the public about that scandal?
    Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Would you have been able to shed light on 
the Federal Government selling weapons, including grenade 
launchers and antiaircraft weapons, to the Mexican drug cartels 
without guaranteeing confidentiality of your sources?
    Ms. Attkisson. It would have been tough. There would have 
been something to report, but not what we ended up reporting.
    Mr. Armstrong. When you were reporting on the security 
lapses in the 2012 Benghazi embassy attack, do you think you 
would have been able to shed light on the Federal Government's 
failure to maintain embassy security without guaranteeing 
confidentiality of your sources?
    Ms. Attkisson. Some of it, yes, but some of it, no.
    Mr. Armstrong. Do you, like me, believe it's important for 
the American people to be informed of these things, along with 
waste, fraud, and abuse by the Federal Government, and we 
should do what we can to ensure robust media scrutiny of those 
government officials?
    Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Even if that includes Members of Congress?
    Ms. Attkisson. Right.
    Mr. Armstrong. Does the status quo, where sources need to 
depend on a reporter and their outlet's financial tolerance or 
physical tolerance for contempt punishment, equate to a 
functional, sensible system?
    Ms. Attkisson. No. One quick example. A lot of times a 
source will end up going on the record, which is preferable. 
You can't begin the conversation many times if you can't start 
out by telling him as you begin to talk that he's not going to 
be identified yet.
    Mr. Armstrong. Does the current system have a chilling 
effect on potential confidential sources and whistleblowers?
    Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
    Mr. Armstrong. If we pass the PRESS Act--you've talked a 
little bit about the PRESS Act and where you think it's 
deficient and whatever. You agree it would be helpful at least?
    Ms. Attkisson. It seems like it would be helpful.
    Mr. Armstrong. In the last minute and 30 seconds, I think 
we can deal with this. I think there's certain things that we 
have to recognize.
    I'm a former criminal defense attorney. Confidentiality 
with my clients is absolutely essential to deal with those 
things.
    I think there are a lot of different similarities. You have 
to be as mentally tough as anybody to be an investigative 
reporter.
    We're sitting here right now talking about these things. At 
the same time, we got a letter from the DOJ saying that they 
can't release an audiotape, after they've already given us the 
transcript, from a computer where it was tried to be erased, 
but only found later, because it would have a chilling effect 
on potential witnesses coming forward to talk about a crime. 
That's what the letter said.
    At the same time, we have a DOJ going to investigative 
reporters saying: I know you guaranteed these people 
confidentiality to report against their government doing 
something bad against a U.S. citizen, but I am going to force 
you to expose that or I'm going to hold you in civil contempt, 
criminal contempt, or all of those things.
    Does that seem a little bit hypocritical to you, Ms. 
Attkisson?
    Ms. Attkisson. There are many things that seem to be double 
standardish, one way for them and another way for us.
    Mr. Armstrong. They're literally saying: We can't release 
something because otherwise we won't ever be able to 
investigate anything again.
    Which, by the way, is patently false. Also, at the same 
time, when they don't like something any of you all are 
writing, right, left, center, conservative, or liberal, they 
say: I want to know who your source is.
    Ms. Attkisson. I get it.
    Mr. Armstrong. I do too, and I think it's very, very 
unfortunate.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I'll now recognize my colleague from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Chair Roy, I'm very grateful for your 
courtesies and the courtesies of this Committee, the Ranking 
Member, the courtesies of Ms. Scanlon.
    The good news that I heard as we were concluding your last 
question, Ms. Attkisson, is that the PRESS Act does help. I 
heard that.
    Ms. Attkisson. It seems like it would, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes. So, we need to--the word 
``investigative,'' I hope that you want us as Members of 
Congress to investigate so we get it right, so that this very 
hallowed amendment--or Bill of Rights and the First Amendment--
is taken seriously. I take it very seriously.
    I appreciate the work that all of you do in spite of the 
obstacles that you face. This is America, and we have mountains 
and valleys.
    I would like to get a sense from all of you where we are in 
the comfort level of your protection.
    I'm going to start, Ms. Farid Johnson, I appreciate the 
institute at Columbia, I believe, and I want to make sure--
we've got the PRESS Act that may need to be reimagined. We're 
looking at other legislation that allows investigative 
reporters to work but not--I think there's a fine line 
between--I don't want to use the term ``abuse'' on both sides, 
but that there's a fine line.
    So, I want to start with you, Ms. Farid Johnson. What more 
care do we need to give to have the work of an investigative 
reporter work?
    I'm going to ask each of you that question. I think that 
will help us. I'll be finished, and I'll have to get another 
hearing at another point to go into more deeply concerned 
issues.
    Ms. Farid Johnson, if you would quickly.
    Ms. Farid Johnson. So, I think the first thing that you 
need to do is to ensure the PRESS Act gets passed into law and 
signed.
    I think it's also important to remember and to recognize 
this is a fraught time for journalists. We have new 
surveillance technologies. We have a question of funding for 
journalism itself.
    So, it's really important to do what Congress can do in the 
immediate term to protect information that is vital to our 
democracy, which is to protect journalists and allow them to do 
the job we need them to do.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you concluding your testimony by 
saying that would be to pass the PRESS Act and have funding?
    Ms. Farid Johnson. The first thing Congress should do, yes, 
is to pass the PRESS Act and ensure that it is signed into law 
to protect journalists and allow them to be able to give 
assurances to their sources that they will not be revealed.
    There is, of course, a bigger question about funding for 
journalism as a professional as a whole, yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. All right.
    Ms. Attkisson, where do we need to go with this?
    Ms. Attkisson. (1) An outstanding issue is, regardless of 
what laws are passed, we know from the factual record that 
there are bad actors inside our agencies that will violate 
laws. So, a law doesn't necessarily provide full protection. 
(2) When a citizen tries to get redress for something like that 
in civil courts as I'm doing, I found that the Federal 
Government has inordinate protections, their own shield laws 
I'll call them. They have immunity. We have to get permission 
from them, the alleged guilty party, to get depositions and 
information.
    I think this is something that needs to be fixed by 
Congress, the broad immunity granted to people who may be doing 
wrong inside government.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Is there any detriment to the IE, I'm on 
another--on the AI, is there another detriment to the fact that 
AI exists among us?
    Ms. Attkisson. I'll bet there is, but I'm not an expert on 
that.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. We're back-to-back hearings.
    If you would, Ms. Cavallaro, what more do we need to do?
    Ms. Cavallaro. So, SAG-AFTRA has for decades supported a 
Federal shield law. We would first hope that the PRESS Act 
passes. I think that's a priority. I think we need to take that 
first step.
    I do think there are other challenges facing journalism and 
journalists that we would love to use our voice as a labor 
union representing journalists to advocate for. I do think that 
it's a priority. I think the idea that this passed unanimously 
and there is bipartisan support should mean it's something that 
we should be able to move forward quickly and expeditiously.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. We're going to do a deep dive on that.
    I want to just quickly finish with Ms. Attkisson.
    Ms. Herridge. Herridge. Yes, Herridge.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm looking at Ms. Herridge.
    Ms. Herridge. Yes. Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. If you would.
    Ms. Herridge. Sure. Thank you for the question.
    I agree with my colleagues. I think the imperative is to 
get the PRESS Act through the Senate and on the President's 
desk.
    It's going to close a gap in the Federal courts. It's going 
to bring consistency between the State shield and the Federal 
shield laws. I just think a lot of good will follow from that.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, Mr. Chair, I'm very grateful for the 
time given. I think we are committed to taking a deep dive on 
this very important issue. First Amendment rights are pivotal, 
and I want to be a part of helping as opposed to undermining.
    Thank you so very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Texas.
    I'll now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Jordan.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Attkisson, you wrote stories critical of the Obama 
Administration. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Attkisson. Yes. May I point out, it wasn't put in a 
political light.
    Chair Jordan. No.
    Ms. Attkisson. There were also stories that some would 
consider critical of the Bush Administration.
    Chair Jordan. Well, let's say it this way: You wrote 
stories critical of the government.
    Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Yes. You factually reported.
    You did it on Fast and Furious. You did it on Benghazi and 
other issues.
    Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. Even before, as you said, on the Bush 
Administration.
    Then strange things started happening to you, right.
    Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. You had a computer you think gets--your phone 
gets bugged, you believe, and things happened to your computer 
after you wrote stories critical of the government.
    Ms. Attkisson. Right.
    Chair Jordan. That's scary, right.
    Ms. Attkisson. Yes. It's not a good feeling, right.
    Chair Jordan. It would frighten everybody.
    Ms. Herridge, you wrote stories critical of the Biden 
Administration. Is that true?
    Ms. Herridge. That's fair.
    Chair Jordan. You wrote a number of things, about the 
laptop issue, about Hunter Biden, and all kinds of things you 
wrote critical of the Biden family, the Biden business 
operation, the Biden brand, and all that stuff.
    Ms. Herridge. Congressman, I reported out the facts of the 
story. I called balls and strikes.
    Chair Jordan. You sure did. You sure did. You reported the 
facts. Then CBS fired you. Is that right?
    Ms. Herridge. My position was terminated.
    Chair Jordan. Yes. You're an award-winning journalist.
    How long did you work at CBS?
    Ms. Herridge. I worked at CBS News for 4\1/2\ years. During 
that period, we won major awards. I was part of an Emmy-winning 
team. I was nominated for investigative Emmys.
    I think the most important projects were projects that 
drove legislation here on the Hill that positively impacted a 
million veterans.
    Chair Jordan. So, award-winning journalist, won all kinds 
of awards, had worked there almost five years, had extensive 
experience at a different major network prior to that, where 
you were also an award-winning journalist, done all kinds of 
reporting critical of the government there as well, and then 
you get fired.
    It's worse than that, isn't it? Because they didn't just 
fire you. What else did they do?
    Ms. Herridge. On February 13th, when I was told on a Zoom 
call that my employment was terminated, I was locked out of my 
emails and I was locked out of the office. CBS News seized 
hundreds of pages of my reporting files, including confidential 
source information.
    Chair Jordan. That's not normal, is it?
    Ms. Herridge. No. That's not my experience in the other two 
networks that I've worked at or with my colleagues at CBS News.
    When the network of Walter Cronkite seizes your reporting 
files, including confidential source information, that is an 
attack on investigative journalism.
    Chair Jordan. Yes, it sure is.
    I'm just trying to--it seems to me there's a pattern 
developing here. You're critical of the government, in Ms. 
Attkisson's situation, and shazam, they start doing all kinds 
of strange things to your phone lines and to your computer.
    You're critical of the government at a major news 
organization and you're an award-winning journalist, you've 
been there five years, you get fired.
    It's not just that you got fired. In fact, you can--we 
can--maybe there's nothing to that. What we do know is they 
seized your documents. That's scary as well.
    You talk about a chilling effect on the First Amendment. I 
don't know how it could be more chilling.
    Now, thank goodness, the lady sitting beside you, they 
stepped in, right? Because they're stepping in and helping, 
them stepping in helps you get your--because you got your files 
back finally, didn't you?
    Ms. Herridge. I did get the files back. If I didn't have 
the support of SAG-AFTRA really publicly standing up for 
journalism, I don't believe that I would have received the 
files, and they would have been returned.
    I just want to be clear, Congressman, wherever you work, if 
this happened to you, it's an attack on the free press. It's an 
attack on the First Amendment. It makes it more challenging for 
reporters to work in the future. That disrupts the free flow of 
information to the public.
    Chair Jordan. Of course, it does.
    Ms. Herridge. They call journalism a profession for a 
reason, because it's about an informed electorate, and it's a 
cornerstone of our democracy.
    I can only speak for myself. When my records were seized, I 
felt it was a journalistic rape.
    Chair Jordan. Ms. Cavallaro, have you ever seen that 
before, where when someone is leaving employment at a major 
news organization, they seize their documents?
    Ms. Cavallaro. I can't say that SAG-AFTRA is familiar with 
every single case of termination or departure where--
    Chair Jordan. I'm not asking that. I'm saying have you ever 
seen anything like this?
    Ms. Cavallaro. I have no recollection of seeing--
    Chair Jordan. Well, that should scare us too. The first 
time it ever happened, and it happens to an award-winning 
journalist who's been in this profession for a number of years, 
known all across the profession, and that happens on the heels 
of what happened to Ms. Attkisson because both journalists were 
critical of the government.
    That's exactly what journalism is about, being critical of 
the government when the government is doing things wrong, and 
then to have a major news organization or the government itself 
do this.
    In your testimony, Ms. Herridge, you had a very important 
line. You said: ``If confidential sources are not protected, 
journalism is dead.'' I agree. It would seem to me if 
retaliation is allowed by the government or by some major media 
outlet, journalism is dead as well. That's what this hearing is 
about.
    I, again, want to thank you all for coming and sharing your 
important testimony.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
    I'd like to recognize the Ranking Member.
    Ms. Scanlon. I just have a unanimous consent request to 
enter into the record Paramount's response to Chair Jordan's 
February 23rd letter regarding Ms. Herridge's termination. It 
corrects the record of some of the wild speculation and 
mischaracterization we've heard from the other side, as it 
describes that Ms. Herridge was not the only person who was let 
go at that time and that certain procedures were followed.
    Chair Jordan. Would the Chair yield just for a second?
    Mr. Roy. The gentleman from Ohio.
    Chair Jordan. I didn't--all I said is it happened. What 
happened afterwards is what's scary, when they seized her 
files. That is scary because that is the point I tried to make.
    Ms. Scanlon. I seek unanimous consent to introduce the 
letter.
    Mr. Roy. Without objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Mr. Roy. Suspend for one second.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Roy. I will now recognize the Ranking Member for 
questions.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I want to thank all our witnesses 
here today.
    I appreciate Ms. Herridge's repeated acknowledgment that 
her employment dispute is separate from the civil lawsuit in 
which she was held in contempt for refusing to disclose a 
confidential source, despite the apparent confusion of some of 
my colleagues where they conflated those two matters.
    It's clear, I think, that the contempt was the result of a 
private individual's lawsuit seeking that information. It 
wasn't a government action seeking that information until it 
got to the point where the courts were enforcing a contempt 
citation.
    Which brings us back to my remarks at the outset, which is 
that with the Federal law in a State of muddiness, confusion, 
disarray since the Branzburg v. Hayes decision over 50 years 
ago, it really is incumbent on Congress to take action to make 
sure that the courts are not put in a position where they are 
exerting fines or possible jail time against journalists 
because they don't think they have the authority not to.
    So, in Branzburg the Court explicitly invited Congress to, 
quote, ``determine whether a statutory newsman's''--I would say 
and woman's--``privilege is necessary and desirable and to 
fashion standards and rules as narrow or broad as deemed 
necessary.''
    So, Ms. Farid Johnson, if you could just take us through 
why should Congress step in and actually take up this 
invitation, particularly in the context of the recent threats 
to the First Amendment and freedom of the press in our modern 
world?
    Ms. Farid Johnson. Congress should absolutely take this up 
because it is, in fact, confusing, and it leaves journalists in 
a lurch where they are going to be subject to or have been 
subject to different interpretations of this seminal case that, 
as you note, is over 50 years old.
    With the PRESS Act and with the definitions it provides and 
with the comprehension with which it addresses this issue, it 
is really an opportunity for Congress to clarify and to offer 
that certainty to journalists--and to offer certainty to 
sources, who, as we've heard from our colleagues on the stand 
here today, are going to be less and less likely to come 
forward.
    That ultimately harms Americans because when Americans do 
not have access to information, they cannot understand what 
their government is doing. So, it really a comprehensive 
approach that needs to happen as quickly as possible.
    Ms. Scanlon. I appreciate that.
    I think it also harms our court system when we're putting 
our courts in a position where they are doing something that is 
then undermining the First Amendment and free press rights.
    We've noted that dozens of our States--I've seen 49 States, 
I've seen 32 States--so the majority of States and Washington, 
DC, have now enacted shield laws, but they are not uniform. Of 
course, we have the Federal Circuit Courts which have a variety 
of interpretations of what's required or not required.
    How does that impact journalism in this modern age where so 
much of it is digital and online platforms, and we're not 
talking about the mom-and-pop paper down the street anymore, 
but we're talking about wider distribution sources? How does 
the lack of a more uniform shield law impact journalism?
    Ms. Farid Johnson. It impacts it in a few ways, and I won't 
say that--the 49 States plus Washington, DC, have either a 
shield law or a court recognition of a reporter's privilege. 
So, there's the distinction there.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK.
    Ms. Farid Johnson. Actually, I think it's important to 
bring this down to an example, because the DOJ recently put 
into place media guidelines that talk about what a member of 
the news media can or cannot be subject to in terms of the 
limitations as to what the government can do to compel sources. 
However, the Justice Department's internal criteria give the 
agency substantial latitude when it comes to defining what a 
member of the news media is.
    As I noted in my testimony, in this digital age we have a 
number of individuals who are engaging in legitimate 
journalistic acts who might not fit a traditional mold in terms 
of being, for example, a Wall Street Journal reporter.
    It is important that we recognize that because we are now 
in an age of new technologies and new opportunities and 
innovations in journalism, that having the PRESS Act with this 
broad definition to protect journalists of all different types 
of stripes will be important to ensuring that assurance for 
journalists across the board.
    Ms. Scanlon. Well, again, I want to thank all our witnesses 
for helping us reemphasize the importance of the PRESS Act and 
hopefully persuading our Senatorial colleagues to get with it 
and help us get this done.
    So, thank you again. I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member. I want to thank her 
and my Democrat colleagues for working with us to try to move 
this along. I believe we're going to be able to finish the 
hearing without breaking. The Prime Minister has not yet 
started speaking.
    So, we're going to proceed, and then we, hopefully, won't 
have to break and come back for everybody's benefit.
    So, Ms. Herridge, could you just quickly, for the benefit 
of the Committee, articulate the awards and honors you've 
received in carrying out your profession?
    Ms. Herridge. Wow, that's a little embarrassing, but--
    Mr. Roy. Well, it's important.
    Ms. Herridge. I've always tried to stay in the background.
    I'm so proud of the work that we did at CBS News. I was 
part of an Emmy-winning team. I was also nominated for 
investigative Emmys, primarily for the work that we did 
revealing the toxic exposure of our veterans, specifically a 
group who were based in Uzbekistan, in K2. This was the 
launching-off pad for classified operations into Afghanistan.
    We also did reporting that was a catalyst for legislation, 
the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which has opened new 
opportunities and benefits and payments for a million veterans 
and civilians.
    This was real impact reporting, and it was accountability 
reporting on both the left and the right.
    Mr. Roy. You mentioned Emmys, other awards. In other words, 
is there any indication of negative conduct in carrying out 
your profession, right? I mean, you've been getting awards. 
Nothing would indicate that there was a failure to perform your 
duties, failure to do your job competently, correct?
    Ms. Herridge. Congressman, I think what you're asking me is 
whether I was terminated for poor performance. I don't believe 
that my record would reflect that.
    I don't know what factors the CBS News executives 
considered when they terminated my position. There was tension 
over the Hunter Biden reporting and the Biden Administration, 
but I can't say for sure why I was let go.
    Mr. Roy. You mentioned that tension. You had been one of 
the reporters certainly in what we might define as the 
mainstream media that was focusing intently on the Hunter Biden 
laptop, on the various facts surrounding the Biden family and 
the flow of money and all the things involved with that. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Herridge. That is correct.
    For the full picture, though, I was also the reporter at 
CBS News who obtained the audiotape of former President Trump 
apparently bragging about the Iran classified documents at Mar-
a-Lago. I also exposed how 50 soldiers were denied the Purple 
Heart under the Trump Administration in an effort to deescalate 
after a ballistic missile attack in Iran.
    I'm someone who calls balls and strikes, Congressman. I 
just follow the facts where they lead. That has always been my 
calling card.
    Mr. Roy. When CBS let you go, was it around the time of you 
calling out the Trump Administration or around the time that 
you were pursuing more of the Hunter Biden--
    Ms. Herridge. I was let go a few days after the Special 
Counsel Robert Hur report into President Biden's handling of 
classified information.
    Mr. Roy. At the same time all that's going on, you're 
managing the issue with FOX and the reality that you are being 
held in contempt. You've touched on it, and I don't want to 
repeat it too much, but it's really important for the record.
    You're, in fact, being held in contempt by a court to the 
tune of $800 a day--which, as you've noted, has thankfully been 
stayed pending appeal. That is correct?
    Ms. Herridge. That is correct.
    I'd also like to emphasize, Congressman, that I have total 
respect for the legal process. My case is in front of the 
Appellate Court, and so I'm limited in what I can say.
    I reject characterizations that the court is being heavy-
handed. It's well within their discretion to levy these fines. 
I was making the point that for many journalists facing fines 
of that significance would be insurmountable, and they'd have 
to make a hard choice about whether to protect their sources.
    Mr. Roy. In closing, could you just reiterate the extent of 
your belief in what this means for other journalists? You 
alluded to before smaller journalists without the protection of 
the bubble of the kind of corporate structure that you've got 
with FOX News backing you up from your previous reporting.
    Ms. Herridge. I just don't think many journalists could 
withstand the threat of significant and crippling financial 
sanctions. They may not have a former employer or a current 
employer who's in a position to mount a vigorous and costly 
defense. I think it's a very dangerous period for journalism.
    The PRESS Act would close the legal gap in the system, this 
ambiguity that I've had to deal with for two years.
    I want to emphasize, this is not about a single journalist. 
It's not about a single story. It's not about a single network.
    What happens in my case, the passage of the PRESS Act is 
going to impact every journalist working in this room, and it's 
going to impact every journalist in the United States and for 
the next generation to come.
    If there's anything I can accomplish in my career as a 
journalist, it's going to be getting this over the finish line. 
I feel this with every core of my being.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Herridge.
    I do want to acknowledge that the gentleman from North 
Carolina has been waiting here patiently throughout the 
hearing. He indicated he didn't necessarily have a lot of 
questions, but I do want to give him a moment here to close 
before we adjourn.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I will take 
advantage of the opportunity.
    I think you guys have aired the PRESS Act--which, of 
course, has already passed here--very well, its purpose in 
creating a limited privilege on the part of journalists.
    I appreciate the fact--I've certainly heard, Ms. Attkisson, 
and Ms. Herridge, from you, I understand, and I appreciate your 
ethic in terms of maintaining your position of calling balls 
and strikes, your desire and your professional commitment to 
maintaining a neutrality, so that you're on guard even to 
coming here and letting Republicans take shots at CBS News 
through you, Ms. Herridge, for example. I get that.
    There is another thing here, and I think about the presence 
of Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger, a lot of the 
independence of journalists.
    Ms. Herridge, nevertheless, my observation--and I'm a 
Republican, so it's partisan, I guess, in part--but I think if 
you look at the stats--I would suggest the American people see 
it this way--CBS News is among the corporate behemoth media 
outlets, all which seem to be captured by one side of the 
American political spectrum.
    You've worked for one of those. Maybe FOX News is one on 
the other side. CBS, NBC, Wall Street Journal--excuse me--well, 
largely, yes--The Washington Post and The New York Times, all 
of big media seems to be captured by one side. You've worked 
for a sustained period of time for one of those networks.
    What about that? Is that not true? It's not so much about 
your firing, your termination, whether it's because of the 
Hunter Biden story, or whatever, but isn't that a problem?
    How does a journalist who's independent and wants to call 
balls and strikes function in an environment where all the big 
media behemoths are captured by one side of the political 
spectrum?
    Ms. Herridge. Congressman, I've always tried to be 
respectful of my former employers. So, I worked at ABC News, I 
worked at FOX News, and I worked at CBS News, and I brought the 
same approach at every place that I worked, which is that it's 
about accountability journalism, on the left and on the right, 
and representing diverse points of view.
    This is so important in a marketplace of ideas. It's so 
important in a civil debate to settle issues in this country. I 
feel that the PRESS Act, in guaranteeing these protections to 
sources, helps grow the voices in journalism. That's the bottom 
line for me.
    Mr. Bishop. OK. I get that. I understand that you may want 
to limit the avenues you--or the areas you want to take on so 
that you can emphasize those things that might cover new 
ground, and the PRESS Act is where you decided to focus. I'll 
give you one more opportunity.
    To the extent you're one of the admirable professional 
journalists who calls balls and strikes, when you're on the air 
at CBS News, you're lending your ethic and your image to an 
organization that's decided to do something decidedly 
different. Is that not true?
    Ms. Herridge. Sir, I came to CBS News to do investigative 
reporting and to bring in diverse voices, and I did my best to 
do that.
    I can't explain all the decisions of the executives. In 
some cases, I felt that they limited points of view and voices. 
I was uncomfortable with that because I think good journalism 
is about diverse voices.
    Mr. Bishop. I think professional, ethical journalists--Ms. 
Attkisson, I haven't wanted to leave you out, but it's hard to 
pick one example and kind of go there.
    I have great respect for the struggles that your profession 
has, and I don't know how all of them get solved. I do believe 
we make progress in bits and pieces.
    I do think that it is a great tragedy that big media have 
all--they can trot out a Catherine Herridge. Everyone, probably 
recognizes--who's fair-minded--where the overall trend has gone 
and that it leaves professional journalists in a hopelessly 
conflicted situation if you have a network that has decided to 
go one way entirely and merely has a tokenism as to what 
professional journalism ought to be.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
    This concludes today's hearing.
    We thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee 
today.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses 
or additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent 
.aspx?EventID=117096.

                                 [all]