[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 150 (Monday, September 19, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H7927-H7930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECT REPORTERS FROM EXPLOITATIVE STATE SPYING ACT
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 4330) to maintain the free flow of information to the
public by establishing appropriate limits on the federally compelled
disclosure of information obtained as part of engaging in journalism,
and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4330
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Reporters from
Exploitative State Spying Act'' or the ``PRESS Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Covered journalist.--The term ``covered journalist''
means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects,
photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, investigates,
or publishes news or information that concerns local,
national, or international events or other matters of public
interest for dissemination to the public.
(2) Covered service provider.--
(A) In general.--The term ``covered service provider''
means any person that, by an electronic means, stores,
processes, or transmits information in order to provide a
service to customers of the person.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``covered service provider''
includes--
(i) a telecommunications carrier and a provider of an
information service (as such terms are defined in section 3
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153));
(ii) a provider of an interactive computer service and an
information content provider (as such terms are defined in
section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
230));
(iii) a provider of remote computing service (as defined in
section 2711 of title 18, United States Code); and
(iv) a provider of electronic communication service (as
defined in section 2510 of title 18, United States Code) to
the public.
(3) Document.--The term ``document'' means writings,
recordings, and photographs, as those terms are defined by
Federal Rule of Evidence 1001 (28 U.S.C. App.).
(4) Federal entity.--The term ``Federal entity'' means an
entity or employee of the judicial
[[Page H7928]]
or executive branch or an administrative agency of the
Federal Government with the power to issue a subpoena or
issue other compulsory process.
(5) Journalism.--The term ``journalism'' means gathering,
preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing,
editing, reporting, investigating, or publishing news or
information that concerns local, national, or international
events or other matters of public interest for dissemination
to the public.
(6) Personal account of a covered journalist.--The term
``personal account of a covered journalist'' means an account
with a covered service provider used by a covered journalist
that is not provided, administered, or operated by the
employer of the covered journalist.
(7) Personal technology device of a covered journalist.--
The term ``personal technology device of a covered
journalist'' means a handheld communications device, laptop
computer, desktop computer, or other internet-connected
device used by a covered journalist that is not provided or
administered by the employer of the covered journalist.
(8) Protected information.--The term ``protected
information'' means any information identifying a source who
provided information as part of engaging in journalism, and
any records, contents of a communication, documents, or
information that a covered journalist obtained or created as
part of engaging in journalism.
SEC. 3. LIMITS ON COMPELLED DISCLOSURE FROM COVERED
JOURNALISTS.
In any matter arising under Federal law, a Federal entity
may not compel a covered journalist to disclose protected
information, unless a court in the judicial district in which
the subpoena or other compulsory process is, or will be,
issued determines by a preponderance of the evidence, after
providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to the
covered journalist that--
(1) disclosure of the protected information is necessary to
prevent, or to identify any perpetrator of, an act of
terrorism against the United States; or
(2) disclosure of the protected information is necessary to
prevent a threat of imminent violence, significant bodily
harm, or death, including specified offenses against a minor
(as defined by section 111(7) of the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (34 U.S.C. 20911(7))).
SEC. 4. LIMITS ON COMPELLED DISCLOSURE FROM COVERED SERVICE
PROVIDERS.
(a) Conditions for Compelled Disclosure.--In any matter
arising under Federal law, a Federal entity may not compel a
covered service provider to provide testimony or any document
consisting of any record, information, or other
communications stored by a covered provider on behalf of a
covered journalist, including testimony or any document
relating to a personal account of a covered journalist or a
personal technology device of a covered journalist, unless a
court in the judicial district in which the subpoena or other
compulsory process is, or will be, issued determines by a
preponderance of the evidence that there is a reasonable
threat of imminent violence unless the testimony or document
is provided, and issues an order authorizing the Federal
entity to compel the disclosure of the testimony or document.
(b) Notice to Court.--A Federal entity seeking to compel
the provision of testimony or any document described in
subsection (a) shall inform the court that the testimony or
document relates to a covered journalist.
(c) Notice to Covered Journalist and Opportunity to Be
Heard.--
(1) In general.--A court may authorize a Federal entity to
compel the provision of testimony or a document under this
section only after the Federal entity seeking the testimony
or document provides the covered journalist on behalf of whom
the testimony or document is stored pursuant to subsection
(a)--
(A) notice of the subpoena or other compulsory request for
such testimony or document from the covered service provider
not later than the time at which such subpoena or request is
issued to the covered service provider; and
(B) an opportunity to be heard before the court before the
time at which the provision of the testimony or document is
compelled.
(2) Exception to notice requirement.--
(A) In general.--Notice and an opportunity to be heard
under paragraph (1) may be delayed for not more than 45 days
if the court involved determines there is clear and
convincing evidence that such notice would pose a clear and
substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal
investigation, or would present an imminent risk of death or
serious bodily harm, including specified offenses against a
minor (as defined by section 111(7) of the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (34 U.S.C. 20911(7))).
(B) Extensions.--The 45-day period described in
subparagraph (A) may be extended by the court for additional
periods of not more than 45 days if the court involved makes
a new and independent determination that there is clear and
convincing evidence that providing notice to the covered
journalist would pose a clear and substantial threat to the
integrity of a criminal investigation, or would present an
imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm under current
circumstances.
SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON CONTENT OF INFORMATION.
The content of any testimony, document, or protected
information that is compelled under sections 3 or 4 shall--
(1) not be overbroad, unreasonable, or oppressive, and as
appropriate, be limited to the purpose of verifying published
information or describing any surrounding circumstances
relevant to the accuracy of such published information; and
(2) be narrowly tailored in subject matter and period of
time covered so as to avoid compelling the production of
peripheral, nonessential, or speculative information.
SEC. 6. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to--
(1) apply to civil defamation, slander, or libel claims or
defenses under State law, regardless of whether or not such
claims or defenses, respectively, are raised in a State or
Federal court; or
(2) prevent the Federal Government from pursuing an
investigation of a covered journalist or organization that
is--
(A) suspected of committing a crime;
(B) a witness to a crime unrelated to engaging in
journalism;
(C) suspected of being an agent of a foreign power, as
defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801);
(D) an individual or organization designated under
Executive Order 13224 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; relating to
blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons
who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism);
(E) a specially designated terrorist, as that term is
defined in section 595.311 of title 31, Code of Federal
Regulations (or any successor thereto); or
(F) a terrorist organization, as that term is defined in
section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II)).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Fitzgerald) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
General Leave
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4330.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
{time} 1700
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4330, the Protect
Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act, or the PRESS Act.
The PRESS Act would create a strong but qualified Federal statutory
privilege that protects journalists from being compelled by the Federal
Government to reveal confidential sources and information.
Additionally, the bill prohibits the Federal Government from
compelling an electronic service provider that stores a journalist's
information to disclose that information, as well as information
relating to the journalist's personal account or technology device, to
the government unless a court determines that there is a reasonable
threat of imminent violence absent the information's disclosure and
subject to other requirements and certain specified exceptions.
H.R. 4330 is necessary and long-overdue legislation.
Over the past several decades, Presidential administrations of both
parties have attempted to crack down on leaks of classified information
to media outlets, and these investigations have included efforts to
obtain journalists' records. For example, just last year, The
Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN reported that the
Department of Justice under the Trump administration sought the
information and records of their reporters.
The most sacred part of our freedom includes the protection and
freedom of the press. That is embedded in the Constitution in our First
Amendment in the Bill of Rights, so to hear and to see that glaring
infraction shows us the necessity of this legislation before us.
In addition, during the Obama administration, the Department
reportedly searched FOX News reporter James Rosen's emails and even
listed him as a coconspirator in an Espionage Act case it brought
against a source of the leaked information.
These and other recent episodes illustrate the need for stronger
Federal protections for journalists and their sources.
The truth is cleansing. The truth is democracy.
Indeed, 40 States and the District of Columbia have enacted press
shield laws, while other States afford similar privileges through their
State constitution of common law.
Moreover, there has been longstanding and bipartisan support in
Congress for Federal protections. In
[[Page H7929]]
2005, former Vice President Mike Pence, when he was a Member of this
body, first introduced the Free Flow of Information Act, which was very
similar in concept to H.R. 4330. That legislation subsequently passed
the House twice in the 110th and the 111th Congresses, the first time
by 398-21, and the second time by voice vote. Unfortunately, the Senate
never took action on these bills, but I am pleased that efforts to
advance a Federal reporters shield bill continue in the House today.
Again, we must stand for liberty. It is my hope that the Senate will
finally take up this important issue.
I thank Congressmen Jamie Raskin, Ted Lieu, and John Yarmuth for
their work on the PRESS Act. I also thank the Judiciary Committee
ranking member, Jim Jordan, for his support.
The need for this legislation is as great, if not greater, than when
it was first introduced in an earlier form many years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
important bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why the Founders chose to enshrine the
freedoms of the press in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is
an important part of a functional and informed democracy.
Over the years, versions of this bill have received widespread
support from across the political spectrum. In fact, the first version
of this bill was introduced by none other than Vice President Pence
when he was a Member of this body.
Liberty depends on the freedom of the press. Good reporters are
committed to holding our government accountable. A critical aspect of
the freedom of the press is the pursuit of truth without intimidation
or coercion from the government.
Administrations of both parties have unjustly targeted journalists,
but none more so in recent years than the Obama administration. The
Obama administration's control on the flow of information has been
described as ``the most aggressive . . . since the Nixon
administration.''
The Biden administration isn't proving to be much better.
In a free country, we need to make sure that the government cannot
unmask journalists' sources without good cause. This bill provides
those protections and recognizes the importance of independent
journalism to our country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the author of the PRESS Act, who has been
persistent in his commitment to civil liberties as an important member
of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her very distinguished and passionate advocacy for civil liberties and
civil rights. I thank her for her excellent management of this
legislation. I also thank the floor leader on the minority side for his
excellent words on the legislation, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 4330, the
Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act, or the PRESS Act,
which I introduced with Congressmen Lieu and Yarmuth. It is a close
successor to the bill that then-Congressman Mike Pence got passed in
the House in the 110th Congress by a lopsided vote of 398-21.
Given that the bill passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee
earlier this year, I am very hopeful that this is the Congress in which
we can get it done.
Our Founders insisted that the American people must have the means to
acquire the truth about their own government, their society, and their
world. Those ``who mean to be their own governors,'' said Madison,
``must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.''
Newspapers were critical, a form of continuing public education about
government and about society. Thomas Jefferson said: ``If it were left
to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers
or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to
prefer the latter.''
The great Tom Paine not only defended but demonstrated the power of
the pen as the people's weapon against political tyranny. His
sensationally successful pamphlet ``Common Sense'' argued the central
importance of free speech and free press to the survival of political
democracy.
In theory, the specific command in the First Amendment that Congress
shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press was unnecessary
because press freedom would already, by definition, be subsumed under
the freedom of speech. The Framers insisted upon protecting the
structurally distinctive role that the press plays as a watchdog
institution in a representative democratic society.
Not everyone can go to congressional hearings or State legislative
sessions or county council meetings late into the night. Not all of us
can travel to Ukraine to uncover Russian war crimes against the people
there or go to Afghanistan to see what it means to have theocratic
tyranny oppressing the people. Not everyone can personally go get the
Pentagon Papers or break the Watergate scandal or penetrate crime and
drug trafficking rings or see with their own eyes how climate change is
ravaging the Louisiana coast or Pakistan. As citizens of the United
States, we are all equally implicated and affected by these
developments, and we are all equally invested in obtaining the truth
about them. This is why we need professional journalists and
newspapers.
Yet, reporters in our country face violence, threats, intimidation,
and even jail time just for doing their jobs, providing news and
information.
The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that journalists in the
United States faced unprecedented attacks in 2020. At least 110
reporters were arrested or criminally charged in relation to their
reporting, and around 300 were assaulted in 2020 alone.
Many families in my State of Maryland are still reeling from the mass
shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, which took the
lives of five different journalists and injured several others in 2018.
Lots of reporters face harsh legal consequences just for reporting
and then faithfully maintaining the confidentiality of sources.
One journalist who faced repercussions simply for doing his job I
know well--Brian Karem, one of my constituents. In 1990 and 1991, he
went to jail four different times to protect confidential sources while
working as a TV reporter. The last time, he went to jail for nearly 2
weeks while the Supreme Court considered his case, and he was only
spared a long sentence when his source moved from Texas to California
and, no longer fearing for her life, came forward.
Now more than ever, we need to make good on the constitutional
promise of a free press by establishing a Federal shield law to protect
journalists against government overreach and prosecutorial abuses that
may occur from one administration to the next.
The PRESS Act is an update of the Free Flow of Information Act that I
introduced with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the ranking
member of the Judiciary Committee, in the 115th Congress. It will
prevent Federal law enforcement from being able to obtain information
from covered journalists through their work devices and accounts, as
well as their personal devices and accounts. It will also prevent
government officials from conducting an end run around these
prohibitions by precluding them from seeking third-party communications
held by communications services, except in narrow and carefully cabined
exceptional instances.
America favors shield laws to protect the media because our people
know that the press is not the enemy of the people. The press is the
people's best friend.
Forty-nine States and Washington, D.C., have already passed State
shield laws or adopted some kind of reporter's privilege of their own.
What better evidence could we have that the American people want a free
and aggressive press to expose corruption and safeguard democracy?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I fervently hope that my colleagues on both
[[Page H7930]]
sides of the aisle--indeed, every Member of the House of
Representatives--will rise to support this bill, the successor to our
2017 bipartisan bill and the successor to the bill that then-
Congressman, now-Vice President Mike Pence navigated to victory in the
House on a vote of 398-21 15 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her indulgence.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I would inform you and my colleague from
Texas that I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just comment, as I determine whether we have any
further speakers, that this protection of the First Amendment rights of
our journalists are so crucial, and this legislation enjoys bipartisan
support.
We have already made the point that we have found some offense of
this in bipartisan officeholders, government, so I think it is
important, in the spirit of harmony today, that we choose no President
to suggest one was more so than the others, and I can't think of any
comparison to the previous administration. But, today, we are standing
here and wanting to bring people together around the importance of
ensuring that the press is protected and shielded, that the truth is
cleansing, and that the truth is heard.
Clearly, in the Trump administration, the truth was challenged, and
we are grateful that the press stood tall.
I believe this legislation is extremely important to cleanse all
persons in public life so that public officials can serve in the spirit
of transparency and that journalists can provide the facts to all the
people of America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, H.R. 4330 is a bipartisan effort similar
to legislation worked on by Vice President Pence.
{time} 1715
The Judiciary Committee reported the bill on a bipartisan basis by
voice vote. In addition, H.R. 4330 is supported by numerous civil
liberties and journalist organizations, including the American Civil
Liberties Union, Demand Progress, the Society of Professional
Journalists, the News Media Alliance, the National Association of
Broadcasters, the National Press Photographers Association, the Radio
Television Digital News Association, the News Leaders Association,
MPA--the Association of Magazine Media, the Project for Privacy and
Surveillance Accountability, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of
the Press.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4330, the ``Protect
Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act'' or the ``PRESS Act.''
The PRESS Act would create a strong, but qualified, federal statutory
privilege that protects journalists from being compelled by the federal
government to reveal confidential sources and information.
Additionally, the bill prohibits the federal government from
compelling an electronic service provider that stores a journalist's
information to disclose that information, as well as information
relating to the journalist's personal account or technology device, to
the government, unless a court determines that there is a reasonable
threat of imminent violence absent the information's disclosure, and
subject to other requirements and certain specified exceptions.
H.R. 4330 is necessary and long overdue legislation.
Over the past several decades, presidential administrations of both
parties have attempted to crack down on leaks of classified information
to media outlets, and these investigations have included efforts to
obtain journalists' records.
For example, just last year, The Washington Post, The New York Times,
and CNN reported that the Department of Justice under the Trump
Administration sought the information and records of their reporters.
In addition, during the Obama Administration, the Department
reportedly searched Fox News reporter James Rosen's e-mails and even
listed him as a co-conspirator in an Espionage Act case that it brought
against the source of the leaked information.
These and other recent episodes illustrate the need for stronger
federal protections for journalists and their sources.
Indeed, forty states and the District of Columbia have enacted press
shield laws, while other states afford similar privileges through their
state constitutions and common law.
Moreover, there has been longstanding and bipartisan support in
Congress for federal protections.
In 2005, Former Vice President Mike Pence, when he was a member of
this body, first introduced the ``Free Flow of Information Act,'' which
was very similar in concept to H.R. 4330. That legislation subsequently
passed the House twice, in the 110th and 111th Congresses, the first
time by a 398 to 21 vote, and the second time by voice vote.
Unfortunately, the Senate never took action on those bills, but I am
pleased that efforts to advance a federal reporters' shield bill
continue in the House today. It is my hope that the Senate will finally
take up this important issue.
I want to thank Congressmen Jamie Raskin, Ted Lieu, and John Yarmuth
for their work on the PRESS Act. I also thank Judiciary Committee
Ranking Member Jim Jordan for his support.
The need for this legislation is as great, if not greater, than when
it was first introduced in its earlier form many years ago.
I urge all my colleagues to vote YES on this important bipartisan
legislation.
As I noted earlier, H.R. 4330 and similar federal press shield
legislation has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support. The Judiciary
Committee reported the bill on a bipartisan basis by voice vote.
In addition, H.R. 4330 is supported by numerous civil liberties and
journalists' organizations, including the American Civil Liberties
Union, Demand Progress, the Society of Professional Journalists, the
News Media Alliance, the National Association of Broadcasters, the
National Press Photographers Association, the Radio Television Digital
News Association, the News Leaders Association, MPA--The Association of
Magazine Media, the Project for Privacy and Surveillance
Accountability, Protect The 1st, and the Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press.
Given the broad support for the bill and the pressing need for
federal protections for journalists and their sources, I urge the House
to pass H.R. 4330.
Mr. Speaker, given the broad support of the bill and the pressing
need for Federal protections for journalists and their sources, I urge
the House to pass H.R. 4330, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4330, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________