[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.

                          ____________________