[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15375-15376]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              IT'S TIME TO PASS A FEDERAL MEDIA SHIELD LAW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States 
provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of 
speech or of the press. These two rights form the bedrock of our 
democracy by ensuring the free flow of information to the American 
people.
  Sadly, today, the free and independent press in America is under 
fire. In recent years, more than 40 journalists have been subpoenaed, 
questioned or held in contempt for failure to reveal their confidential 
sources.
  For a journalist, maintaining an assurance of confidentiality to a 
source is sometimes the only way to bring forward news of great 
consequence to the Nation. Being forced to reveal a source chills 
reporting of the news, and, thereby, restricts the free flow of 
information to the public.
  Now, not long ago, a reporter's assurance of confidentiality was 
unquestioned. That assurance led to sources that willingly provided 
information to journalists who brought forward news of enormous 
consequence to the Nation. One thinks of Watergate, recent stories of 
misfeasance at Walter Reed Army medical center, and even the abuse of 
steroids in major league baseball.
  All of these stories never would have come to the light, stories 
great and small, were it not for confidential sources and the dogged 
persistence of a free and independent press. As a conservative who 
believes in a limited government, I believe the only check on 
government power in real time is a free and independent press.
  A free press ensures the flow of information to the public, and in 
this time of scandals and rumors of scandals and corruption in high 
places, such information is needed now more than ever to hold those in 
power to account. In order to maintain our free and independent press, 
I authored the Free Flow of Information Act with Congressman Rick 
Boucher of Virginia several years ago. This bill is also known as a 
Federal media shield statute. It provides a qualified privilege of 
confidentiality to journalists, which enables them to shield sources 
from disclosure in certain situations.
  Now, the bill is not about protecting reporters, it's about 
protecting the public's right to know. We introduced the bill in May of 
2007, and on October 16 of last year, it passed in this House of 
Representatives by an overwhelming and bipartisan margin of 398-21. I 
was especially pleased to earn the support of Republican and Democratic 
leadership, the chairman and ranking members of the Intelligence and 
Armed Services Committee, and many other leaders throughout the House 
of Representatives.
  The bill received wide bipartisan support because of measures we 
added to specifically address very real and legitimate concerns about 
how a privilege for journalists could impact national security. The 
Federal Government, as we know, is tasked with a tremendous 
responsibility of protecting

[[Page 15376]]

the Nation. We must always put national security in the forefront of 
our consideration.
  The Free Flow of Information Act does just that. Well, with news that 
the United States Senate may be taking up a version of this legislation 
as soon as next week, I wanted to rise to speak about the bill and what 
some of its critics may say.
  Critics of the bill will point always to concerns about national 
security. But our version of the bill only provides a qualified 
privilege, meaning that disclosure of a source's identity may be 
required in certain situations. The foremost of those situations, of 
course, is when the Nation's security is placed at risk. The bill 
permits compelled disclosure to prevent or identify the perpetrator of 
an act of terrorism against the United States or its allies, to prevent 
significant or specified harm to national security, or, in cases that 
involved the unauthorized disclosure of classified information that 
caused or will cause significant or articulable harm to national 
security. In such cases, a judge will be able to determine whether the 
public interest, in compelling disclosure of a source, outweighs the 
public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information.
  Overall, I sincerely believe the bill strikes a reasonable balance 
between the public's right to know and the fair administration of 
justice. In striking that balance, the version of the legislation that 
passed this House puts national security first.
  Long ago Thomas Jefferson warned, ``Our liberty cannot be guarded but 
by the freedom of the press, nor that limited without danger of losing 
it.'' Jefferson's words hold true today.
  The passage of the Free Flow of Information Act in this Congress is 
necessary not only to explicitly and fully provide for the freedom and 
press of our Nation, but also to protect our liberty for future 
generations of Americans. With the extraordinary bipartisan support of 
my colleagues in the House of Representatives, and support in the 
United States Senate, which includes both major party candidates for 
President of the United States, it is my hope that the United States 
Senate will take up the Free Flow of Information Act and report it next 
week with a strong bipartisan affirmation.

                          ____________________