[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16782-16785]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ACT

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak on the 
Free Flow of Information Act, which is the reporters' privilege 
legislation. At the outset, I thank the cosponsors, Senators Schumer, 
Lugar, Dodd, and Graham. I especially thank Senator Lugar for his 
contribution to this legislation, because he was the first to take a 
stand for this issue some time ago.
  This legislation is very important to maintain the flow of 
information to the American people from the newspapers and radio and 
television stations. It is necessary because we have seen in recent 
times a flurry of subpoenas being issued to reporters to disclose their 
confidential sources. A reporter's source of information depends upon 
their being able to fulfill a commitment of confidentiality. It is 
unnecessary to recite the long history of the investigative reporting 
which has provided so much good to the American people or, for that 
matter, the people of the world. We have had reporters ferret out 
corruption in government, misfeasance, and wrongdoing. Senators turn 
the first part of every day to the newspapers to see what is occurring 
in the world. Frequently in the mix of the news, there are 
investigative reports which tell Senators more than even our staffs 
know. I believe Thomas Jefferson put it best in the founding days of 
the Republic, when he said that if he had to choose newspapers without 
government or government without newspapers, he would choose newspapers 
without government.
  This legislation passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by the 
decisive vote of 15 to 4. A version passed the House of Representatives 
by an overwhelming margin of 398 to 21. It is worth noting that both of 
the presumptive candidates for President are supportive of this 
legislation. Senator Obama is a cosponsor, and Senator McCain has 
publicly confirmed that he would vote for this legislation. A group of 
some 40 sitting State attorneys general, including both Democrats and 
Republicans, have written in support of this legislation. More than 100 
newspapers from all parts of the country have endorsed this 
legislation, including the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the 
New York Times, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. I will make a part of 
the Record a full list of those newspapers and public media operations 
in support of this legislation.
  There have been some 72 subpoenas issued since 2006. The chilling 
effect has been overwhelming, in part because of the issuance of 
subpoenas and contempt citations. For example, the case of Judith 
Miller of the New York Times has received extensive publicity. She was 
jailed for around 85 days for failing to disclose the source of 
information she had in the case involving the outing of CIA agent 
Valerie Plame. It has always been a mystery to me why Judith Miller was 
held in contempt, when it was known that Deputy Secretary of State 
Armitage was the source of the information. But a special prosecutor 
subpoenaed numerous witnesses and conducted a very high profile 
publicity investigation. Ultimately, Judith Miller spent 85 days in 
jail under very unpleasant circumstances. I can personally attest to 
the conditions because Michael O'Neal, my chief counsel when I chaired 
the Judiciary Committee, and I visited her in the Virginia prison where 
she was detained. The legislation which we are proposing is necessary 
to maintain the flow of information.
  I think it is vital to emphasize that this legislation benefits the 
American people, allowing them access to the news and information that 
results from investigative reporting. Investigative reporting has done 
so much for the public welfare in disclosing fraud, corruption, 
misfeasance, and wrongdoing at all levels of the Government, as well as 
at all levels of private, corporate, and public life.
  This issue and the vote which is imminent pose a problem for this 
Senator because of the practice which has evolved to preclude 
amendments from being offered. We are only facing tomorrow the motion 
for cloture on the motion to proceed. I do think we ought to proceed to 
this bill. It is my hope that the majority leader will not act to 
preclude other Senators from offering amendments. This is a subject I 
have addressed at considerable length on the global warming bill. I 
have talked about it on the FAA bill. I have discussed it with the oil 
speculators bill. It is a matter of great concern as to what has 
happened to the operation of the Senate.
  When I came to this world's greatest deliberative body some 28 years 
ago, the tradition of the Senate had been maintained that any Senator 
could offer virtually any amendment on any bill at any time. That was 
the great unique quality of the Senate and the ability of any Senator 
to offer an amendment to call public attention to an important issue, 
to have the floor of the Senate to publicize the issue and to move for 
the enactment of legislation. But what has happened, surprisingly only 
in the last 15 years--and it has happened by majority leaders of both 
parties--is that a procedure has been

[[Page 16783]]

adopted on what is called filling the tree. That is an arcane 
expression, known only inside the Beltway. But let me explain it.
  When a bill is on the agenda, it is the prerogative of the majority 
leader to call for action of the Senate. Then the majority leader, 
under Senate practice and custom, has the right of first recognition. 
So that the rule that the first Senator to ask for recognition gets the 
recognition is true, unless the majority leader has sought recognition. 
On cases of a tie, it is the majority leader. As a matter of practice, 
nobody challenges the majority leader's right to first recognition. So 
after the bill is before the Senate, the majority leader then offers an 
amendment. Then he offers another amendment. Without going into all of 
the details, a procedure is adopted where no other Senator can offer an 
amendment.
  What has happened on global warming, for example, where I came to the 
floor and outlined four amendments which I intended to offer on a very 
important bill, I was precluded from offering them, because the Senate 
majority leader had taken action to put this procedure in effect on so-
called filling the tree. The FAA bill came up, which had funding for a 
new satellite system for air safety. I had amendments to offer, very 
important for my State, on overflights from the Philadelphia 
International Airport and for scheduling issues, where the airport was 
overscheduled, leading to long delays; people, myself included, sitting 
on the tarmac waiting to take off.
  The tearing that I undertake is a result, for those who see me wiping 
my eyes, not for any sorrow about what I am doing but a consequence of 
having Hodgkin's. It makes a fellow pale and thin. Tough but tolerable, 
as I put it, and I have been able to stay on the job. But if anybody is 
watching on C-SPAN 2, which is highly doubtful, they may wonder why I 
am tearing. I am not crying. I am tearing because of the impact of all 
of the chemicals from the treatment of Hodgkin's.
  At any rate, I was commenting about the Philadelphia airport. This 
affects the State of New Jersey. The Presiding Officer is a Senator 
from the State of New Jersey. You sit on the tarmac at the Philadelphia 
airport for a long time because they are overbooked. It is like a 
restaurant that has 100 seats and they put in 150 patrons. Well, you 
can't get your table on a reservation. You have a flight leaving at 7 
a.m. You wait until many other planes have left. Or when you land, the 
airport is overbooked, and it is not a very pleasant sensation to 
circle the city of Philadelphia for a long period of time in the fog 
and in the rain, wondering how good those air controllers are. They are 
pretty good, but it is something you wonder about in any event.
  We weren't able to offer amendments on the FAA bill. We haven't been 
able to offer amendments on the oil speculators bill. The headlines in 
the newspapers over the weekend were: Republicans block oil speculators 
bill. They recited the Senators from the Philadelphia region, and they 
noted that the distinguished Senator who is presiding now, Senator 
Menendez, voted in favor of advancing the bill, as did Senator 
Lautenberg, as did Senator Casey, as did Senator Carper, as did Senator 
Biden. Only Arlen Specter voted not to advance the bill. You don't get 
the picture in a short story. You don't get the picture in the 
recitation of the vote that I voted against cloture because neither I 
nor any other Senator had the opportunity to offer amendments. So that 
if we get to that point, I am conflicted as to what to do. But I don't 
think we will face that tomorrow with the motion to proceed. I am 
hopeful we will pass that by a very substantial majority.
  There have been opponents who have come to the floor to debate this 
bill. It is important to note that as a result of the hearings which 
were held when I was chairman, Senator Kyl stated there have been no 
hearings on this bill in the 110th Congress. Well, when I chaired the 
Judiciary Committee in the 109th Congress in 2005 and 2006, we had 
three hearings on the subject and went into the issue in some detail. 
Senator Kyl said the Government could not get information to 
investigate an act of terrorism. That is not so. The bill states 
specifically that it is reasonably likely to stop, prevent, or mitigate 
any, or identify the perpetrator of an act of international terrorism 
or domestic terrorism, there will be no shield.
  Those who have raised objections to the bill have been taken into 
account. The bill has been substantially improved.
  For example, the bill now explicitly states that sensitive 
governmental information will not be disclosed in open court. The 
provisions have always been subjected to the Classified Information 
Protection Act. It had always been available to prosecutors. But when 
the concern was raised, we put in the specific provision that a 
``Federal court may receive and consider submissions from the parties 
in camera or under seal, and where the court determines appropriate, ex 
parte'' in order to protect sensitive information.
  The bill further provides that the definition of a covered person has 
been narrowed to ensure it protects only legitimate journalists. The 
definition of the Second Circuit has been adopted. That definition has 
worked very well. It requires that the individual have the intent to 
distribute the information to the public and that he or she had such 
intent at the time that he or she gathered the information.
  The provision also provides that even if terrorists pose as 
journalists, they do not qualify for the act's protections. The 
modifications create an expedited appeals process, ensuring that 
litigation regarding whether the privilege applies will be quickly 
resolved.
  This is motivated by the case involving USA Today reporter, Tony 
Loci, who was held in contempt of court and fined $5,000 a day. The 
judge entered an order that her employer or friends and relatives could 
not pay it. Fortunately for Tony Loci, that case was settled so the 
contempt citation did not stand.
  Numerous journalists across the country have seen what happened to 
Tony Loci and Judith Miller. It has had a very chilling effect on their 
activities. People who might give sensitive information under the 
promises of confidentiality are reluctant to share that information.
  Also, under the revisions, prosecutors will not have to prove they 
have exhausted all other options for finding the information or the 
information is essential to their investigation.
  So what we have, in essence, is very important legislation. It is 
very important to the functioning of the democracy that there be a free 
press to report to the American people what has happened, especially on 
investigative reporting. You cannot have a free press if a reporter 
cannot obtain information from a confidential source, promise 
confidentiality, and then deliver. And you cannot have a free press if 
people such as Tony Loci and Judith Miller are subjected to contempt 
citations--large fines with Tony Loci, actual imprisonment with Judith 
Miller of some 85 days.
  So this bill is long past due. I am glad to see it brought to the 
floor. I am hopeful the majority leader will not pursue a course of 
filling the tree to preclude amendments. I am hopeful we can return to 
the day when the Senate regains its luster as the world's greatest 
deliberative body, which means that any 1 of the other 99 Senators can 
offer amendments, and that it is not just the one Senator, the senior 
Senator from Nevada, who has the position of majority leader, who can, 
in effect, dictate what happens in the Senate.
  Yesterday, we had a heated exchange on the floor. When we finished 
voting on the cloture motion, the majority leader refused to allow a 
quorum call to be taken off. If anyone may be watching on C-SPAN, a 
quorum call is when there is the absence of a quorum. There are 
frequent quorum calls when no one seeks recognition. But it is a 
relatively infrequent occurrence that there is quorum. A quorum means 
51 or more Senators. Right now, we are 50 Senators short of a quorum. 
Most of the time, you only have a few Senators on the floor who may be 
speaking--three or four. When there are votes, there are many Senators 
on the floor.
  But it is a relatively rare occurrence that a quorum is present. So 
if someone suggests there is an absence of a

[[Page 16784]]

quorum, there is a quorum call. And a quorum call cannot be taken off 
except by unanimous consent or to have a live quorum or to have a 
motion for the attendance of absent Senators.
  But, invariably, when there is a quorum call and someone asks 
unanimous consent--or virtually invariably--it is granted unless 
somebody wants to hold up an action on something that is pending. But I 
have not seen, in my tenure in the Senate, a denial of an application 
to eliminate the quorum call so speeches can be made.
  I and other Senators were waiting for more than an hour. And in 
conjunction with what the majority leader has done on filling the tree 
in denying 99 other Senators--mostly minority Senators--the right to 
offer amendments and refusing to allow the quorum to be lifted, I used 
the word ``tyrannical,'' and I stand by that.
  This body is a great body and has earned great prestige worldwide and 
I think has earned the stature of the world's greatest deliberative 
body because of the ability of Senators to offer amendments and the 
ability of Senators to speak. To be on this floor in a quorum call and 
to be denied an opportunity to speak is not quite a denial of my first-
amendment rights. I can go to the Radio and TV Gallery and call a news 
conference or walk out and talk to reporters or go on the steps. But 
having been elected to the Senate, and having a commission to serve 
here, when no one is on the floor speaking, and there is no reason why 
I ought to be denied an opportunity to speak except for the 
technicality of a quorum call, I take umbrage at it. It is just one 
indication of how we have to go back to the--well, you might call them 
the old days. Maybe they were good old days, where the Senate 
functioned with every Senator being able to offer amendments.
  A critical part of the functioning of our Government, I suggest, is 
the ability of the free press to function and reporters to get 
confidential information, to be able to promise confidentiality and to 
be able to deliver without being fearful of being held in contempt of 
court and being put in jail.
  Mr. President, before yielding the floor, I ask unanimous consent 
that the full text of a substitute be printed in the Record, which 
contains the modifications referred to in the course of my oral 
statement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Free Flow of Information Act 
     of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE FROM COVERED PERSONS.

       (a) Conditions for Compelled Disclosure.--In any proceeding 
     or in connection with any issue arising under Federal law, a 
     Federal entity may not compel a covered person to comply with 
     a subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process 
     seeking to compel the production of protected information, 
     unless a Federal court in the jurisdiction in which the 
     subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process has 
     been or would be issued determines, by a preponderance of the 
     evidence, after providing notice and an opportunity to be 
     heard to such covered person--
       (1) that the party seeking to compel production of such 
     protected information has exhausted all reasonably known 
     alternative sources of the protected information; and
       (2) that--
       (A) in a criminal investigation or prosecution--
       (i) there are reasonable grounds to believe, based on 
     information obtained from a source other than the covered 
     person, that a crime has occurred;
       (ii) there are reasonable grounds to believe, based on 
     information obtained from a source other than the covered 
     person, that the protected information sought is essential to 
     the investigation or prosecution or to the defense against 
     the prosecution; and
       (iii) nondisclosure of the information would be contrary to 
     the public interest, taking into account both the interest in 
     compelling disclosure (including the extent of any harm to 
     national security) and the public interest in gathering and 
     disseminating the information or news conveyed and 
     maintaining the free flow of information; or
       (B) in a matter other than a criminal investigation or 
     prosecution--
       (i) based on information obtained from a source other than 
     the covered person, the protected information sought is 
     essential to the resolution of the matter; and
       (ii) the interest in disclosure clearly outweighs the 
     public interest in gathering and disseminating the 
     information or news conveyed and maintaining the free flow of 
     information.
       (b) Limitations on Demand for Protected Information.--A 
     subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process 
     seeking protected information that is compelled under 
     subsection (a) shall, to the extent possible be narrowly 
     tailored in purpose, subject matter, and period of time 
     covered so as to avoid compelling production of peripheral, 
     nonessential, or speculative information.

     SEC. 3. EXCEPTION RELATING TO EYEWITNESS OBSERVATION OR 
                   CRIMINAL OR TORTIOUS CONDUCT BY THE COVERED 
                   PERSON.

       (a) In General.--Section 2 shall not apply to any protected 
     information obtained as the result of the eyewitness 
     observations by a covered person of alleged criminal conduct 
     or the commission of alleged criminal or tortious conduct by 
     the covered person, including any physical evidence or visual 
     or audio recording of the observed conduct.
       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) In general.--This section shall not apply, and section 
     2 shall apply, if the alleged criminal or tortious conduct is 
     the act of communicating information to a covered person.
       (2) Classified information.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), 
     this section shall not apply, and section 5 shall apply, if 
     the alleged criminal or tortious conduct is an unauthorized 
     release of properly classified information.

     SEC. 4. EXCEPTION TO PREVENT AN ACT OF TERRORISM, DEATH, 
                   KIDNAPPING, SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR, OR 
                   SUBSTANTIAL BODILY INJURY.

       (a) In General.--Section 2 shall not apply to any protected 
     information that a Federal court finds is reasonably likely 
     to stop, prevent, or mitigate, or identify the perpetrator 
     of, an act of international terrorism or domestic terrorism, 
     as those terms are defined in section 2331 of title 18, 
     United States Code.
       (b) Other Activities.--Section 2 shall not apply to any 
     protected information that a Federal court finds is 
     reasonably likely to stop, prevent, or mitigate a specific 
     case of--
       (1) death;
       (2) kidnapping;
       (3) substantial bodily harm;
       (4) conduct that would violate section 2251 or section 2252 
     of title 18, United States Code (relating to the sexual 
     exploitation of children and child pornography); or
       (5) incapacitation or destruction of critical 
     infrastructure (as defined in section 1016(e) of the USA 
     PATRIOT Act (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e))).

     SEC. 5. EXCEPTION TO PREVENT HARM TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY.

       Section 2 shall not apply to any protected information, and 
     a Federal court shall compel the disclosure of such protected 
     information, if the court--
       (1) finds that the protected information--
       (A) would assist in stopping or preventing significant and 
     articulable harm to national security; or
       (B) relates to an unauthorized release of properly 
     classified information that has caused or will cause 
     significant and articulable harm to the national security; 
     and
       (2) takes into account the balancing of the harm described 
     in paragraph (1) against the public interest in gathering and 
     disseminating the information or news conveyed.

     SEC. 6. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE FROM COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 
                   PROVIDERS.

       (a) Conditions for Compelled Disclosure.--If any document 
     or other information from the account of a person who is 
     known to be, or reasonably likely to be, a covered person is 
     sought from a communications service provider, sections 2 
     through 5 shall apply in the same manner that such sections 
     apply to any document or information sought from a covered 
     person.
       (b) Notice and Opportunity Provided to Covered Persons.--A 
     Federal court may compel the disclosure of a document or 
     other information described in subsection (a) only after the 
     covered person from whose account such document or other 
     information is sought has been given--
       (1) notice of the subpoena, court order, or other 
     compulsory legal process for such document or other 
     information from the communications service provider not 
     later than the time at which such subpoena, court order, or 
     other compulsory legal process is issued to the 
     communications service provider; and
       (2) an opportunity to be heard by the court.
       (c) Exception to Notice Requirement.--Upon motion by a 
     Federal entity, notice and opportunity to be heard under 
     subsection (b) may be delayed for not more than 45 days if 
     the court determines that there is substantial basis for 
     believing that such notice would pose a substantial threat to 
     the integrity of a criminal or national security 
     investigation or intelligence gathering, or that exigent 
     circumstances exist. This period may be extended by the court 
     for an additional period of not more than 45 days each time 
     the court makes such a determination.

[[Page 16785]]



     SEC. 7. SOURCES AND WORK PRODUCT PRODUCED WITHOUT PROMISE OR 
                   AGREEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY.

       Nothing in this Act shall supersede, dilute, or preempt any 
     law or court decision regarding a subpoena, court order, or 
     other compulsory legal process relating to disclosure by a 
     covered person or communications service provider of--
       (1) information identifying a source who provided 
     information without a promise or agreement of confidentiality 
     made by the covered person; or
       (2) records or other information, or contents of a 
     communication obtained without a promise or agreement that 
     such records, other information, or contents of a 
     communication would be confidential.

     SEC. 8. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND APPEAL.

       (a) Conditions for Ex Parte Review or Submissions Under 
     Seal.--With regard to any determination made by a Federal 
     court under this Act, upon a showing of good cause, that 
     Federal court may receive and consider submissions from the 
     parties in camera or under seal, and if the court determines 
     it is necessary, ex parte.
       (b) Contempt of Court.--With regard to any determination 
     made by a Federal court under this Act, a Federal court may 
     find a covered person to be in civil or criminal contempt if 
     the covered person fails to comply with an order of a Federal 
     court compelling disclosure of protected information.
       (c) To Provide for Timely Determination.--With regard to 
     any determination to be made by a Federal court under this 
     Act, that Federal court, to the extent practicable, shall 
     make that determination not later than 30 days after the date 
     of receiving a motion requesting the court make that 
     determination.
       (d) Expedited Appeal Process.--
       (1) In general.--The courts of appeal shall have 
     jurisdiction--
       (A) of appeals by a Federal entity or covered person of an 
     interlocutory order of a Federal court under this Act; and
       (B) in an appeal of a final decision of a Federal court by 
     a Federal entity or covered person, to review any 
     determination of a Federal court under this Act.
       (2) Expedition of appeals.--It shall be the duty of a 
     Federal court to which an appeal is made under this 
     subsection to advance on the docket and to expedite to the 
     greatest possible extent the disposition of that appeal.

     SEC. 9. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to--
       (1) preempt any State law relating to defamation, slander, 
     or libel;
       (2) modify the requirements of section 552a of title 5, 
     United States Code, or Federal laws or rules relating to 
     grand jury secrecy (except that this Act shall apply in any 
     proceeding and in connection with any issue arising under 
     that section or the Federal laws or rules relating to grand 
     jury secrecy);
       (3) preclude a plaintiff from asserting a claim of 
     defamation against a covered person, regardless of whether 
     the claim is raised in a State or Federal court; or
       (4) create new obligations, or affect or modify the 
     authorities or obligations of a Federal entity with respect 
     to the acquisition or dissemination of information pursuant 
     to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
     U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

     SEC. 10. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Communications service provider.--The term 
     ``communications service provider''--
       (A) means a person that transmits information of the 
     customer's choosing by electronic means; and
       (B) includes a telecommunications carrier, an information 
     service provider, an interactive computer service provider, 
     and an information content provider (as such terms are 
     defined in sections 3 or 230 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 153 and 230)).
       (2) Covered person.--The term ``covered person''--
       (A) means a person who--
       (i) with the primary intent to investigate events and 
     procure material in order to disseminate to the public news 
     or information concerning local, national, or international 
     events or other matters of public interest, regularly 
     gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, 
     edits, reports, or publishes on such matters by--

       (I) conducting interviews;
       (II) making direct observation of events; or
       (III) collecting reviewing or analyzing original writings, 
     statements, communications, reports, memoranda, records, 
     transcripts, documents, photographs, recordings, tapes, 
     materials, data or other information whether in paper, 
     electronic or other form; and

       (ii) has such intent at the inception of the newsgathering 
     process;
       (B) includes a supervisor, employer, parent company, 
     subsidiary, or affiliate of such person; and
       (C) does not include any person--
       (i) who is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, 
     or as to whom there is probable cause to believe that the 
     person is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as 
     those terms are defined in section 101 of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801);
       (ii) who is a foreign terrorist organization designated 
     under section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1189(a));
       (iii) who is designated as a Specially Designated Global 
     Terrorist by the Department of the Treasury under Executive 
     Order Number 13224 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note);
       (iv) who is 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
       (v) who is 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)).
       (3) Document.--The term ``document'' means writings, 
     recordings, and photographs, as those terms are defined by 
     rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (28 U.S.C. App.).
       (4) Federal entity.--The term ``Federal entity'' means an 
     entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an 
     administrative agency of the Federal Government with the 
     power to issue a subpoena, court order, or issue other 
     compulsory legal process.
       (5) Properly classified information.--The term ``properly 
     classified information'' means information or documents that 
     have been classified in accordance with Executive Orders, 
     statutes, applicable procedures, and regulations regarding 
     classification of information or documents.
       (6) Protected information.--The term ``protected 
     information'' means--
       (A) information identifying a source who provided 
     information under a promise or agreement of confidentiality 
     made by a covered person; or
       (B) any records, contents of a communication, documents, or 
     information that a covered person obtained or created upon a 
     promise or agreement that such records, contents of a 
     communication, documents, or information would be 
     confidential.
         Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to maintain the 
     free flow of information to the public by prescribing 
     conditions under which Federal entities may compel disclosure 
     of confidential information from journalists.''.

  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________