[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 3734]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE PENCE

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 11, 2009

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, in October 2007, the House of 
Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Free Flow of Information Act, 
legislation that would provide a qualified privilege to journalists to 
shield confidential sources from compelled disclosure by a federal 
court. I am pleased to join over 30 of my colleagues today in 
reintroducing that same legislation that previously garnered 398 votes 
here on the House floor. Today, we take up the mantle and renew the 
push to make this bill law.
  I am honored to be joined by my distinguished colleague Congressman 
Rick Boucher, who is such a tireless advocate for the First Amendment. 
Also, we are pleased to have Chairman Conyers and Reps. Coble, Walden, 
Blunt, Goodlatte, Lofgren, Wexler, Yarmuth and many others as original 
cosponsors. This is truly a bipartisan issue. It is a First Amendment 
issue, and I thank these Members for their leadership. They are truly 
champions for a free press.
  Enshrined in the First Amendment are these words: ``Congress shall 
make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.''
  As a conservative who believes in limited government, I know the only 
check on government power in real time is a free and independent press. 
The Free Flow of Information Act is not about protecting reporters; it 
is about protecting the public's right to know. Our Founders did not 
enshrine the freedom of the press in the Constitution because they got 
good press. And, I am certainly not advocating a free and independent 
press because I always get good press.
  We all remember when not long ago a confidential source brought to 
light abuses at the highest levels of government in the long national 
nightmare of Watergate. History records that W. Mark Felt never would 
have come forward without the assurance made to him of confidentiality.
  But, thirty-plus years later the press cannot make that assurance to 
sources, and we face the real danger that there may never be another 
Deep Throat. The protections provided by the Free Flow of Information 
Act are necessary so that members of the media can bring forward 
information to the American public without fear of retribution or 
prosecution.
  In recent years, we have famously seen reporters such as Judith 
Miller jailed and David Ashenfelter, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance 
Williams threatened with jail sentences. They are a few names among 
many who have been subpoenaed for taking a stand for the First 
Amendment and refusing to reveal confidential sources.
  Compelling reporters to testify, and in particular, compelling them 
to reveal the identity of their confidential sources, is a detriment to 
the public interest. Without the promise of confidentiality, many 
important conduits of information about our government will be shut 
down. The dissemination of information by the media to the public on 
matters ranging from the operation of our government to events in our 
local communities is invaluable to the operation of our democracy. 
Without the free flow of information from sources to reporters, the 
public is ill-equipped to make informed decisions.
  Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia have various statutes 
that protect reporters from being compelled to testify or disclose 
sources and information in court. Thirteen states have protections for 
reporters as a result of judicial decisions. The Free Flow of 
Information Act would set national standards similar to those that are 
in effect in the states.
  The Free Flow of Information Act closely follows existing Department 
of Justice guidelines for issuing subpoenas to members of the news 
media. It simply makes the guidelines mandatory and provides protection 
against compelled disclosure of confidential sources. In doing so, this 
legislation strikes a balance between the public interest in the free 
flow of information against the public interest in compelling testimony 
in highly limited circumstances such as situations involving grave risk 
to national security or imminent threat of bodily harm.
  Abraham Lincoln said, ``Give the people the facts and the Republic 
will be saved.'' The Free Flow of Information Act is designed to ensure 
that the American people have the facts that they need to make choices 
as an informed electorate.
  A free and independent press is the only agency in America that has 
complete freedom to hold government accountable. Integrity in 
government is not a Democratic or Republican issue, and corruption 
cannot be laid at the feet of one party. When scandal hits either 
party, any branch of government, or any institution in our society, it 
wounds our nation.
  As a conservative, I believe that concentrations of power should be 
subject to great scrutiny. The longer I serve in Congress, the more 
firmly I believe in the wisdom of our Founders--especially as it 
pertains to the First Amendment and freedom of the press. It is 
imperative that we preserve the transparency and integrity of American 
government, and the only way to do that is by preserving a free and 
independent press.
  Thomas Jefferson warned that, ``Our liberty cannot be guarded but by 
the freedom of the press, nor that limited without danger of losing 
it.''
  This Congress would be wise to take those words to heart. Now is the 
time to heed the advice of Mr. Jefferson.
  I believe there are bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate 
sufficient to enact this bill this year. President Obama pledged his 
support for a federal media shield during his service in the Senate.
  With the bipartisan support of my colleagues in Congress and the 
President, I believe the time has come to stitch this tear in the First 
Amendment freedom of the press.

                          ____________________