Of Confidential Sources. In february a federal judge felt held Catherine Herridge in civil contempt for failing to divulge resources. The house judiciary subcommittee hearing is just over 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations] the subcommittee will come to order. Without objection the chair has authorized to declare a recess at anytime. We welcome everybody to todays hearing on a the subcommittee will come to order. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. We welcome everybody to todays hearing on the free press and protecting journalists. I will remind everybody that the guests in the chamber our guests and you are free to be here, but this is no audience participation. This is a hearing and we will conducted accordingly. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press. That cannot be limited without being lost. Those words were true when Thomas Jefferson wrote them in 1786 and they are still true today. The First Amendment to the constitution guarantees freedom of the press and prohibits the federal government from making any law abridging that freedom. The New York Times versus United States justice hugo black stated in the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press is to serve the government, not the governors. Freedom of the press is the most important political liberty and the keystone upon which other freedoms rely. As is still the case today journalists are often the first to expose government abuse, waste fraud and encroachments on personal freedoms we hold dear. Freedom of the press is under attack in our country from multiple angles. The white house, judges, and Mainstream Media networks. For example, the Obama White House illegally spied on investigative journalist Cheryl Atkinson by allegedly hacking into her cell phone and computer to it determine the identity of a confidential source. We also saw the Obama Administration take an adversarial position regarding freedom of the press when it sought to silence anybody blowing the whistle on waste and abuse by season the phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors who use source material to write stories. The records were not just those owned by the Associated Press but also personal cell phones. The seizure of these records was such an alarming stop by the federal government that a coalition of 50 organizations including abc, cnn, the New York Times and Washington Post submitted a letter of protest to then attorney general eric holder about the raid. It stated that the Administration Actions called into question the integrity of the department of justice of the president s ability to balance on its own its powers against the First Amendment rights of the news media, Public Interest, and reporting on matter of conduct. The war on free press showed us that executive interference has a Chilling Effect that disincentive isis whistleblowers and sources from coming forward with critical information. That chilling and eventually freezing out harms the quality and integrity of journalism on a major scale. We have seen the biden and Garland Justice Department arrest and prosecute a journalist who is reporting from the u. S. Capitol building on january 6 on the events that took place inside. We also recently saw a federal court order. Catherine herridge to identify a confidential source and hold her in contempt when she exercised her First Amendment right to maintain confidentiality. First amendment advocates on both sides of the aisle have warned that Government Action such as this could have devastating consequences for a free press. Around the same time cbs news terminated miscarriages employment and took unprecedented action in regards to her belongings including source materials. Cbs news officials reportedly boxed up and seized some of the materials in her office including her files and laptop computer. With the intent to search through items to segregate materials she developed or worked on for cbs news. Cbs news searched through the materials threatening to trample on her First Amendment rights and could have divulged Confidential Sources stemming from her previous work with other networks. Along those same lines we have seen the federal government seek to impermissibly shape news stories, even coercing social Media Companies to censor or remove content on their platforms related to foreign influence peddling by the president and his family. This hearing is about defending fundamental liberty and protecting journalists and their sources from these attacks. We will examine the infringement on freedom of the press and examine the prospects for a federal shield law. On july 19, 2023, the House Committee on judiciary with a vote of 230, that does not often happen, 230 favorably reported on the protect reports from explicated state spying or press act. In january the full house passed the act by a voice vote. The act was written to prohibit the federal government from compelling journalists to identify a source as well as any record, content, communication documents created by journalists in the course of their work. The significance cannot be understated. It ensures a free press independent from an executive branch that seems to attack or harass journalists to identify their Confidential Sources. Now that the house has done its job and stood up to fight for the freedom of the press it is now the senates turn to take up this legislation and continue the commitment to protecting fundamental freedoms. Our constitutional guarantee of a free press is under attack. It is our job to stand up to that right and protect journalists and their sources. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses who will all bring unique personal and professional perspectives to this important issue. Please note that a joint schedule of congress is scheduled for 11 00 a. M. And the committee will recess for the duration of the session and get back in shortly after. I now yield to the Ranking Member for her opening statement. Thank you. The necessity for an guarantee of a free press is one of the fundamental pillars of our democratic republic, predating an inspiring both our constitution and the First Amendment. We all know that it is democracy only truly works when its citizens are properly informed. A free press contributes to this goal by ensuring truth and accountability from those in power. A free press informs the American People of important policy issues and Government Actions that may impact their lives and can reveal incompetence, corruption, deceit, fraud, or bad faith by political candidates and Government Officials. Thus attempts by government actors and wouldbe leaders to undermine the press promoting conspiracy theories and lies, attacking members of the press with whom they disagree or undermining the ability of the press to obtain Vital Information are an assault on the pillars of our democratic foundation. Particularly one way this occurs is when the government seems to compel journalist to disclose the identity of Confidential Sources. I think it is important at the outset to talk about the different ways where the government can compel. It is one thing for the government to seek access to Confidential Sources. It is another when the court is enforcing the law that is written because congress has not acted to create a shield law. Confidential sources provide crucial information that helps reporters to share full and impactful stories with the public and government attempts to undermine the confidentiality of those sources he roads the ability to perform that function. If the press cannot protected sources, important truths may never come to light and americans in our democracy suffer. Unfortunately under both republican and democratic administrations going back decades, we have seen the government in attempts to crack down on leaks sees phone and email records from journalists or seek to compel them to reveal the identities of their sources. For example, the Trump Administration department of justice ceased phone records from three Washington Post reporters and try to obtain their emails in an attempt to identify Confidential Sources. The trump doj similarly attempted to obtain these types of records from reporters at cnn and the New York Times and that is on top of the administrations other troubling threats to press freedom such as tracking, detaining and interrogating journalists reporting on conditions at the u. S. Mexico border. In response to these and other instances, the house four time since 2007 passed with overwhelming bipartisan support a federal reporter shield law. That is legislation to protect journalists and protect the government from compelling them to reveal Confidential Sources with certain exceptions. In fact, former Vice President mike pence than a member of the committee introduced such legislation in 2005. More recently representatives kevin kiley and jamie raskin helped to spearhead passage of 4252 protect reporters from exploitation. As mention that past the house to unanimously under suspension of the rules. That is, as the chairman noted after this committee had reported it favorably by a bipartisan 230 vote. The press act would among other things create a qualified federal statutory privilege that protects journalists from being compelled by a federal entity to reveal Confidential Sources and information. The bill also protects Third Party Service provider such as Telecommunications Carriers and Interactive Computer Services from being compelled by the government to reveal information on a journalist account or device. Unfortunately despite the house repeatedly and with strong bipartisan support passing some sort of federal reporter shield legislation the senate has yet to act. Todays hearing should be an opportunity to spur the senate to action. We are concerned that our republican colleagues appear to have squandered that chance and instead are trying to crank up some right wings conspiracy theories. Make no mistake. We intend to move forward and try to promote both the press act and constitutional protections. There is little evidence of ideological bias at cbs news as has been suggested. Even if those allegations are True Congress would whisk exceeding its authority by intervening. Private is organizations whether cbs, msnbc or fox speak through their journalist employees. Of congress tried to punish or shape News Coverage either directly through legislation or indirectly through a pressure campaign, it would run afoul of the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment and potentially violate the News Organization free speech rights and the right to editorial control over its own content. So today we hope to inquire further from our witnesses about the importance of the federal shield act and why it is long past time for congress to enact. Our democracy is already under assault on numerous fronts and we should not be adding fuel to the fire. Lets focus on something that would actually protect press freedom and would be completely within our Article One Authority and duties and lets talk about the critical need for federal reporter shield legislation. I think our witnesses for being here and yield back. The committee will be in order. I think the Ranking Member the gentle lady from pennsylvania, miss scanlan for her statement. I now turn to mr. Jordan for his statement. Its not just the press that is under the attack every single liberty ian joy has been assaulted in the last couple years. Your right to assemble, right to petition the government, free press, free speech every right we enjoy. A couple years ago americans were told they could not go to church on sunday. Think about that. I spoke to the new Mexico Republican party in amarillo, texas. They had to go to texas to assemble because they cannot do it in their own state where they pay taxes because the government wouldnt let them. You want to petition the government you could not do it at congress because the speaker would not let you in. Your own darn capitol that you pay for. The most important are free press and free speech. We will hear about the press today and what has happened to two of our witnesses how the press went after miss atkinson and what happened to miss herridge. I went to the argument and from the Supreme Court. We had a justice on the United StatesSupreme Court. This was the censorship case and something this committee has spent a lot of time on with big tech in academia to censor speech, not just conservative speech. All speech. That is frightening. We went to the Supreme Court and one of the justices said to the solicitor general from louisiana, counselor, your position has the First Amendment hamstringing the government. That is exactly what it is supposed to do, for goodness sake. This is about the First Amendment and a free press is essential to having a robust First Amendment and free debate in our culture. If you do not have free debate you cannot settle your disputes by arguing and debating, the alternative is frightening. There is no more important hearing than this. I want to thank the chairman and our witnesses for being here. This is of critical importance. This is why we have to pass the press shield act. The house has it. Lets hope the senate and the white house can figure it out. We pass this so we dont have the stuff that is happening to ms. Herridge happening right now. We have members of this committee who were there that day. My colleagues on the other side. We had colleagues on the other side pressuring to diebold his sources in a hearing in congress. To me that is scary as well. This is a critically important hearing with some great witnesses. I look forward to the testimony and questions that follow. With that i yelled back. I will now recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee for his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, over the course of the last two decades, repeated overzealous prosecution has made it clear that Congress Needs to enact the federal reporter shield law. Congress must protect journalists from being compelled to reveal Confidential Sources in order to ensure the free flow of information in matters related to Public Interest. During the 117th congress when i was chairman of the committee we came together with a bipartisan vote to pass the press act which would protect journalists and Confidential Sources from compelled to disclosure except in certain rare circumstances. It later past the house and similar bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately the senate did not act on the bill. I was pleased with the committee under chairman jordans leadership bringing up the press act once again in this congress and the unanimous vote of 230. Again it passed the house by a voice vote. I think even a casual observer of the 118th congress understands just how rare it is for me, chairman jordan and practically the entire house to agree on the need for the same piece of legislation. They have repeatedly come together to advance an Important Role on a bipartisan basis. We continue to share the goal of seeing this legislation become law. That is why it is disappointing that according to news reports this hearing has not really been called to serve as a form for greater support of the bill as the title might suggest. Instead it appears the true purpose is to provide a forum to discuss allegations chairman jordan has made surrounding the termination of one of our witnesses by News Organization and advance a false narrative about media bias. Im sympathetic to anyone who has been abruptly laid off from a job and i understand resentment someone can feel against a former employer. In fact, cbs laid off 800 people. One of whom happen to be a close personal friend of mine. Even if any allegations of so called political bias made today are true, lets be cle