Protect Reporters From Exploitative State Spying Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4250, the Protect Reporters from Exploitive State Spying Act, or the PRESS Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume in support of this bill.

Introduced by my colleagues, Representatives Kevin Kiley, Darrell Issa, Harriet Hageman, Russell Fry, Jamie Raskin, and Ted Lieu, H.R. 4250 is a reporter shield law that will ensure that journalists can engage in effective journalism while reducing the risks of putting themselves, or their confidential sources upon whom they rely to bring critical stories to the public's attention, in legal jeopardy.

Specifically, H.R. 4250 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.

The bill also allows the government to defeat this privilege under certain circumstances where a court determines that the disclosure is necessary to prevent or identify any perpetrator of an act of terrorism or to prevent a threat of imminent violence, significant bodily harm or death, and then only after the journalist is provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court.

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. The government can defeat this privilege only if a court determines that there is a reasonable threat of imminent violence absent the information's disclosure and subject to notice and other requirements and exceptions.

Lastly, the PRESS Act contains a rule of construction that provides that the act should not be construed to apply to civil defamation, slander, libel claims, or defenses under State law. The rule of construction also makes clear that the act does not prevent the Federal Government from pursuing an investigation of a journalist or organization that is suspected of engaging in criminal or terrorist activity, is a witness to a crime unrelated to journalism, or is suspected of being an agent of a foreign power.

This is necessary and long-overdue legislation. Over the past several decades, Democratic and Republican Presidential administrations have attempted to crack down on leaks of classified information to media outlets, and these investigations have included efforts to obtain journalists' records.

In 2021, 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. Previously, during the Obama administration, the Department reportedly searched FOX News reporter Jeffrey Rosen's emails and even listed him as a co-conspirator in an Espionage Act case against the source of leaked information.

These and other recent episodes further illustrate the need for stronger protections for journalists and their sources.

Indeed, one of the most critical roles that the free press plays in our democracy is to keep the public informed about the functioning of government and the policymaking process, including allegations of government wrongdoing or incompetence. Yet, the press' ability to carry out this role would be seriously eroded if a reporter could not obtain complete and accurate information about such wrongdoing or incompetence by assuring confidential sources their anonymity.

The PRESS Act would protect a journalist's ability to bring these important stories to the public's attention, stories which almost always hinge on protecting the identity of confidential sources without unwarranted interference by the Federal Government.

The lack of a Federal press shield law is quite striking given the broad and bipartisan support for such laws.

Currently, over 40 States and the District of Columbia have enacted press shield laws or otherwise afford similar privileges through their State constitutions or common law.

Here in Congress, there is longstanding and bipartisan support for a Federal press shield law. For example, former Vice President Mike Pence, when he was a Member of Congress back in 2005, introduced the Free Flow of Information Act, which was very similar in concept to H.R. 4250.

The Free Flow of Information Act subsequently passed the House twice in the 110th and the 111th Congresses, the first time by a 398-21 vote, and the second time by voice vote under suspension of the rules.

Last Congress, the House passed the PRESS Act by voice vote under suspension of the rules, as well.

In this Congress, the bill passed the Judiciary Committee by a 23-0 vote, and, unfortunately, despite this history of broad bipartisan support, the Senate has never acted on any of these bills, though hope springs eternal.

I am encouraged that, even as stark differences among Members of this body remain, this important legislation continues to enjoy bipartisan support.

I thank Chairman Jordan for his work in helping to bring H.R.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the PRESS Act is endorsed by a number of First Amendment and press freedom organizations, including the ACLU, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Demand Progress, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the First Amendment Coalition, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, the National Association of Broadcasters, PEN America, the Protect The 1st Foundation, the Radio Television Digital News Association, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4250, a necessary and long overdue Federal protection for journalists and their sources.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source