Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2102, Free Flow of Information Act of 2007
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2102, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - October 16, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, 3 years ago this month, I read a newspaper editorial decrying a growing trend of cases where reporters were being subpoenaed and threatened with jail time to reveal confidential sources. The article also lamented how Republicans in Congress would never support such a statute to shield reporters in those cases.
The next day I asked my congressional staff two questions: First, I asked, what's a Federal media shield statute? And next I asked, tell me what I will never do. And it was in that moment of challenge and inquiry that the Free Flow of Information Act was born.
Shortly thereafter I partnered with the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman RICK BOUCHER, the lead sponsor of this legislation today. And the legislation that we will bring to the floor of the House of Representatives this afternoon is a direct result of a bipartisan partnership that has been a singular personal and professional pleasure for me. It is indeed humbling for me to work with Mr. Boucher, Chairman Conyers, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to truly put a stitch in what I believe is a tear in the fabric of the Bill of Rights.
When the Free Flow of Information Act passed out of the Judiciary Committee on August 1, 2007, Mr. Speaker, I was informed that in the past 30-odd years approximately 100 Federal media shield statutes had been introduced in Congress. But the Free Flow of Information Act is the first of those to be passed out of the committee, and it will be the first Federal media shield bill to ever be considered by the House. It is arguable, in fact, that the Free Flow of Information Act is the first Federal legislation regarding the freedom of the press since the words ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press'' were added to the Constitution. As such, and I say humbly, passage of this legislation today would be both momentous and historic.
So what's a conservative like me doing passing a bill that helps reporters? I have been asked that question many times.
It would be Colonel Robert McCormick, the grandson of the founder of the Chicago Tribune, who once said: ``The newspaper is an institution developed by modern civilization to present the news of the day and to furnish that check upon government which no Constitution has ever been able to provide.''
As a conservative who believes in limited government, I believe 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.
Thomas Jefferson warned that ``our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that limited without danger of losing it.'' Today, the Congress has the opportunity to heed President Jefferson's words and take this important step towards strengthening our first amendment, a free and independent press.
Not long ago a reporter's assurance of confidentiality was unquestionable. That assurance led to sources who provided information to journalists who brought forward news of great consequence to the Nation, like Watergate, where government corruption and misdeeds were brought to light by the dogged persistence of Woodward and Bernstein.
However, the press cannot currently make the same assurance of confidentiality to sources today, and we face a real danger that there may never be another Deep Throat. In recent years, reporters like Judith Miller have been jailed, James Taricani placed on house arrest, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams threatened with jail. The protections provided by the Free Flow of
[Page: H11566]
Information Act, I submit, are necessary so that members of the media can bring forward information to the public without fear of retribution or prosecution and, more importantly, so that sources will continue to come forward.
Compelling reporters to testify, and in particular compelling them to reveal the identity of 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 democracy. Without the free flow of information from sources to reporters, the public will be ill prepared to make informed choices.
Which is not to say the press is always without fault, as the chairman of the Rules Committee said just moments ago, or always gets the story right. In fact, President James Madison wrote: ``To the press alone checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs that have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.''
As a conservative, I believe that concentrations of power should be subject to great scrutiny. Integrity in government is not a Democrat or Republican issue, and corruption cannot be laid at the feet of one party. But when scandal hits either party, any branch of government, or any institution, our society is wounded.
The longer I serve in Congress, the more firmly I believe in the wisdom of our Founders, especially as it pertains to the accountability that comes in a free and independent press.
And it is important to note this legislation is not a radical step. Thirty-two States and the District of Columbia have various statutes to protect reporters from being compelled to testify and disclose confidential sources. And the Free Flow of Information Act, I would say to all of my colleagues, has been carefully drafted after reviewing internal Department of Justice guidelines, State shield laws, and gathering input from many talented members on the Judiciary Committee and throughout the Congress. It puts forward only a qualified privilege for journalists to protect sources and strikes an appropriate balance between the public's need for information and the fair administration of justice.
In most instances under our legislation, a reporter will be able to use the shield provided in the bill to refrain from testifying or providing documents. But testimony or documents can be forced under certain circumstances if all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted and the document or testimony is critical to criminal prosecutions. A reporter may also be asked to reveal the identity of a confidential source in very specific and exceptional cases. And the manager's amendment we will consider today will add even additional exceptions.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let my say how humbling it is for me to have played a small role in moving this legislation forward. From my youth I have enjoyed a fascination with freedom and with the American Constitution. I learned early on that freedom's work is never finished, that it falls on each generation of Americans to preserve, protect, and defend our freedom as those who have bequeathed it to us did in their time.
The banner of the Indianapolis Star, the newspaper of record in my home State, quotes a verse from the Bible that reads: ``Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.'' As I opened my Bible this morning for devotions, it was that verse that just happened to be in my daily readings.
[Time: 12:00]
It reminded me that when we do freedom's work, like putting this stitch in a tear in the fabric of the Bill of Rights, His work has truly become our own.
I ask all of my colleagues in both parties to join us today in freedom's unfinished work. Say ``yes'' to a free and independent press. Vote ``yes'' on the Free Flow of Information Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source