>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. >> we believe that you should have access to fast, reliable internet. we are leading the way taking you to 10 g. >> investigative journalist cheryl atkinson and former correspondent catherine herridge were among witnesses testifying before lawmakers regarding the importance of a free press and what congress can do to protect the identity

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 today's 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 today's 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 presidents 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 miscarriage's 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 23-0, that does not often happen, 23-0 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 senate's 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 would-be 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 administration's 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 23-0 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. today's 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. let's focus on something that would actually protect press freedom and would be completely within our article one authority and duties and let's 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. >> it's 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 wouldn't 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 states supreme 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. let's hope the senate and the white house can figure it out. we pass this so we don't 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 jordan's leadership bringing up the press act once again in this congress and the unanimous vote of 23-0. 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. i'm 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, let's be clear i have no reason to believe that they are, congress is not

the forum for these personal grievances to be aired or resolved. as we listen to the testimony today we should remember that news media organizations have their own first amendment rights which include the right to exercise editorial judgment that does or does not get reported as news. news media organizations speak or act through their employees and agents. barring some other unlawful reason for termination, like race or sex discrimination, congress does not have the authority to meddle in the relationship between reporters and their employees -- employee news organizations especially to intervene in a conflict over what story to investigator not to investigate. to do so would in my view run afoul of the first amendment. indeed, some might even say this very hearing is an example of the government job owning the news media over its coverage or lack of coverage of a particular subject and an

improper intrusion into the affairs of the press. the overwhelming bipartisan support for the press act if that is any indication i would hope we have universal agreement that the government should respect the independence of the free press and we should continue our work to protect journalists from being compelled to reveal their sources. that is where the focus should lie. we should be job owning the real barrier to achieving important protection for the press, the united states senate which for the fourth time is sitting on federal report shield legislation the house passed in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i think the ranking member for his opening statement. without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. we will now introduce today's witnesses. catherine herridge. ms. herridge is an award-

winning journalist who most recently served as a senior investigative correspondent for cbs news from 2019 to 2024. deviously she served as the chief intelligence correspondent for fox news from 1996 to 2019. ms. mary cavallaro. she is the chief broadcast officer for the news and broadcast department at sag aftra, a position she has held since 2010. she is responsible for overseeing negotiation and administration of over 250 labor agreements for network and local broadcast employers nationwide. cheryl atkinson. ms. atkinson is a five-time emmy award- winning journalist and recipient of the edward r murrow roared for investigative reporting. she's been a journalist for 30 years and is currently the managing editing host a full measure. ms. nadine johnson. she is the policy director of the first amendment institute of columbia university. she previously worked at penn

america, the state department and in private practice as a patent litigator. we will begin by swearing you in. you please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief still help you god? let the record reflect the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you and please be seated. please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. ms. herridge, you may begin. >> good morning. chairman joining -- jordan, ranking member adler, members of the subcommittee. i am here today with a deep sense of gratitude and humility . i appreciate the subcommittee taking the time to focus again on the importance of protecting

reporter sources and the vital safeguards provided by the press act. as you know in february i was held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose my confidential sources on a national security story. i think my current situation can help put the importance of the press act into context. one of my children asked me if i would go to jail if we would lose our house, i wanted to answer in this united states where we value democracy and the role of the fiber and her free press that it was impossible but i could not offer that insurance. the bipartisan press act which came out of this house committee would put an end the to the sort of legal jeopardy i've experienced firsthand in the federal courts. without the legislation more journalists will run on the uncertainty of the contempt, in the future.

this legislation will provide protections for every working journalist in the united states now and for the next generation. legislation provides strong protections at the federal level for reporters and their sources. it would block litigants and federal government from plying into files except when there is an imminent threat of violence including terrorism and defamation cases. at the state level similar roles are already in place to protect press freedom. it's my sincere hope that the passage of the press act will provide similar protections at the federal level. i hope that i am the last journalist who has to spend two years in the federal courts fighting to protect my confidential sources. my current situation arises from the privacy act lawsuit. i am only a witness in the case. it is not common for these cases to reach the stage of holding a reporter in contempt. when such cases happen they have

profound consequences impacting every journalist in the united states. forcing a reporter to disclose confidential sources would have a crippling effect on investigative journalism. without reliable assurances of confidentiality, sources will not come forward. the first amendment provides protections for the press because an informed electorate is at the foundation of our democracy. if confidential forces are not protected i fear investigative journalism is dead. each day i feel the weight of that responsibility. as you know i was held in contempt of court for upholding the basic journalistic principle and maintaining the pledge of confidentiality to my sources. i have complete respect for the federal court and the judicial process and i'm not here to litigate the case. it will play out before the appellate court in washington, d.c. the fact that i have been fighting in the courts for two years and am now facing potentially crippling fines of

$800 a day to protect my reporting sources underscores the vital importance of the press act. when you go through a major life event salves i have in recent weeks, losing your job, losing your company health insurance, have in your reporting files seized by your former employer and being held in contempt of court gives you clarity. the first amendment, the protection of confidential sources in a free press were my guiding principles. they are my north star. when i was laid off in february and incident reinforced in my mind the importance of protecting confidential sources. cbs news locked me out of the building and seized hundreds of pages of my reporting files including confidential source information. multiple sources said they were concerned that by working with me to expose government corruption and misconduct they

would be identified and exposed. i pushed back and with the public support of my union sag aftra the records were returned. the decision to cease my reporting records crossed a red line that i believe should never be crossed again by any media organization in the future . the litigation and being held in contempt have taken a toll on me and my career. this is not a battle you can fight alone. i'm grateful for the support of fellow journalists and multiple first amendment organizations including the reporters committee for press freedom. the freedom of the press foundation, the coalition for women in journalism, the first amendment institute. the society of professional journalists as well as the columbia journalism school of which i'm a graduate. i've also been fortunate to have support from my former employer as i continue to fight the case..many journalists can count on a former employer in

this case fox news to support a costly and vigorous defense of the first amendment. that is why the press act comes at the right time of independent journalism and news platforms are expanding opportunities for reporting diverse voices that strengthen our democracy. i know that i join many journalists who are encouraged by the recent comments of the senate majority leader chuck schumer who said he hopes to have the legislation through the senate and on the president's desk this year. i deeply appreciate the commitment to this legislation and holding this public hearing. thank you. >> thank you. ms. cavallaro, you may begin. >> good morning. thank you, chairman jordan, subcommittee chairman roy, ranking member nadler, subcommittee ranking member scanlan and distinguished members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on fighting for a free press, protecting journalists and

their sources. my name is mary cavallaro. and the chief broadcast officer for sag aftra, a national union of over 160,000 members that represents professionals in the entertainment and media industries. i'm responsible for overseeing the union collective bargaining agreements with news and broadcast employers across the country. i was invited here today for the purpose of providing testimony in support of the most basic of first amendment principles, protecting journalists from being compelled to reveal their sources and the critical nature of the confidential source relationship. government intrusion upon the relationship between a reporter and their sources undermines the foundation of the freedom of the press. a free press is essential to our democracy. to quote walter cronkite, a longtime sag aftra member, freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy. while sag aftra's core

responsibility is to negotiate, administer and enforce the collective bargaining agreements under which we work, the union is also charged with advocating on behalf of our members for legislation that directly impacts their work and profession. the legislative work has recently focused on artificial intelligence, protecting intellectual property, and restricting noncompete clauses in employment contracts, all of which are important initiatives. for decades, the union has enthusiastically supported the passage of a federal reporter shield law. we thank the house judiciary committee for its leadership on this issue and its bipartisan, unanimous passage of the press act at the committee level. we also thank the entire united states house of representatives for the unanimous passage of this vital legislation in january 2024. we call upon the senate to

expeditiously pass this legislation and send it to president biden for signature. if signed into law it would establish the first federal press shield law in united states history. it will significantly strengthen press freedom by safeguarding journalists and their confidential sources. it creates a federal statutory privilege to shield journalists from being compelled to reveal their controversial sources and prevents law enforcement agencies from abusing subpoena power to access email and phone records. this long overdue legislation represent a significant leap forward. not just for journalists, but for the sanctity of journalism itself and for the constitutional right to freedom of the press. we stand in solidarity with journalists, employers and press advocacy groups that share the common goal of a federal shield law for

journalists. the press act is bipartisan legislation that guarantees and protects the most basic of first amendment principles. the freedom of the press to disseminate information to the public free from government interference of any kind is essential to democracy. protecting the journalist relationship with the source is critical to allowing stories to be told and essential to holding our elected officials and others to account for their action. the press is americas watchdog, responsible for serving the public interest by working to uncover and investigate government and corporate abuse, overreach, and malfeasance. any form of government control over journalists could shield the instinct of a potential source to come forward and tell their stories to journalists, depriving the american people of critical information and the ability to hold those in power publicly accountable. recent events and ongoing litigation involving journalists

and their employers and their shared concern for protecting sources have created some renewed interest and energy around the issue. sag aftra is hopeful that this interest and energy will be used in a productive and non- partisan way to move the press act forward. thank you again for this opportunity to speak before the subcommittee today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. ms. atkinson you may begin. >> good morning. it's an honor to be here and also to get to meet catherine finally. in decades of reporting nationally at cnn, cbs, pbs and my show full measure countless stories that i broke or facets of them could not be reported without sources whose identities needed to be protected. to name just a few, enron, bp oil spill, bank bailout, follow the money investigations on taxpayer spending congressional oversight, fundraising,

prescription drug, haiti earthquake aid, green energy failures, waste and fraud at the red cross, and gauzy and fast and furious. thanks to some information i provided by sources who could not be quoted received recognition from the emmy awards. multiply that by thousands of reporters and countless stories and it's fair to argue that a lot of important facts would never be exposed if journalists could not ensure protection of sensitive source identities. today's managed information landscape exit more difficult for journalists and sources to report on ethical lapses, wrongdoing, and crimes. more often than not the truth teller were named is smeared and ruined while the wrongdoers carry on. they escape accountability and may even get promoted. they have seen what has happened. earth shattering revelations eclipse efforts to distract by controversial icing them.

it makes sense to act what is the impact if we can no longer protect identities? it's not a new concern. years ago after adverse court decision started coming down on this front we began having to consider whether a confidential source and a story would be okay with ultimately having his identity reveal if the judge ordered it. obviously the answer was often no. i can no longer provide assurances to a whistleblower who feared for his career and safety or guarantee protection of his identity. some stories still got done but many became nonstarters. there's no way do quantify what we have lost but there are many who would not say it's having an impact. the press act would generally bar federal agencies from forcing telecommunications firms to turn over records belonging to journalists. it is important to note that some of the most egregious

intrusions on press freedoms don't happen that way. intelligence agencies have been working -- pardon me. i need to clear my throat. our intelligence agencies have been working hand-in-hand with telecommunications firms for decades with billions of dollars in contracts and secretive arrangements. they do not need to ask for permission to access records or those of congress or regular citizens. current efforts to reauthorize sections 702 of the surveillance act relate to this. there is a lengthy record of government surveillance abuses to be found in just the little we've been able to learn about. intelligence officials have misled congress about surveilling citizens, even spying on journalists and political figures. it has been a known problem for decades. the inspector general report in 2020 found the fbi violated procedure safeguards in every

single wiretap audited. in just 29 applications reviewed, there were 409 errors. even when caught and pressed the fbi only fessed up to half of them. it was brushed off as innocent mistakes and poor training as usual. it has been 11 years since cbs news officially announced i was targeted by unauthorized intrusions on my work computer. subsequent forensics found government controlled ip addresses and prove not only did the guilty parties monitor my work in real time they also accessed my files, got into the larger system, planted classified documents in my operating system and were able to listen to my conversations over skype audio. it was clear the department of justice would not hold its own accountable. this is the first that we know one in which journalists spied on by the government received a

default in a surveillance operation. it's a small victory because he was soon reported dead which means we cannot access related to the larger players. besides that i've learned wrongdoers in the federal government have their own laws protecting them from accountability. making sure journalists can protect their sources and do the constitutionally protected job we do is critical. new laws will not necessarily impact dishonest players and government that have proven more than capable of and willing to skirt laws to access the information they want. >> thank you, ms. c-span 3. ms. johnson, you may begin. >> thank you, chairman jordan, ranking member adler, and members of the subcommittee. it is an honor and privilege to present this testimony. this is freedom of press of the digital

age. this is to protecting and promoting a system that serves temporary democracies. these projects focus on fortifying the infrastructure of first amendment law and values to meet 21st-century -- those are fermentable stemming from surveillance tolls in both government and private companies. powerful government and private entities for oversight and accountability. they disseminate news and news like creations. the institute is a leading voice for the first amendment rights of journalists and organizations to publish vital information. our aim is to strengthen the constitutional protections that will minimize the and ensure that news organizations can carry out their vital work. no piece of legislation is exempt from these efforts. this was

introduced in this congress, co- authored by representative raskin and passed by the house. modern newsgathering requires that reporters are able to give insurance of the confidentiality to their sources. protections are essential to the first amendment values. supreme court jurisprudence on the protection of journalist source materials is ambiguous. in the 1972 case on the topic, the court acknowledged that newsgathering is not without first amendment protections, but did not delineate what these protections might be. this has led to confusion about inconsistency in the application. illustrating this is the patrick a federal circuit court tested has emerged in the 52 years since the decision. the differences in approach russell in unpredictability and inconsistency and compromise the ability of journalists to do the work that they need to do.

without strong protections journalists are less likely to be able to engage controversial sources as fewer will come forward. that means the american public is less informed. despite these laws and court recognized reporters, the landscape at the federal government remains meaning congressional action is needed. for these reasons is critical to a free press. this is what it means to be a journalist today. we know that a significant amount of reporting is done by journalists who do not fit a traditional mode. these should be afforded a clear, consistent, predictable protection from policies that account from a range of legitimate journalistic activities. this is critical to preventing misguided attempts to compel

journalists and media outlets to reveal source information, a contravention of their first amendment rights. it would also lead to less uncertainty for journalists and media outlets across the country. they address this issue offering definitions that account today for better detecting and appropriately wide swath with the reporters and activity. this also protects journalist communications ensuring that phone and internet providers are not secretly seized by the government. these are critical to protecting journalist first amendment rights. there are situations in which competing interests will be at play determine whether compelling discussion is warranted. . this is protected as well with a series of protections. in some, passage of the press act into law would provide critical support to the free press thereby benefiting all americans. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. >> thank you.

we will now proceed with questions under the five-minute role. the chair will recognize the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. >> thank you. we have seen a growing number of increasingly aggressive act by the federal government and its agencies to suppress debate in many different forms. the irs intimidation of tea party activists, the abuse of authority, the use of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to suppress vital information such as the contents of the hunter biden laptop or dissenting views on covid, all of that turned out to be factual and correct. in the beating heart of democracy is freedom of speech. it is the right of every citizen to express their opinions freely. it is by this discussion that we have the tools to sort out fact from fiction, wisdom from folly, right from wrong.

that is how a free society finds its way and the free press was absolutely fundamental to the process. without it the people cannot make informed decisions or hold the government accountable for its actions. human nature being what it is, we all know that the most closely guarded secrets of the government are not those that are marked top-secret. it's those that are marked embarrassing. it is precisely those embarrassing facts that are most important for the public to know. i agree with the ranking members that cbs has the right to shape its own coverage no matter how biased it might be. when the government pressures any news outlet or for that matter any private party to suppress or shape its coverage, that crosses a very bright and dangerous line. ms. herridge, do you know if cbs actions were influenced by the government in any way? >> use your microphone.

>> pardon me. chrisman, i am not somebody that is known to offer speculation. i cannot really answer that directly. >> fair enough. with all the travail you have been dragged through, has the government been held accountable for these acts against you and your freedom? >> congressman, based on my experience i feel that we are in a very dangerous place as journalists. i am facing crippling fines, up to $800 per day for protecting my confidential sources. i'm confident that that has been stayed pending the appeal. >> who is responsible for that? who is waging war against the freedom of journalists like yourself with the facts that

the american people need to form opinions. >> i want to be respectful of the ongoing litigation in front of the appellate court. i want to emphasize that i am only a witness in that case. >> has anyone been held accountable for the fact's against you? >> no. >> ms. attkisson, what is your experience? >> i think it is interesting to hear people say and i agree with this. in my experience that happens every day at cbs. members of committees, heads of committees, members of congress and the white house call the bureau in washington, d.c., contacts that they have, editors in new york to try to she coverage. >> i do not find that particularly in objectionable as long as there is no threat of force behind that. >> i just know that there is no physical force threatened.

there is certainly a great deal of pressure weighing on the networks in terms of their coverage. >> what about government acts directly? have you encountered such intimidation yourself directly from the government or is that channeled through your employers? >> i felt a great deal of pressure, chairman, through my employers. i was told that certain stories were not going to air because we were getting phone calls. even though there was nothing wrong with the stories let's let it rest and pick it up at another time. there was no objection over the content or the facts. i was told they just did not like it. i was just told they were unfavorable. >> if they were offering additional fact that might have been ignored, if they were offering different opinions, that is freedom of speech. of behind those suggestions was the threat of force, that's a completely different matter. do you agree?

>> my position was when political officials called in to the newsroom, there should be a policy where we tell them if they object to something or have a factual issue they should put it in writing and send it in. there are these extensive conversations that go on behind the scenes. i only know about a relative few of them. i know they happen in other scenarios as well. >> thank you, gentleman from california. i will recognize the ranking member for any questions you might have under the five- minute role. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. attkisson. we know that fisa renewal is currently controversial before the congress. my correct that the press act would not be sufficient? >> in my view, i'm not saying it shouldn't the past and i'm not an expert but i think it won't handle. >> what else should we do?

>> i think it is a global problem that has to do with sending a message of oversight to the intelligence agencies that we know have for decades violated right and made policies that are contrary to constitution and so on. i do not think that there has been an effort they think a serious. i think the intelligence agencies feel like they are running the committees here rather than the committees conducting oversight of them. that there needs to be something they understand they would be held accountable when they do things. i don't know what that looks like in practice, but i don't think the law is, >> thank you. what is the source of congress authority to provide such a privilege by statute? >> constitution is authorized to create legislation by statute to ensure that these rights are enshrined further into law. in fact, my understanding is in

brownsburg the court invited congress to do so. we are really pleased that the house has acted in this regard and we look forward to the senate doing so as well. >> ms. johnson, according to your written testimony in the deck it beside the supreme court decided brownsburg many courts have recognized some sort of qualified reporters privilege. in that case, why is it still important that we step into this statutory privilege? >> that is right. it's because the law is unsettled. you have a different landscape all across the country are different courts have different interpretations. there is a decision at one point where circuit court judge said that the brownsburg case was as clear as mud. it really has not allowed for a clearer understanding of that landscape. with congressional action, the press act would reduce joe on sources. it would help journalists to the work we need to do because it would provide clarity in the landscape that is now muddled and uncertain. >> thank you. ms. johnson, as we have heard,

ms. herridge is subject to a civil contempt order by a federal judge in washington, d.c. on the case which she has refused to provide testimony regarding confidential sources that may be relevant to the private litigant case against the government. it so happens that the government defendants accused of wrongdoing include the fbi. if the press act were law, would that have applied to ms. herridge and her current circumstances? and is it important to reporters also receive protection of their first amendment interest? >> i do believe the press act, had it been enacted at the time of litigation, would have played a role. the most important thing that it does is forecloses the government from compelling journalist disclosure of their sources. yes i do believe it is important for there to be this protection for journalists across the board. >> you believe it would stop the litigation against ms. herridge. >> i believe the compelling of sources it would have played a

role. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i think the ranking member. i will recognize the gentle lady from wyoming for questions. >> good morning, ladies. thank you for being here to address such an incredibly important issue. ms. herridge , i would like to start with you. about two months ago you were held in contempt and levied daily fines of $800 per day for refusal to disclose your sources. this is deeply concerning. what is more concerning, you are not the first in an article related to your case. the washington post reported how in 2005, five national reporters were held in contempt and levied fines of $500 per day. in 2008, usa today reported was held in contempt and faced daily fines of $5000. all of these instances where reporters upheld their journalistic integrity and protect their sources to ensure good reporting for the american

people. only to face rebuke and heavy- handed enforcement by the court which are intended to protect the first amendment. ms. trent, how fundamental to reporting is the protection of your sources? >> congresswoman, i have not lost a nights sleep about my decision to protect my confidential sources. that is the core of who i am as a journalist. i am facing contempt fines because i am upholding the most basic principle of journalism. if you cannot offer a source a promise of confidentiality as a journalist, your toolbox is empty. no whistleblowers coming forward,or corruption. what that means is that it interrupts the free flow of information to the public and journalism is about an informed electorate, which is the bedrock of our democracy. if you had asked me 37 years

ago, when i started working, that i would be in the federal courts living a legal nightmare to protect my sources, i would never have believed it. i told you a story about my son. i would like to finish it. at the end of the conversation, he said, mom, you do what it takes. i've got your back, and i thought, if a teenager understands how sacred this pledge is for every journalist, certainly, congress can pass the press act and codify these guarantees that will prevent cases like mine in the future. >> thank you for that. do you think that the heavy- handed nature of these fines is to compel quick disclosure of sources and not give reporters a choice? a similar choice, the way you have exercised yours? >> just ask yourself, how many journalists can withstand fines of $800 a day. mine is being stayed pending the appeal. in another case you cited, it was $5000 a day.

these fines are designed but you have to disclose your sources, you have to burn them, and in the marketplace where we have this explosion in independent journalism and smaller outfits, they cannot withstand these fines. they cannot mount a costly and vigorous legal defense of the first amendment. that is why i think this is such a dangerous time and why the press act can codify these guarantees, and it can happen with a very strong, in fact, the strongest bipartisan message about the importance of the freedom of the press. >> it does not just apply in your industry. we have other agencies, and i think it's a sign of a tyrannical government when we give them the ability to levy fines like this. an example that i will use is that the epa has the authority to levy fines of $59,000 a day. and, they do so, and that is how they force people into settlements and consent decrees, even if they are not

necessarily guilty, but they cannot withstand the pressure that they bring to bear when you have a government that has that kind of authority. i think that it applies in a first amendment context with journalists, but i think it's a bigger issue that we as congress need to address across the board, because again, i will use the word, it results in tyranny when you give agencies or officials that kind of authority. one thing that has been mentioned is that 32 states and washington, d.c. have shield laws, not all states do. as in your case and the case of others, this has been resulted in the courts actually being enlisted to compel disclosure of your resources -- your sources. in instances such as your case, what is a hostile court system do for the protection of a free press? >> i think it presents another very significant challenge for journalism. as my colleague, sharyl

attkisson, said, when you are working with the whistleblower or a government source, who has access to real information, and what i mean is, information that is so important to get to the public, so they can make up their own minds, especially about controversial issues. if you can't offer that assurance, nobody is playing ball with you. as a journalist, you are always asking yourself, i think, in the marketplace where we are today, what kind of assurances can i provide? can i go to the mat for this person? i have always believed that i'm willing to go to the mat. i think i have shown that in this contempt case, but not everyone is going to be able to have that opportunity. >> i thank you for your bravery. i thank you for what you have been willing to expose, and i think you all for being willing to stand up to the tyranny that we are seeing and the attack on the first amendment. it is critical for the freedom of every single person in this

room, so thank you. with that, i yield back. >> i think the gentle lady from wyoming. i now recognize the gentle lady from vermont, ms. bauer. >> mankiw, mr. chair. one of the things that i have noticed in this committee and in my subcommittees is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often overpromise and under deliver. we are told repeatedly that there are conspiracy theories. we have a government that is going after individual and private citizens. this is the narrative over and over and over again. as a new one to this committee, i'm always so disappointed when i feel like there is, actually, a lot that we agree on. press freedoms, and the press act is something that we were able to all come together on, and that is where our intention should be.

we should always be making sure that we have a free and protected press. now, what i am hearing is really about employment disputes, with the news agencies, that are now being conflated into some kind of conspiracy theory, once again , of the government going after , in this case, not just private individuals, but the press. and, personal grievances, witnesses personal grievances are not, actually, attacks on the first amendment and the free press. and, from what i have heard from this hearing, so far, and the materials that we were given in preparation of this, it seems pretty clear to me that most of the allegations that have been made, so far, involved disputes over what are, essentially,

employment and editorial decision-making by private news organizations. in the context of newsgathering, public reporting, which we all desperately need in this country. as i said, we came together to support the press act. we all agree that it is an important piece of legislation to protect. i wish we spent more time in this committee really talking about important issues, and not, once again, having colleagues overpromise and under deliver. if i believed every single time , of the conspiracy theories that are pulled before this committee, i would have to believe that there was a boogie man behind every corner, under every rock. it's absurd.

it's absolutely absurd. it prevents us from doing the real work that we need to do to protect a free press, which we desperately need. now, ms. farid johnson, could you explain to us , what is jawboning? can you explain that to us? >> yes, jawboning is the act of coercion by the government to an entity to get it to -- well, in the cases we have seen so far, to get it to change its positioning, programming, what have you, in terms of what it presents to the public. >> you have concerns about congressional hearings such as this one, or statements that officeholders make that could be intended to influence editorial decisions at news

organizations? >> news organizations are entitled to decide for themselves what subject to cover, and the first amendment protects the editorial decisions they make about their news coverage. it would be unconstitutional for any government official to attempt to coerce a news organization through legal threats or exercising the state's coercive power. >> could jawboning be considered unconstitutional? >> as you know, we filed an amicus brief in the case before the supreme court, and what we talked about their is that we have said publicly, that the government has an important role to play as a participant in public discourse. including, trying to persuade, for example, social media platforms to change the policies, but not to engage in coercion to do so. there is a line there, and the line is critically important. >> ms. farid johnson, what does it mean for free public discourse if public officials

can informally intimidate or influence editorial decision- making, such as in a hearing such as this one? >> the critical thing is that it cannot be coercion. we want to ensure that the first amendment protections that are afforded to news organizations, for example, are maintained, and so, that would mean that there cannot be that level of influence, it cannot go into coercion. again, we believe the government has an important role to play, in terms of public discourse. >> thank you so much, ms. farid johnson. i yield back. >> we are going to do one more round of questions before we break. i'm going to recognize the gentleman from north dakota. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't think people go into investigative reporting to get rich. i think it is an incredibly important service, but i just want to react a little bit. i don't think being held in contempt, either civilly or criminally is either a conspiracy theory, or part of

an employment dispute. you are either going to be civilly held in contempt or find until you disclose your source, or worse, put in an eight by 10 with bars on the window. that is what contempt means, for not disclosing a source. if there is a more chilling effect on the right of the free press and the right of north dakota citizens to be informed about what's going on, i would like to know it. ms. herridge, you have been held in contempt. do you feel like that is part of an employment dispute? >> i want to have complete respect for the legal process, and my case is being litigated, but no, these are separate matters, congressman. >> i'm hopeful sin that the senate will take up the press act and added federal shield law for reporters being forced to reveal confidential sources. i am under the impression that reporters in most states have shield law protections, but federal courts are not bound by the same laws? >> i'm terribly sorry, i'm not familiar with the status of the states. >> in north carolina -- dakota,

we have a shield law. in 2007, you reported on obama. i want to back up just a second. we act like this is new stuff, but this is been going on for a long time to we've had a lot of talks about the doj, twitter, section 230, liability, immunity, and all those things, but in 2011, you reported on the fast and furious operation, in which atf purposely allowed licensed firearm dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers. were confidential sources important to informing the public about that scandal? >> yes. >> would you been able to shed light on the federal government selling weapons to the mexican drug cartels without guaranteeing confidentiality of your sources? >> it would have been tough. there would've been something to report, but not what we ended up reporting. >> when you were reporting on the security lapses in d -- the benghazi embassy attack, do you

think you would've been able to shed light on the government's availability -- ability? >> some of it, yes. some of it, no. >> do you believe it's important for the american people to be informed of these things, and we should do what we can to ensure robust media scrutiny of government officials? >> yes. >> even if that includes members of congress? >> right. >> does the status quo need to depend on a reporter and their outlets financial tolerance for contempt punishment? does it equate to a functional, sensible system? >> no, and one quick example, a lot of times, a source will end up going on the record, which is preferable, but you can't begin the conversation many times if you can't start out by telling them, as you begin to talk, that he is not going to be identified yet. >> does the current system have a chilling effect on potential confidential sources and whistleblowers? >> yes. >> if we pass the press act,

you talked about the press act and where you think it is sufficient, but you agree it would be helpful? >> it seems like it would be helpful. >> in the last minute and 30 seconds, i think there are certain things that we have to recognize. i am a former criminal defense attorney, confidentiality with my clients is absolutely essential in order to deal with those things, and i think there are a lot of different similarities, but you have to be as mentally tough as anybody to be an investigative reporter, and we are sitting here right now talking about these things and at the same time we got a letter from the doj saying that they can't release an audiotape after they have already given us the transcript, from a computer, where it was tried to be erased, but only found later, because it would have a chilling effect on potential witnesses coming forward to talk about a crime. that is what the letter said. at the same time, we have a doj going to investigative reporters saying, i know you

guarantee these people confidentiality to report against the government doing something bad against the u.s. citizens, but i'm going to force you to expose that are going to hold you in civil contempt, criminal contempt, or all of those things. does that seem hypocritical to you? >> there are many things that seem to be double standard. one way for them, another way for us. >> they are literally saying, we can't release something because otherwise we won't be able to investigate anything again, which is patently false, but also at the same time, when they don't like something any of you all are writing, right, left, center, conservative, liberal, they say, i want to know who your sources. >> i get it. >> i do too, and i think it's very unfortunate. >> i will not recognize my colleague from texas. >> chairman roy, i am grateful for your courtesies on the courtesies of this committee. the ranking member. the good news that i heard as we were concluding your last

question is that the press act does help. >> it seems like it would. >> we need to -- the word investigative, i hope you want us as members of congress to investigate so we get it right. so that, this very how load amendment or bill of rights in the first amendment is taken seriously. i take it very seriously and i appreciate the work that all of you do, in spite of the obstacles you face. this is america and we have mountains and valleys. i would like to get a sense from all of you, where we are in the comfort level of your protection. i'm going to start with ms. johnson. i appreciate the institute at columbia, and i want to make sure, if we got the press act,

it may be needing to be reimagined. we are looking at other legislation that allows investigative reporters to work , but i think there is a fine line between -- i don't want to use the term abuse, but there is a fine line. i will start with you, ms. johnson. what more care do we need to give to have the work of an investigative reporter work? i'm going to ask each of you that question. i think that will help us. we will have to have a hearing at another point to go into more deeply concerned issues, but ms. johnson, if you would quickly. >> the first thing we need to do is ensure that the press act gets passed into law and signed, but it's also important to remember and recognize, this is a fraught time for journalists. we have new surveillance technologies. we have suppression of funding for journalism itself, and so it's really important to do what congress can do in the immediate term to protect information that is vital to the democracy, which is to protect journalists to do the job we need them to do.

>> are you concluding your testimony by saying that would be to pass the press act and have funding? >> the first thing congress should do, guess, is to pass the press act and ensure that it is signed into law to protect journalists and give assurances to their sources they will not be revealed. there is a bigger question about funding for journalism as a profession. >> ms. attkisson, where do we need to go with this? >> one outstanding issue is, regardless of what laws are passed, we know from the factual record that there are bad actors inside are agencies that will violate laws. the law doesn't necessarily provide full protection, and number two, when a citizen tries to get redress for something like that, i found the federal government has in ordinate protections, their own shield laws, i will call them. they have immunity. we have to get permission from them, the alleged guilty party, to get depositions and

information, and i think this is something that needs to be fixed by congress. the broad immunity granted to people, who may be doing wrong inside government. >> is there any detriment to -- on the ai? is there another detriment to the fact that ai exists amongst us? >> i will bet there is, but i'm not an expert on that. >> all right. we are back to back hearings. if you would, ms. cavaliere. what more do we need to do? >> sag-aftra has for decades supported a federal shield law, and we would first hope that the press act passes. i think that is a priority. we need to take that first step. i do think there are other

challenges facing journalism and journalists that we would love to use our voice as a labor union representing journalists, to advocate for, but i do think it is a priority. i think the idea that this passed unanimously and there is bipartisan support should mean that it is something we should be able to move forward quickly and expeditiously. >> we are going to do a deep dive on that. i want to quickly finish. ms. attkisson. i'm looking at ms. herridge. >> thank you for the question. i agree with my colleagues. the imperative is to get the press act through the senate and on the president's desk. it's going to close the gap in the federal courts. it's going to bring consistency between the state shield and the federal shield laws, and i think a lot of good will follow from that. >> chairman, i am grateful for the time given. i think we are committed to

doing a deep dive on this very important issue, first amendment rights, and i want to be part of helping as opposed to undermining. thank you so very much and i yield back. >> thank you, the gentle lady from texas. i now recognize the chairman of the full committee. mr. jordan. >> ms. attkisson, you wrote stories critical of the obama illustration, is that accurate? >> yes, but may i point out it was not put in a political light . >> lets it this way, you wrote stories critical of the government. you did it on fast and furious, ben ghazi, and other issues, and even before as you said on the bush of menstruation. then, strange things started happening to you, right? your phone get the bugs, you believe, and things happened to your computer after you wrote stories critical of the government. that is scary, right? >> it's not a great feeling. >> ms. herridge, you wrote

stories critical of the by demonstration? >> that's fair. >> you wrote about the laptop issue, hunter biden, you were critical of the biden family and the biden business operation, the brand, all that stuff. >> congressman, i reported on the facts of the story. >> you sure did, you reported the facts and cbs fired you. is that right? >> my position was terminated. >> you are an award-winning journalist but how long did you work at cbs? >> i worked at cbs news for 4.5 years. during that period, we won major awards. i was part of an emmy-winning team. i was nominated for investigative emmys. i think the most important projects were projects that drove legislation here on the hill. it positively impacted 1 million veterans. >> and award-winning journalist, won all kinds of awards, works there almost five years, had extensive experience at a different major network prior to that where you were also an award-winning journalist, had done all kinds of reporting critical of the

government there as well, and then you get fired, but it's worse than that, isn't it? they didn't just fire you. what else did they do? >> on february 13th, i was told on a zoom call that my employer was terminating. i was locked out of my emails and i was locked out of the office. cbs news seized hundreds of pages of my reporting files, including confidential source information. >> that is not normal, is it? >> no, that is not my experience at the other two networks that i worked at, or with my colleagues. when the network of walter cronkite seizes your reporting files, including confidential source information, that is an attack on investigative journalism. >> yes, it sure is. it seems to me there is a pattern developing here, critical of the government. they start doing all kinds of strange things to your phone line, to your computer. you are critical of the government at a major news

organization, you are an award- winning journalist, you been there five years and you get fired, but it's not just you got fire. maybe there is nothing to that, but they seized your documents. that is scary as well. you talk about a chilling effect on the first amendment, i don't know how it could be more chilling. thank goodness the lady sitting beside you stepped in. they are stepping in and helping. them stepping and helped you get your files back. >> i did get the files back. if i didn't have the support of sag-aftra, really, publicly standing up for journalism, i don't believe that i would have received the files and they would've been returned. i just want to be clear, congressman. wherever you were, if this happened to you, it's an attack on free press. it's an attack on the first amendment. it makes it more challenging for reporters to work in the future. that disrupts the free flow of information to the public. they called journalism a profession for a reason,

because it's about an informed electorate, and is a cornerstone of our democracy. i can only speak for myself. when my records were seas, i felt it was a journalistic rape. >> ms. cavallaro, have you seen that before, where someone is leaving employment at a major news organization, they sees their documents? >> i can't say that sag-aftra is familiar with every single case of termination or departure . >> have you ever seen anything like this? >> i have no recollection of seeing -- >> that should scare us too. the first time it ever happened and it happens to an award- winning journalist, who has been in this profession for a number of years, known all across the profession, and that happens on the heels of what happened to ms. attkisson, because both journalists were critical of the government. that is what journalism is about, being critical of the government when the government is doing things wrong, and then

to have a major news organization do this. in your testimony, you had a very important line. you said of confidential sources are not protected, journalism is dead. i agree. it seems to me if retaliation is allowed by the government or by some major media outlet, journalism is dead as well. that is what this hearing is about. i want to thank you all for coming and sharing your important testimony. i yield back. >> i think the chairman. i would like to recognize the ranking member. >> paramount's response to chairman jordan's letter, regarding ms. herridge's termination. it corrects the record on some of the wild speculation a mischaracterization from the other side, as it describes that ms. herridge was not the only person, who was let go at that time. certain procedures were followed. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> all i said was it happened. what happened afterwards is what is scary, when they seized

her files. that is scary. >> i seek unanimous consent to introduce the letter. >> without objection. >> suspended it for one second. >> do we want to proceed? ms. r acknowledgment that are employment dispute >> i will now recognize the ranking member for questions. >> thank you, and i want to thank all of the witnesses here today. i appreciate ms. herridge's acknowledgment that her employment dispute is separate from the civil lawsuit, in which she was held in contempt for refusing to disclose a confidential source, despite the apparent confusion of some of my colleagues, where they completed those two matters. it is clear, i think, that the contempt was the result of a private individuals lawsuit seeking that information. it was not a government action aching that information, until

he got to the point where the courts were enforcing a contempt citation, which brings us back to my remarks at the outset, which is, with the federal law in a state of mightiness, confusion, disarray, since the brandsburg versus hayes decision, over 50 years ago. it really is incumbent upon congress to take action to make sure that the courts are not put in a position where they are exerting fines or possible jail time against journalists because they don't think the -- they have the authority not to. in brandsburg, the court invited congress to determine whether a statutory news man or woman's privilege is necessary and desirable, and to fashion standards and rules as narrow or broad as deemed necessary. ms. johnson, if you could just take us through, why should congress step in and take up this invitation?

particularly, in the context of the recent threats to the first amendment and freedom of the press in our modern world? >> congress should take this up because it is confusing and it leaves journalist and a large where they will be subject to two different interpretations of the case. with the press act and with the definitions it provides, and with the comprehension with which it addresses this issue, it is really an opportunity for congress to clarify, and to offer that certainty to journalists and sources, who as we have heard from our colleagues on the stand today, are going to be less and less likely to come forward. that, ultimately, harms americans, because when americans don't have access to information, they can't understand what the government is doing. it is a comprehensive approach that needs to happen as quickly as possible. >> i appreciate that. i think it also harms the court system when we are putting the courts in a position where they

are doing something that is undermining first amendment and free press rights. we have noted, i think, that dozens of our states -- i have seen 49 states, i have seen 32 states, so the majority of states and d.c. have now enacted shield laws, but they are not uniform. of course, we have the federal circuit courts, which have a variety of interpretations of what is required or not required. how does that impact journalism in this modern age, were so much of it is digital and online platforms, and we are not talking about the mom-and- pop paper down the street anymore, but talking about wider distribution sources? how does the lack of a more uniform shield law impacted journalism? is it impacted in a few ways. 49 states plus washington, have either a shield law or a court recognition. there is there -- the distinction there. it's important to bring this down to an example because the

doj recently put into place media guidelines that talk about what a member of a news media can or cannot be subject to, in terms of the limitations as to what government can do to compel sources. however, the justice department internal criteria gave the agency substantial latitude when it comes to defining what a member of the news media is. as i noted in my testimony, in this digital age we have a number of individuals engaging in legitimate journalistic acts, who may not be a wall street journal reporter, but it's important that we recognize that because we are now in an age of new technologies and new opportunities, innovations in journalism, that having the press act with this broad definition to protect journalists of all different stripes will be important to ensuring that assurance for journalists across the board. >> again, i want to thank all of our witnesses for helping us re-emphasize the importance of the press act, and hopefully, persuading our senator colleagues to get with it and help us get this done.

thank you again. i yield back. >> i think the ranking member. i want to thank her and my democratic colleagues to help move this along. i believe we can finish the hearing without breaking. the prime minister has not yet started speaking, so we will proceed and hopefully, we won't have to break and come back for everybody's benefit. ms. herridge, can you quickly, for the benefit of the committee, articulate the awards and honors you have received in carrying out your profession? >> wow, that's a little embarrassing. >> it's important to >> i have always tried to stay in the background. i am so proud of the work we did at cbs news. i was part of an emmy-winning team. i was also nominated for investigative emmys, primarily for the work we did revealing the toxic exposure of veterans, specifically, a group, who were based in use pakistan, in k2, a

launching pad for classified operations into afghanistan. we also did reporting that was a catalyst for legislation, the camp lejeune justice act, which is opened new opportunities and benefits and payments for 1 million veterans and civilians. this was real impact reporting and it was accountability reporting on both the left and right. >> you mentioned emmys, other awards. in other words, is there any indication of negative conduct in carrying out your profession? you have been getting awards. nothing would indicate that there was a failure to perform your duties, a failure to do your job competently? >> congressman, i think what you're asking me is whether i was terminated for poor performance. i don't believe that my record would reflect that. i don't know what factors the cbs news executives considered when they terminated my position, but there was tension

over the hunter biden reporting and the biden administration, but i can't say for sure why i was let go. >> you mentioned that tension of, you had been one of the reporters, certainly, what we might define as the mainstream media, that was focusing intently on the hunter biden laptop, on the various facts surrounding the biden family, the flow of money, and all of the things involved in that. is that correct? >> that is correct. for the full picture, i was also the reporter at cbs news who obtained the audiotape of former president trump bragging about the iran classified documents at mar-a-lago, and i also exposed have 50 soldiers were denied the purple heart under the trump administration in an effort to de-escalate after a ballistic missile attack in iran. i am someone who calls balls and strikes, congressman. i follow the facts where they lead. that has always been my calling card.

>> when cbs let you go, was it around the time of them calling out the trump ministries in, or pursuing the hunter biden -- >> -- i was let go a few days after the special counsel report into president biden's handling of classified information. >> at the same time all of that is going on, you are managing the issue with fox, and the reality that you're being held in contempt. you touched on it and i don't want to repeat it too much, but it's really important. for the record, you are, in fact, being held in contempt by a court to the tune of $800 a day, which thankfully has been stayed, pending appeal. that is correct? >> that is correct. i would also like to emphasize, congressman, that i have total respect for the legal process. my case is in front of the appellate court, and so i am limited in what i can say. i reject characterizations that the court is being heavy-handed. it is well within their discretion to levy these fines. i was making the point that for

many journalists facing fines of that significance would be insurmountable and they would have to make a hard choice about whether to protect their sources. >> enclosing, could you just reiterate the extent of your belief of what this means for other journalists? you alluded to it before, smaller journalists without the protection of the corporate structure you have with fox backing up from your previous reporting? >> i don't think many journalists can withstand the threat of significant and crippling financial sanctions. they may not have a former employer or current employer, who is in a position to mount a vigorous and costly defense. i think it is a very dangerous period for journalism. the press act would close the legal gap in the system. i want to emphasize, this is not about a single journalist. it's not about a single story. it's not about a single network.

what happens in my case, the passage of the press act, is going to impact every journalist working in this room and it's going to impact every journalist in the united states , and for the next generation to come. if there is anything i can accomplish in my career as a journalist, it's going to be getting this over the finish line. i feel this with every core of my being. >> thank you, ms. herridge. i want to acknowledge that the gentleman from north carolina has been waiting patiently throughout the hearing. i want to give him a moment to close before we adjourn. >> i think i will take advantage of the opportunity. i think you guys have aired the press act, its purpose in creating limited privilege on the part of journalists. i appreciate the fact that mike i have heard ms. attkisson and ms. herridge, i appreciate your

ethics in terms of maintaining your position of calling balls and strikes. your desire, and your professional commitment to maintaining neutrality, so that you are on guard, even to come here and let republicans take shots at cbs news through you, for example. i get that, but there is another thing here, and i think about the presence of the independent journalists. ms. herridge, nevertheless, my observation, and i am a republican, so it's partisan in part, but i think if you look at the stats, and i would suggest the american people see this. cbs news is among the corporate behemoth media outlets, all of which seem to be captured by one side of the american political spectrum. you have worked for one of those. maybe fox news is the one on the other side, but cbs, nbc, the wall street journal, the washington post, new york times,

all a big media seems to be captured by one side. you have worked for a sustained period of time for one of those networks. what of that? is that not true? it's not so much about your firing, your termination, whether it's because of the hunter biden story or whatever, but isn't that a problem? how it -- does a journalist that wants to call balls and strikes function where all the big media behemoths are captured by one side of the political spectrum? >> congressman, i have always tried to be respectful of my former employers. i worked at abc news, fox news, and i worked at cbs news, and i brought the same approach at every place that i worked, which is that it's about accountability journalism. on the left, and on the right, and representing diverse points of view. this is so important in the marketplace of ideas. it's so important in a civil debate to settle issues in this country. i feel that the press act in

guaranteeing these protections to sources, helps grow the voices in journalism. that is the bottom line for me. >> okay. i get that, and i understand that you may want to limit the avenues or areas that you want to take on, so that you can emphasize the things that might cover new ground, and the press act is where you have decided to focus. i will give you one more opportunity. to the extent you are one of the more admirable professional journalists, who calls balls and strikes, when you sit on air at cbs news, you are lending your ethic and your image to an organization that has decided to do something decidedly different. is that not true? >> sir, i came to cbs news to do investigative reporting and to bring in diverse voices, and i did my best to do that. i can't explain all of the

decisions of the executives. in some cases, i felt they limited points of view and voices. i was uncomfortable with that because i think good journalism is about diverse voices. >> i think professional, ethical journalists, and ms. attkisson, i do want to leave you out, but it's hard to pick one example and go there. i have great respect for the struggles that your profession has, and i don't know how it will get solved. i believe we make progress in bits and pieces, but i also think that it is a great tragedy that big media have all -- they can trot out a catherine herridge, but everyone probably recognizes who is fair-minded, and where the overall trend has gone, and that it leaves professional journalists in a

hopelessly conflicted situation. if you have a network that has decided to go one way, entirely, and merely has tokenism as to what professional journalism ought to be. i yelled back. >> this concludes today's hearing. we think the witnesses for appearing before the committee. without objection, all members will have five additional days to submit questions to the witnesses or materials to the record. without objection, the hearing is adjourned. the losing and radiant.

[background noises] [background noises]

[ inaudible ]

c-span's 2024 campaign coverage continues live with the three-day libertarian national convention. beginning friday at 3:30 p.m. eastern, highlights include independent presidential candidate, robert f. kennedy jr., followed by a vice presidential debate featuring former presidential contender, vivek ramaswamy at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, former president and presumptive republican nominee, donald trump, will speak before the delegates. on sunday at 9:00 a.m. eastern, the party announces its presidential nominee for the november election. the libertarian national convention, live friday at 3:30 p.m. on c-span, c-span now, and online at c-span.org.

today, an unprecedented armada landed on the shores of normandy. >> these are the boys -- these are the men that took the cliffs. these are the champions that helped free a continent. these are the heroes that helped end the war. >> 2 million suns from 15 countries jumped into flag filled skies and a bloodsoaked surf and met death. >> the sons of democracy improvised and mounted their own attacks. at that exact moment, on these beaches, the forces of freedom turned the tide of the 20th century.

>> the road to d-day was long and hard, and traveled by weary and valiant men. history will always record where that road began. it began here, with the first footprints on the beaches of normandy. >> more than 150,000 soldiers set off towards this tiny sliver of sand, upon which hung more than the fate of a war. but rather, the course of human history. >> today, we remember those who fell, and we honor all who fought, right here in normandy. >> watch c-span's live all day special coverage of the 80th anniversary of d-day, thursday, june 6, featuring a speech by president biden from normandy, france.

this memorial day weekend on c-span's q and a, retired u.s. senate historian betty koed share stories from her book, scenes, stories that shaped the united states senate, chronicles of senate history that she presented to senators during their tuesday caucus lunches between 2009 and 2023. some of the stories told include the influence and power of senate majority leader, lyndon johnson. the story of the first female senator, and when mark twain worked as a senate staffer. >> he was not yet a famous author. he was a promising, rising author at the time, and he was working on his first book and he was looking for a job that would help pay the bills to, essentially, promote his writing career. stewart, despite his sinister appearance, did give him a job, and he became a clerk in stewart's office. at the time, that was not unusual because the senate only

met a few months out of the year, so they often hired reporters and correspondents as clerks. it was a mutually beneficial experience for both of them. he didn't prove to be a particularly good senate employee. >> betty koed, with her book, scenes, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on the free c- span now app. next, a look into the department of education's delayed rollout of a new federal student data application. university of north carolina chapel hill provost rochelle feldman told lawmakers they are facing an enrollment crisis due to the delay. she and a number of other college admissions officials voice their frustration at a hearing held by the house education subcommittee on higher education.