investigative journalist sharyl attkisson and former cbs news correspondent catherine herridge are among the 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 held ms. herridge and civil contempt for refusing to divulge resources in relation to 2017 investigation she was working on. the house judiciary subcommittee mirroring 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 every >> the subcommittee will come to order. without objection, the chair iso authorized to declare a recess at any time. we welcome everybody to today's hearing on a free press and protecting journalists. i will remind everybody that the guests in the chamber guests and you are free to be here but this is no audience participation in the hearing. this is a hearing and we will conduct it accordingly. >> i will not recognize myself for an opening statement.

>> our liberty depends on the freedom of the press and that cannot be limited without being lost. those words were true when thomas jefferson wrote them in 1786 and they are still true today. first amendment to the constitution guarantees freedom of the press and prohibits the federal government from making any law abridging the freedom. in its concurrence, the new york times versus the united states, justice hugo black stated, in the first amendment, the founding fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill the essential role in our democracy. the press was to serve the government, not the governor. the framers of the constitution hailed the freedom of the press as the most important political liberty and the keystone upon which all our other freedoms rely. as this bill indicates, journalists are often the first to expose government abuse, waste, fraud, and encroachment on the personal freedoms we hold dear. sadly, freedom of the press is under attack in our country from multiple angles, the white house, acting judges and mainstream media networks.

for example, the obama white house illegally spied on investigative journalists -- journalist sharyl attkisson by allegedly hacking her cell phone to 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 anyone blowing the whistle on the federal government waste and abuse by seizing the phone records of associated press reporters and editors who use sourced materials to write stories. the phone records seized were not just those owned by the press but also personal, home, and so on. the seizure of these records was such an alarming step by the federal government that a coalition of 50 news organizations including abc, cnn, the new york times and washington post submitted a letter of protest to then attorney general about the raid which stated that the administration's action called into question the very integrity of the department of justice's policies for the president's ability to balance on its own its police powers

against first amendment rights of the news media and public interest in reporting on all manner of conduct. the obama administration's moronta free press showed us that executive interference has a chilling effect that this incentivizes whistleblowers and sources from coming forward with little information. that chilling and eventually freezing out effect harms the quality and integrity of journalism on a major scale. meanwhile, we have seen the biden and garland justice department arrest and prosecute journalist e baker who was reporting from the u.s. capitol building on january 6 on the events that took place inside the capital. we also recently saw a federal court order, investigative journalist catherine herridge, who identified a confidential source and then hold her in contempt when she exercised her first amendment right to maintain the source's 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 ms. herridge '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 investigative files and laptop computer with the intent to search through items to segregate materials ms. herridge addressed or worked on for cbs news. cbs news planned the materials and threatened to trample upon her first amendment rights and could have divulged confidential sources stemming from her previous work with other networks. along the same lines, we have also seen a federal government seek to impermissibly shape news stories, even coercing social media companies to remove content on their platforms relating to foreign influence peddling by the president and his family. today's hearing is about defending our fundamental liberty and protecting journalists and their sources

from these attacks. we will examine the federal government's infringement on the freedom of the press and examine the prospects for a federal shield law. on july 19, 2023, the house committee on the judiciary, with a vote of 23-0 -- that does not often happen in the house judiciary committee, 23- 0, favorably reported on the reports from x-play tatum states press act. in january of this year, the full house passed the press act . the press act was written to prohibit the federal government from compelling journalists to identify a source as well as any records, communication, documents or information obtained and created by journalists in the course of their work. the significance of the press act cannot be understated. it ensures a free press, independent from an executive branch that seeks to attack or harass journalists in order 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 legislation and continue congress's commitment to protecting our fundamental freedom. our constitutional guarantee of a free press is under attack. it is our job to stand up for that right and protect journalists and their sources. i look forward to hearing from all of our distinguished witnesses today 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 amn the committee will recess for the duration of that session and gavel back in shortly after. i now yield to the ranking member for her opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. the necessity for a guarantee of a free press is one of the fundamental pillars of our democratic republic, predating and inspiring both our constitution and the first amendment. we all know that a democracy only truly works when it's citizens are properly informed

and a free press contributes to this rule by ensuring truth and accountability from those in power. a free press informs the american people of the important policy issues and government actions that may impact their lives and can reveal in confidence, corruption , deceit, fraud, or bad state by political candidates and government officials. that is attempts by government actors and would-be leaders to undermine the press weather by promoting conspiracy theories and lies, attacking members of the press with whom they disagree, or undermining the press's ability to obtain vital information our an assault on the pillars of our democratic foundation. one particular way this occurs is when the government seeks to compel journalists to disclose the identity of confidential sources. i think it is important at the outset here to talk about the different ways where the government can compel. it is one thing for the government to seek access to

confidential sources but it is another when a court is enforcing the law that is written because congress has not acted to create a law. confidential sources provide crucial information to report if it helps them to share full and impactful stories with the public and government attempts to undermine the confidentiality of those sources he roads the press's ability to perform that function. the press cannot protect its sources and important truths may never come to light and americans and our democracy supper. unfortunately, under both republican and democratic administrations going back decades, we have seen the government and attempt to crackdown, sees phone and email records or seek to compel them to release the identities of their sources. for example, the trump administration's department of justice seized phone records from three washington post reporters and try to obtain their emails and an attempt to

identify confidential sources. that trump doj similarly attempted to obtain these types of records from reporters at cnn and the new york times and that is, of course, on top of that administration's other troubling threat 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 times since 2007 passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, a federal reporter shield law. that is legislation to protect journalists and prevent the government from compelling them to reveal their confidential sources with certain exception. in fact, former vice president mike pence, then a member of the committee, first introduced this legislation in 2005. more recently, representatives kevin kiley and jamie raskin helped with the passage of 40 to 50, the protect reporters from x-play tatum state act or press act. as mentioned, that bill passed the house this past january unanimously by voice vote under the rules and 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 providers for telecommunications carriers and interactive computer services from being compelled by the government to reveal information on a journalists account or device. unfortunately, despite the house repeatedly and its strong bipartisan support, passing some ford of federal reporter field 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 colleague has squandered that chance at a hearing and instead are trying to crank up some right-wing

conspiracy theories. make no mistake. we intend to move forward and try to promote both the press act and our constitutional protections. there is little evidence of ideological bias at cbs news as was suggested and even if those allegations are true, congress would risk exceeding its constitutional authority by intervening. private news organizations, whether cbs, msnbc, or fox, speaks through their journalist employees. 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's free-speech rights and its right to editorial controls over its own content. today, we hope to inquire further from our witnesses and why it is long past time for congress to enact the act.

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, completely within our article one authority and duty and let's talk about the critical need for federal reporter shield legislation. i thank our witnesses for being here and i yield back. >> the committee will be in order. i think the ranking member for her opening statements. i now recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. jordan for his opening statements. >> it is not just the press that is under attack. every single liberty we enjoy under the first amendment has been assaulted in the last couple of years. think about it, you are right to assemble, your right to petition the government's free press, free speech.

americans, couple of years ago, americans were told they could not go to church on sunday. think about that. 2 1/2 years ago i spoke to the new mexico republican party in amarillo, texas because they had to go to texas because they could not do it in their own darn state where they pay taxes because the governor would not let them. you want to petition your member of congress? you could not do it because the speaker would not let you in, your own darn capital that you pay for. most important to a free press and free speech, we are going to hear about the press today and what happened to two of our witnesses, how freedom of the press -- they went after ms. sharyl attkisson, ms. herridge. this is scary. just a couple of weeks ago i went to the argument -- i went to the argument for the supreme court, we had a justice on the united states supreme court in a big justice case where big government pressures censor speech, not just conservative

speech, all speech. that is frightening. we went to the argument in front of 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 don't have free debate, you can't settle your dispute by arguing and debating, the alternative is frightening. there is no more important hearing than this and i want to thank our chairman and i really want to thank our witnesses for being here. this is of critical importance. you know what? this is why we've got to pass the press field act. the house has got it. let's hope the senate can figure it out. we passed it so we don't have this happening. we had a situation in this

committee room. we had members of this committee who were there that day where my colleagues on the other side, we had the witness stand and we had colleagues on the other side pressuring him to diebold his sources in a hearing in congress. to me, that is scary as well. this is a critically important hearing with great witnesses and i look forward to hearing their testimony and the questions that follow. with that, i yield back. >> i think the chairman. i will now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. nadler for his full statements. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> over the course of the last two decades, repeated overzealous prostitution of leaks of the press have made it clear that congress needs to enact a federal reporters law. congress must protect journalists from being compelled to reveal their confidential sources in order to ensure the free flow of information in matters related to the public interest. during the 117 congress when i was chairman of the committee, we came together in a

bipartisan vote to pass the press act which would protect journalists and their confidential sources from compelled to disclosure except in certain rare circumstances. it later pass the house and similar bipartisan. fortunately, the senate did not act on the bill. everyone in the committee under chairman jordan's leadership built on this strong action and moved the press once again to this congress in the unanimous vote of 23-0. they can past the house by one vote. even a casual observer of the 118 congress understands how rare it is for me, chairman jordan, and the entire house -- they have repeatedly come together to advance an important bill 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 building greater support for the bill as the title of the hearing might suggest. instead, it appears its true purpose is to provide a forum to discuss allegations that german jordan has made surrounding the determination of one of our witnesses by a news organization and to advance the false narrative about media biased. i am sympathetic to anyone who has been abruptly laid off from their job and i understand the resentment that someone can feel against their former employer. in fact, cbs laid off 800 people, one of whom happens to be a close, personal friend of mine. even if any allegations of so- called political bias made today are true, to be clear, i have no reason to believe that they are, congress is not the proper forum for these personal grievances to be aired or resolved. as we listen to the testimony today, we should remember the news media organizations have their own first amendment rights which include the right to exercise editorial judgment about what does and does not

get reported as news. news media organizations also ultimately seek, or act through their employees. barring some other unwelcome reason for termination like race or sex this nation, congress does not have the authority to meddle in the relationship between reporters and their employee news organizations, especially if it is to intervene in a purported over what stories to investigate or not to investigate. to do so would, in my view, run afoul of the first amendment. indeed, some might even say that this very hearing his an example of the government's over coverage, or lack of coverage on a particular subject and the improper intrusion into the affairs of the press. the history of overwhelming bipartisan support to the press is any indication, i would hope that we have universal agreements on the day that the government should respect the independence of the free press,

that we should continue our work to protect journalists from being compelled to reveal their sources. that is where our focus should properly lay. we should be real barriers to press briefing, the united states senate, which for the fourth time is sitting on a federal reporter shield legislation that 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. ms. catherine herridge. ms. herridge is an award- winning journalist and was racially served as a senior investigative correspondent for cbs news 2019 to 2024. previously, she served as the chief intelligence correspondent for fox news 1996 to 2019. ms. mary cavallaro . ms.

cavallaro is a cheap broadcast officer for the news and broadcast department at sag aftra. a position she has held since 2010. she is responsible for overseeing the negotiation and administration of over 250 labor agreements with network and local broadcast employers nationwide. ms. sharyl attkisson. ms. attkisson is a five-time emmy award-winning journalist and recipient of the edward r murrow award for investigative reporting. she has been a journalist for 30 years and is currently the managing editor and host of full measure. ms. mary cavallaro. ms. johnson is the policy director of the knights first amendment. she previously worked at penn america and in private practice as a patent litigator. we will begin by swearing you in. would you please rise and raise your right hand.

do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you god? let the record reflect that 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 jordan, ranking member nadler, chairman roy and ranking member scanlon and members of the subcommittee. i am here 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 . as you know, in february, i was held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose my confidential sources on the national security story. my current situation can help but the importance of the press

act into context. one of our children recently asked me if i would go to jail, if we would lose our house, and if we would lose our family savings to protect my reporting sources. i wanted to answer that in this united states, where we say we value democracy and the rule of a vibrant and free press, that it was impossible but i could not offer that assurance. the bipartisan press act, which came out of this house committee, would put an end to the legal jeopardy that i had experienced firsthand in the federal court and without the legislation, more journalists will rise to the uncertainty of the contempt in future. this legislation will provide protections for every working journalist in the united states, now and for the next generation. the legislation provides strong protections at the federal level

-- level for reporters and their sources. it would block litigants and governments from prying into a reporter's files, except when there is an imminent threat of violence including terrorism and in defamation cases. at the state level, similar rules are already in place to protect press freedom. it is my sincere hope that the passage of the press act would provide similar protection 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 a private -- 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 so 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 because an informed electorate is at the foundation of our democracy. if congress -- if confidential sources 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 of maintaining the pledge of confidentiality to my sources. i have complete respect for the federal court and the judicial process and i am 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 that i 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 this, as i

have in major weeks, losing your job, losing your company health insurance, having your reporting files seized by your former employer and being held in contempt of court gives you clarity. the first amendment, protection of confidential sources and a free press are my guiding principles. they are my north star. when i was laid off in february, it instantly reinforced 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. cbs news' decision to re-seize 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 had taken a toll on me and my career. this is not a battle you can fight alone. i am grateful for the support of fellow journalists and multiple first amendment organizations including the reporter's committee for press freedom, the freedom of the press foundation, the coalition for women in journalism, the night first amendment institute, the society of professional journalists as well as the columbia journalism school of which i am a graduate. i have also been fortunate to have the support from my former employer as i continue to fight this case. not many journalists could 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 when independent journalism and news platforms are expanding opportunities for reporting

diverse voices that strengthen our democracy. i know i joined 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 committee's commitment to this legislation and in holding this public hearing. thank you. >> thank you, ms. herridge. ms. cavallaro, you may begin. >> good morning. thank you committee chairman jordan, subcommittee chairman roy, committee ranking member nadler, subcommittee ranking member scanlon and distinguished members of this subcommittee for this opportunity to subcommittee on fighting for a free press protecting journalists and their sources. my name is mary cavallaro. i serve as the chief outcast officer for sag aftra, a national union of over 160,000 members that represents professionals in the entertainment and media

industry. i am responsible for overseeing the unions collective bargaining agreements with our 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 in the critical nature of the confidential source relationship. ferment intrusion upon the relationship between a reporter and their sources undermines the foundation of the freedom of 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 score responsibility is to negotiate, administer, and enforce the collective bargaining agreement under which our members work, the union is also charged with advocating on behalf of our members are legislation that directly impacts their work and

their profession. sag aftra's legislative work has recently focused on artificial intelligence, protecting an 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 think 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 its unanimous passage of this vital legislation in january 2024. in calling upon the united states senate to expeditiously pass this legislation and send it to president biden for signature. if signed into law, the press act would establish the first federal press shield law in united states history and will

significantly strengthen press freedom by safeguarding journalists and their confidential sources. the press act creates a federal statutory privilege to shield journalists from being compelled to reveal their confidential sources and prevents federal law enforcement agencies from abusing subpoena power to access journalists email and phone records. this long, overdue legislation represents 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. sag aftra stands in solidarity with journalists, their employers and press advocacy groups who share the common goal of a better role shield law for journalists. the press act is bipartisan legislation that guarantees and protects our 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 our democracy. protecting a journalists 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 actions. 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 show the instinct of a potential source to come forward and tell their story 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 this issue. sag aftra is hopeful that this interest and energy will be used in a productive and

nonpartisan way to move the press act forward. thank you again for this opportunity to speak before the subcommittee today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you ms. cavallaro. ms. attkisson, you may begin. >> morning. it is an honor to be here and to finally meet catherine herridge finally. and decades of reporting nationally at cnn, cbs and for the last nine years on my tv show full measure, countless news stories that i broke or facets of them could not have been reported without sources whose identities needed to be protected. to name just a few, enron, bp oil spill, the bank bailout, all of the money investigations on taxpayer spending, congressional oversight, congressional fundraising, prescription drug and vaccine dangers, haiti earthquake aid, green energy failures, waste and fraud at the red cross, firestone tires, benghazi and past imperious. the last 12 stories i mentioned, thanks to some information provided by sources

who could not be quoted by name received recognition from the emmy awards. multiply that by thousands of reporters and countless stories and it is fair to argue that a lot of important facts would have never been exposed of journalists could not ensure protections of our sensitive sources identities. two days information landscape makes it more difficult for journalists and our sources to report on ethical lapses, wrongdoing and crime. more often than not, the truth teller, when it named, gets smeared and ruined while the wrongdoers carry on. they escape accountability and may even get promoted. they have seen what has happened to snowden. the earth shattering revelations quickly eclipsed by organized efforts to detract -- distract by to resizing them. make sense to ask, what is the impact we can no longer assure our sources that we can protect their identity? it is not a new concern.

years ago, after adverse court decision started coming down on this front, i was at cbs and we began having to consider whether a confidential source in a story would be okay with ultimately having his identity revealed if a judge ordered it. obviously, the answer was often no. i can no longer provide assurances to a whistleblower who feared for his career or safety that i could guarantee protection of his identity. some stories still got done but many became nonstarters with no way to quantify with any certainty what we lost but i don't think there are many investigative reporters who would say it is not having an impact. there are ideas to help such as the press act which would bar federal agencies from forcing telecommunications firms to turn over records belonging to journalists but it is important to note that some of the most egregious intrusions on press freedoms don't happen that way. our intelligence agencies that are working -- pardon me -- this is important. need to clear my throat. our intelligence agencies have been working hand in hand with

telecommunications firms for decades with billions of dollars in dark contracts and secretive arrangements. they don't need to ask for permission to access journalists records or those to regular citizens. current efforts to reauthorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act relate to this. there was a lengthy record of government surveillance abuses to be found in the little we have been able to learn about. intelligence officials have misled congress about surveilling u.s. citizens, even spying on journalists and political figures are staff and allies. it has been a known problem for decades and is special done in 2020 found the fbi violated safeguards in every single wiretap audited. pardon me. in just 29 applications reviewed, there were 409

errors, even when caught in press, the fbi only had fessed up to half of them. it was all 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 at my work computer, subsequent forensics unearthed government control i.t. addresses used in the intrusions to prove that not only did the guilty party monitor my work in real time on the they also accessed my past imperious files, got into the larger cbs system, planted classified documents deep in my operating system and were able to listen in on conversations by activating skype audio. it was clear that the department of justice would not hold its own accountable so i sued. this case is the first we know of in which a journalist received a clerk's default against an agent working for government parties in a surveillance operation. it is a small victory because he was soon reported dead, which means we can't access potential information leading to the larger players.

i have learned that wrongdoing from the federal government had their own shield laws to protect them from accountability. making sure that journalists can protect their sources and do the constitutionally protected job we do, the new laws will necessarily impact dishonest players in government to have proven more than capable of and willing to skirt laws to access the information they want. >> thank you ms. attkisson. >> ms. johnson, you may begin. >> thank you chairman jordan, ranking member scanlon, chairman roy and members of the subcommittee for convening today's hearing. it is an honor and a privilege to present. at the institute where i serve as policy director, our work is concentrated on the intersection of first amendment freedoms and new technology and dedicated to protecting and promoting a system of free expression that serves contemporary democracies. or press freedom project, like all our work focuses on the

infrastructure of first amendment law and values to meet 21st-century pressures. for journalists and media organizations, those pressures are formidable. we have surveillance tools in government hands that create new vulnerability to reporters, powerful government and private entities that are resistant to public oversight and accountability and the capacity of machines to generate and disseminate news and new creations. the institute is a leading voice for the first amendment rights of journalists and news organizations to publish vital information. our aim is to strengthen the constitutional and detections that will minimize threats and ensure that journalists and news organizations can carry out the vital work. no single piece of legislation is strongly coordinated with these efforts as the bipartisan protect reporters from exploited state spying more press act to reduce the subcommittee. however, a representative has

been passed in the house. modern newsgathering requires that reporters are able to give assurances of confidentiality to their sources. testimonial protections for journalists are essential to core first amendment values. the protection of journalist source materials is ambiguous and in 1972, a case on the topic , the court acknowledged that newsgathering is not without first amendment protections but did not delineate whether protections might be. the murkiness of the decision has led to confusion about its holding and inconsistency of the application. illustrating this is the patchwork of federal circuit court which has emerged in a 52 year course decision. the differences in approach resulted in predictability and inconsistency and ultimately compromise the ability of journalists to do the work we need them to do. without strong first amendment protections, journalists are less likely to be able to engage confidential sources as fewer of them will come forward and when that information stops, it means the american public is less informed. despite widespread laws and court recognize reporters across the state, the landscape at the federal level remains, meaning congressional action is

urgently needed. for these reasons, the institute fully supports the press act. it is critical to a free press, and reaffirming the first amendment rights. passing the press act is also important because of the changing nature of what it means to be a journalist today. we know when the digital age a significant amount of important reporting is done by journalists who do not fit a traditional mold, whether writing for the washington post or offering a description on subset, journalists should be afforded a clear, consistent, predictable -- who qualifies for protection via a federal shield bill is critical to preventing misguided attempts by the government to compel journalists and media outlets to reveal source information. it would also ensure the ability across the administration leading to less uncertainty for journalists and media outlets across the

country. the press act addresses this issue, offering definitions that account for the broad landscape of journalism today, better protecting and appropriately reporters and reporting activity. the act also commendably protects journalist communication, ensuring that information held by third-party phone and internet providers is not secretly seized by the government. these provisions are critical part -- for protecting first amendment rights. there are situations in which competing interest will be at play and the determinant of whether the disclosure of information gained in the course of the investigation or other journalistic acts is warranted the press act appropriately addresses these concerns as well through a series of exceptions. in some, passage of the press act into law would provide critical support to the free press, therefore benefiting all americans. thank you again. >> thank you. we will now proceed with questions under the five-minute rule and 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 agency to suppress debate in many different forms. the irs intimidation of tea party activists through abuse of its authority, use of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to suppress vital information such as the contents of the hunter biden laptop board dissenting views on covid, all of it that turned out to be factual and correct. the beating heart of democracy is freedom of speech, the right of every citizen to express their decisions freely. it is by this discussion that we have the tools to sort out fiction or wisdom from folly or right from wrong. that is how a free society finds its way and a free press is fundamental to that process. without it, the people cannot make informed decisions or hold their 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, those that are marked embarrassing and 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 but when the government pressures any news outlet, or for that matter, any private party, suppress or shape its coverage, that crosses a very bright and dangerous line. ms. herridge, did you know if cbs 's actions were influenced by the government in any way? >> use your mic. >> pardon me. >> congressman, i am not someone who is known to offer speculation so i can't really answer the question directly. >> there enough. with all of the prevail you

have been dragged through, has anyone in the government be 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 a day for protecting my confidential sources. i am torching it that that has been paid, pending the appeal. >> who is responsible for that? who are the actors with the government that are waging war against the freedom of journalists like yourself to report the facts that the american people need to form their own opinion? >> if you are referring to my particular case, i want to be respectful of the ongoing litigation. it is in front of the appellate court. i want to emphasize that i am only a witness. >> has anyone been held accountable for these acts against you?

>> no. >> ms. attkisson, what is your experience? >> it is interesting to hear people say, and i agree with this, that the government should not be intervening in news coverage but in my experience i cbs, that happens everyday. members of committees, members of congress called the bureau in washington, d.c., contacts that they have with managers up in new york to try to shape our coverage. >> that i don't find particularly objectionable as long as there is no force or threat of force behind that. do you find that to be the case? >> there is no physical force threatened but there certainly is 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 all channeled through your

employers? >> i saw a great deal of pressure channeled through my employer's. 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 story, let's let it rest for a day. there is no objection over the content of the story and the facts. is that a story they felt were unfavorable at times? >> they were offering additional facts that might have been ignored, if they were offering different opinions. that is freedom of speech. get behind those suggestions, the threat of force. it was a completely different manner. >> my position was, when political officials call into 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 but there are these

extensive conversations that go on behind the scene. i only know about a few of them. i am sure this happens in other scenarios as well. >> i will now recognize the ranking member for any questions you might have with the five-minute rule. >> thank you mr. chairman. ms. attkisson, controversially before the congress, should i hear your testimony to say that the press act would not be sufficient? >> in my view to handle some of the problems we have discussed, i am not saying it should not be passed and i am not an expert. i think it won't handle -- back what else should we do? >> i think it is a global problem that has to do with sending a message, a message of oversight to the intelligence agencies that we know have, for decades, violated rights and made policies that are contrary

to constitution and so on. it is an effort they think is serious. they are running the olympics here rather than the committees conducting oversight of them and there needs to be something, they understand that 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. in the bransford case, the supreme court declined to recognize the first amendment's privilege for news gatherers. what is the source of congress' authority? >> congress is authorized under the constitution to provide and create legislation to ensure that these rights are trying further into law. and bransford, the court invited congress to do so. we are pleased that the house has acted in this regard and we

look forward to the senate doing so as well. >> according to your recent testimony, it has been a decade since the court decided. many federal circuit courts have any sort of privilege. why is it so important that we step in to the statutory report? >> it is because the law is unsettled. you have different landscape all across the country were different circuit courts have different interpretations. there was a decision i one point where the judge said the cases was something as clear as mud. it really has not allowed for a clear understanding of that landscape with congressional action. the press act would reduce forces and help journalists. it would provide clarity in the landscape that is now muddled and uncertain. we averred ms. herridge is carly subject to civil contempt order by federal judge in washington, d.c. any case where she is refused to provide testimony regarding her confidential sources that may be relevant to the private litigants case against the government. so happens the government defendants accused of wrongdoing the case include the fbi. if the press act malala would it

have applied to ms. harris or her current circumstances and is it important reporters bigger third party to litigation prior party other than the government also received detection for the first amendment and to. >> was i with the press act had been an act of some litigation would applicable in this because the most important thing the press act as is a a foreclosee government from compelling journalists to disclose their sources. yes, i do believe it is important for there to be this protection for journalism. >> depletable protect, it would stop the litigation against ms. herridge? >> i believe these are compelling sources or it would have played a role, yes. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank the ranking member. i will now recognize the gentlelady from wyoming for questions under the five-minute rule. >> that morning, ladies, i thank you for being here to address such an incredibly important issue. ms. herridge, i'd like to start with you pick about two months

ago held in contempt and levied daily fines of $800 per day for your refusal to disclose your sources. this is deeply concerning, and what's more concerning, you are not the first in an article related to your case the "washington post" reported out in 2005, five national reporters were held in contempt and levied fines of $500 per day. in 2008, ausa today reported was held in contempt and faced daily fines of $5000. those instances where reporters upheld the journalistic integrity and protected their sources to ensure good reporting for the american people. only to face reviewed in heavy-handed enforcement by the courts which are intended to protect the first amendment. ms. herridge come how fundamental to reporting is a protection of your sources? >> 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'm upholding the most basic principle of journalism. if you cannot offer a source a promise of confidentiality, as a journalist, your tool box is empty. no whistleblower is coming forward. no government official with evidence of misconduct or corruption. and what that means is that it interrupts the free flow of information to the public, and as we've all recognize, journalism is about and informed electorate which is a bedrock of our democracy. if you had asked me 37 years ago when i started working that i i would be in the federal courts living a legal nightmare to protect my sources, i would never have believed it. i told you 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 the heavy-handed nature of the signs is to compel quick disclosure of sources and that gave reporters a choice, a similar choice the way you exercise your? >> just ask your self, how many can withstand fines in my case of $800 a day? mine is being stayed pending the appeal. in another case you cited it was like thousand dollars a day. besides are designed that you have to disclosure sources. you have to burn them. and in a marketplace where we have this explosion and independent journalism and smaller outfits, they cannot withstand the signs. they cannot about a concert and vigorous legal defense of the

first amendment. that is what i think this is such a dangerous time and why the press act can codify these guarantees and they can happen with a very strong, in fact, the strongest bipartisan message about the importance of the freedom of the press. >> it doesn't just apply in your industry. we have other agencies and to think it is a site of a tyrannical government when we give them the ability to levy five like this. an example i would use is that the epa has the authority to levy fines of $59,000 a day, and he do so, and that's how they will force people into settlements and consent decrees even if they're not necessarily guilty that they cannot withstand the pressure that they bring to bear you have a government that has that kind of authority. so i think that it applies in the first amendment context with our journalist that i think it's a bigger issue that we as congress needs to address across-the-board pay because again i will use the word, it will result in tyranny when you

give agencies or officials that kind of authority. one thing that has been mentioned is 32 states and washington, d.c. have shield laws. however, not states alder and there is no federal shield law as each of you have described. as in your case and in the case of others this has resulted in the courts actually being enlisted to compel disclosure of your resources, of , of your. in instances such as your case what is a hostile court system do for the protection of the free press? >> i think it presents another very significant challenge for journalism. as my colleague sharyl attkisson said, when you're working with a whistleblower or you're working with the 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. and 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 met. i think i've shown that in this contempt case. not everyone is going to be able to have that opportunity. >> well, i thank you. i thank you for your bravery. i thank you for what you've been willing to expose, and i thank you all for what being willing to stand up to the jury that we are seeing in the attack on first amendment it is critical for the freedom of her physical person in this room, so thank you. without i just back. >> thanked the gentlelady. i want to recognize the gentlelady from vermont. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one of the things that i've noticed in this committee and in my subcommittees is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often overpromise and under deliver.

and we are told repeatedly that there are conspiracy theories. we have a government that is going after individual private citizens. i mean, this is the narrative over and over and over again. and as a new one to this committee i'm always so disappointed when i feel like there's actually a lot that we agree on. and press freedoms and the press act is something that we were able to all come together on, and that's where our attention should be. we should always be making sure that we have a free and protected press now, what i'm hearing is, is really about employment disputes with 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 in the free press. and from what i've heard from the searing so far and the material 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 involve disputes over what are essentially implement an editorial decision-making by private news organizations. in the context of newsgathering public reporting which we all desperately need in this country. country. and as i said we came together to support the press act. we all agree that it's 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 the colleagues overpromise and under deliver. if i believed every single time of the conspiracy theories that are polled before this committee, i would have to believe that there was a bogeyman behind every corner, under every rock. it's absurd. it's absolutely absurd. and 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? could you explain to pgh yes, jawboning is the act of coercion by the government to an entity to get it, well, in the case i seen so far, to get it to change its position, , program would he in terms of what it says to the public. >> do you have concerns about congressional hearings such as this one, or statements that officeholders make, they could be intended to influence editorial decisions at news organizations? >> news organizations are entitled to decide for themselves what subjects to cover, and the first amendment protects the editorial decision they make about their news coverage. it would be unconstitutional for any government official to attempt to coerce a news

organization. >> and could jawboning be considered unconstitutional? >> as we know we have filed an amicus brief in the murphy case that is before the supreme court. what we talked about is we had said publicly accipiter has an important role to play as a participant in public discourse, colluding type to recite for example, social media platforms to change the policies. but that engage in coercion to do so. there is a line and outlined is critically important. >> and ms. farid johnson, what does it mean for free public discourse it public officials can informally intimidate or influence editorial decision-making such as in a hearing such as this and? >> the critical thing is that it cannot be coercion. we want to ensure the first amendment protections that are afforded to news workstations, for example, are maintained and

so that would mean that there cannot be that level of influence can go into coercion but again of course we believe the government has an important role to play in terms of public discourse. >> thank you so much, ms. farid johnson. i really appreciate time. i yield back. >> we are going to do one more round of questions before we break for the prime minister. i'm going to wreck it is the gentleman from north dakota. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't think people going to investigate reporting to get rich. i think it's an incredibly important service that, but i just want to wreck a little bit. i don't think being held in contempt either civil or criminal is either i conspiracy theory or part of an employment dispute. you are either going to be civilly held in contempt and find until he disclosure source, or worse yet you're going to put in an eight x ten with bars the window. that's what contempt means. for not disclosing a source. so if there's more chilling effect on the right of the free

press and north dakota citizens to be informed about what's going on, i would like to know it. ms. herridge, you been helping content. do you think that is part of an employment dispute? >> i want to have complete respect for the legal process. my case is being litigated but no, these are separate matters. >> i'm hopeful soon the senate will take up the press act and add a federal shield law for reporters been compelled to reveal confidential sources. ms. acca sake, i'm out of the impression reporters in most states have subha protection but federal judges in courts are not bound by the same laws? >> i'm not familiar with the status of the states versus but i know north dakota with a shield law and a lot of different states. in 2011 you reported on the obama that i want to back up a secular we act like this is new stuff but this is been going on for a long time here we've had a lot of talk about doj, twitter and section 230 and liability and a metered and all of those things but in 2011 you reported

on the obama administration operation fast and furious operation which atf purpose of loud dealers to sell to illegal straw burster were confidential sources and information critical to informing the public about that scan? >> yes. >> would you been able to shed light on the federal government selling weapons including grenade launchers and anti-aircraft weapons to the mexican drug cartels without guaranteeing confidentiality of your source. >> was it would've been tough. the what event report that will be ended up reported. >> when you reporting on the security lapses into 2012 benghazi embassy attack, do you think think you would've been able to shed light on the federal governments failed to maintain embassy security without guaranteeing confidentiality of your sources. >> at some of a yes, but some of the know. >> do you believe it's important for the american people to be informed of these things along with waste, fraud, and abuse by the federal government and we should do what we can to ensure robust media scrutiny of his government official? >> yes. >> even if that includes members

of college? >> right. >> does the status quo were source of you depend on reporter and outlets financial tolerance for content punishment is equate to a functional sensible system? >> know, 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 did he get start out by telling him as you begin to talk that he's not going to be identified yet. >> does the current system have chilling effect of potential confidential sources on was a war? >> does. >> if we passed the press act, you talked about the press act and we think it is deficient or whatever but you agree it would be helpful? >> it seems like it would be helpful. >> in the last minute and 30 seconds i think we can deal with this. i think there's a certain thing that we have to recognize. i'm a former criminal defense attorney, confidentiality with my clients is absolutely essential in order to do with

those things. i think there are a lot of different similarities but you're your to be as mentally toughest anybody to be an investigative reporter. we're sitting here now talking about these things at the same time we got a letter from the doj saying that they can't release an audiotape after they've already given us the transcript on my computer where it was, what it was tried to be erased and only found live because it would have a chilling effect on potential witnesses coming forward to talk about a crime. that's what the letter said. and at the same time we have a doj going to investigative reporters saying i know you guaranteed his people confidentiality to report against the government doing something bad against u.s. citizens, but i'm going to force you to expose that one can hold you in civil contempt, criminal contempt all those things. possessing hypocritical to you, ms. atkinson? >> there are many things that seem to be double standard-ish,

one way for them and another way for us. >> they are literally saying we can't reduce, , we can't really something is otherwise we will not and built investigate anything begin which by the way is false by the same time with it a like something in of you all are biting, right, left, center, conserve the liberal this i want to know who your source is. >> i get it. >> i do, too, i think it's very, very unfortunate. without i yield back. >> i will now recognize that collect from texas, ms. jackson lee. >> chairman roy i'm grateful for your courtesies and courtesies of this committee. to the ranking member, courtesies to ms. scanlon. good news that i heard as we were concluding your last question was that the press act does help. >> seems like it would, ms. lee. >> yes, so we need the word investigative i hope you want us as members of congress to investigate so we get it right. so that this very hallowed

amendment or bill of rights in the first amendment is taken says later i take it very seriously and i appreciate the work that all of you do, in spite of the obstacles that 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, ms. johnson, i appreciate the institute at columbia i believe, and i want to make sure we got the press act that may be needing to be reimagined. we look at other legislation that allows investigative reporters to work but not, i think there's a fine line between, i want use the term abuse on both sides, but there's a fine labor cybele start with you, ms. johnson. what more care do we need to

give to have the work and investigative reporter work? i am going to ask you that question. i think that will help us, i will be finished and him had to get another drink at another time to go into more deeply concerned issues but miss johnson if you would quickly. >> the first thing we needed to do is enter the press act gets passed into law and science. but i think it's important to remember and recognize this is a fraught time for journalists. we have new surveillance technology spirit we have a question of funding for journalism itself. so it's really important to do what congress can do in the immediate term to protect information that is vital to our democracy which is to protect journalists and often to the job we need them to do. >> and are you concluding your testimony by saying i would be passed the press act and have funding? >> the first thing congress to do is just is to pass the press act and sure it is signed into law and order to protect journalists and allow them to be able to give assurance to the sources that there will not be revealed. there is across the bigger

question about funding for journalism as a profession, as a whole. >> are right. ms. attkisson, where do we need to go with the? >> one asked any issues regarding laws are passed, we know from the factual record that are bad actors in setter agencies that will violate law. so ally doesn't necessarily provide full protection. and number two, when a citizen tries to get redress or something like that as in civil courts is under i found the federal government has in order protections from 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 to broad immunity granted to people. >> this or any detriment to the ie, i'm on another, on the ai,

is there another detriment to this act that i exist amongst the. >> us i'll bet there is but i'm not an expert on that. >> all right. we were back-to-back hearings. and if you would, ms. cavallaro. thank you, ms. keller. >> what more do we need to do? >> so sag-aftra has for decades supported a federal shield law, and we would first hope that the press act passes. i think that's the priority. i think 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 as a labr union representing journalists to advocate for. but it do think that as as a, i think the idea that this passed unanimously and there is bipartisan support should mean

that something we should be able to move forward quickly and expeditiously. >> were going to do deep dive on that. what to quickly finished i think with ms. attkisson -- >> ms. herridge. >> i'm looking at ms. herridge. if you would. >> thanks for the question. i agree with my colleagues. i think the imperative is to get the press act through the senate and on the president does. it's going to close a gap in the federal courts. it's going to bring consistency between the state shield and the federal shield laws. just think a lot of good will follow from that. >> mr. chairman, i'm grateful for the time given. i think we are committed to doing a deep dive on this important issue, first amendment rights, i want to be part of helping as opposed to undermining them. thank you so very much and i yield back. >> thank the gelid from texas i will now recognize the chairman of the full committee, mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you wrote stories critical of the obama administration, it's a

packet? >> yes, but may i point out it wasn't put in a political light? there were also stories some would consider critical of the bush spit you wrote stories critical of the government. >> yes. >> and then you did a fast and furs, other issues. even before on the bush of administration. and then strange things are happening to you, right? >> yes. >> like computer, your phone gets bugged and things happened your computer. after you wrote stories critical of the government. >> bright. >> that's scary, right? >> it's not a good thing. >> ms. herridge you wrote stories critical of the by administration, is that true? >> that's fair. >> give it a number things about the laptop pc, hunter biden, come all things wrote, critical of the biden come, biden business, , biden brendel said. >> i reported the facts of the story. >> you sure did you reported the facts. cbs fired you, is that right? >> my position was terminated.

>> and you and award-winning journalist. how long did you were gets to get? >> i worked at cbs news four and half years. during that time we one major awards. i was part of an emmy-winning team. i was nominated for investigative enemies. i think the most important projects or projects that drove legislation here on the hill. the positively impacted 1 million veterans award-winning journals, won all kinds of awards, what they're almost five years, has extensive experience, given major network prior to that were you also an award-winning journalist and all kinds of reporting critical of the government. there as well and then you get fired it's worse than i come is in a? they didn't just by you. what else did they do? >> on february 13 when i was told on a soon call that my employment was terminated, i s locked out of my fingernails -- soon call that an osaka office. cbs news sees hundreds of pages of my reporting files including

confidential source information. >> that's not normal, is it. >> no, that's not my experience in the other networks i worked at her with my colleagues at cbs news. when the network of walter cronkite sees the reporting files including confidential source information, that is an attack on investigative journalism. >> yes, it sure is. i'm just trying and seems there's a pattern developing. critical of the government. mr. pak in the situation and then they start doing all kinds of strange things to your phone lines come to your computer. your critical of the government at a major news organization and you are an award-winning journals, you get fired but not just yet fired. fact we can maybe there's nothing to that but what we do know is the seizure documents. that's scary as well. you talk about a chilling effect on the first amendment, i don't know how we could be more chilly. they could is the lady sitting beside you stepped in because they're stepping in and helping.

then stepping it helps because you got your files back finally, did you? >> 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 they would have received the files and it would've been returned to practice want to be clear, congressman, wherever you work 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, the free flow of information to the public, they call it journalism profession for a reason. because it's about and informed electorate, and the cornerstone of our democracy. i cannot speak for myself when my records were seized, i felt it was a journalistic rate. >> ms. cavallaro have you ever seen that before when someone is

leaving employment at a major news organization they sees the documents? >> i can't say that sag-aftra is familiar with every single case of termination or departure where speed is i'm not ask you to pick have you ever seen anything like this? >> i have no recollection of seeing speeders that is scary, too. first am at a rapid and it an award-winning journalist who's been in his profession for number of years, note all across the profession, and that have fun heels of what happened to miss accident because both were critical of government. that's what journalism is about, being critical of the government when the governor is doing things wrong and have news or decision of the government itself do this. your testimony, ms. herridge, yet a very important line produces is confidential source or not protected, journalism is dead. and i agree but he seems me if retaliation is allowed by the cabal by some major media outlet, journalism is dead as well. that's what this unit 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 recognize the ranking member. >> i just have unanimous consent request to enter into the record hereabouts response to chairman jordan fibber 23rd letter regarding ms. herridge of termination. it corrects the record some of the wild speculation and mischaracterization with it from the other side as it describes ms. herridge is not the only person who was let go at that time and certain procedure followed. >> with the chairman joe? >> yes. >> i didn't have always was it happened. what happened afterwards is what is scary when he sees your files. that is scary. that is the point i speedy unanimous consent to introduce the letter. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> suspend for one second. [inaudible conversations]

>> i will not recognize the recommender for questions. >> thank you. and i want to thank all of our way decision today. appreciate ms. herridge repeater acknowledgment that are employment dispute is separate from the civil lawsuit in which she was held in contempt for refusing to disclose the confidential source come despite the confusion of some of my colleagues conflated those matters. .. federal law in readiness and confusion versus decision over

the state years ago it really is incumbent upon congress to take action to make sure courts are not put in a position where they were cap possible jail time because i don't think have the authority not to so explicitly writing congress to determine whether government privileges necessary desirable as deemed necessary so you could take us through, why should congress seven this issue particularly in freedom of the press are model asked. >> it is leading journalists and alert different interpretations over 50 years old.

with the definitions of provides comprehension, it is opportunity for congress to clarify her certainty and they are coronary less and less likely or and that's hard for americans because they cannot monitor with the government is doing the compounds of reproach. >> and i appreciate that and we are ports in a position where they are doing things undermining first amendment freedom of the press rights. dozens of our states reducing some the majority the federal circuit court, how does that

impact journalism and respondent age the online platform while we are not talking about low impact on the street how to mark uniform impact you? >> forty-nine states have either court recognition and there's no distinction the. the d.o.j. recently had media guidelines the talked about news media center in terms of limitations for what government can do to help sources. >> the internal criteria in the agency when it comes to defining what the new speaker is.

we have a number of individuals engaging in these acts in terms of being a "wall street journal" report. because they are not empty a new age of innovation of journalism, having is act to protect paternalist of all different. >> i want to thank all our witnesses the importance of the present act in the editorial calling get with us again a gun so thank you again, we healed back. >> i want to thank her in my garlic are trying to move this along. i believe we are quite you try to finish this hearing so we are going to receipt and hope we don't have to break and come back. can you quickly for the

committee, articulate their words and first perceived in carrying out your profession? >> i'm so proud of the work we did. as part of an emmy-winning team and nominated for primarily revealing toxic exposure for veterans from a they were based in watching these operations and reporting account for legislation justice act which opened new opportunities and for veterans interest accountability

reporting on the left and the right. chicken cacciatore quite higher call you been giving awards and nothing would indicate these failures could you drop probably, correct? >> i think what you are asking is that i was terminated for, i don't believe my record what like that. i don't know what it is considered when they terminated my position, there was tension over the hunter biden reporting and i can't speak for sure why i was like zero. >> you mentioned tension, one reporter mainstream media focusing on the hunter biden

laptop in fact rounding the biden family, correct? >> is correct the full picture i was author who obtained the audiotaped for former president trump that i exposed how soldiers were denied the problem part and a ballistic missile attack and karen. i follow the facts. >> was around the time of calling out the trump administration for the times you pursued? >> was like a few days after two president biden's information. >> at the same time that's going on your managing the issue with fox and the reality you are held

in contempt. it's important for the record your house in contempt by court to the tune of $800 a day which thankfully has stayed, correct? >> it is correct and i like to emphasize my case is that the appellate court in the characterization court being hinted at discretion and i was thinking journalists and they have to make the choice of these sources. >> can you raise the extent on what you believe this means?

a corporate structure from your previous reporting. >> i just don't think any journalist significant proven financial sanctions are current employer in position for this costly fence. rest act most legal cap and i want to emphasize not a single journalist or single-story from it's not about the network. what happened in my case is going to impact every journalist and impact every journalist in the united states for the next generation to come anything i can accomplish my career as a

journalist is going to get this. i feel this with every fiber of my being. >> i want to acknowledge moment will be closed before we adjourn. >> it's purpose and privilege on the part of journalists. i appreciate the fact, right appreciate your position in your republicans, i get that. as a matter think with the

presence of shellenberger right observation, i think cbs news, all of which are captured like you work for one of maybe large there's is from "wall street journal", washington post and new york times all rock big media captured on one side. he worked for the same period of time for one of those. what is that? the hunter biden story or whatever but how does a

journalist and an environment where they are kept on one side of the political spectrum ask. >> voice tried to be respectful of former employers cbs news in the same approach, it's about accountability journalism representing the city. it is so important in a civil debate to settle these issues and i feel team with protection courses helps grow the voices and that's the bottom line. >> and i understand you want to take on and emphasize this to

cover new ground is act as were you decided to focused. you're one of the admirable confessional but also the you are on air, not wanting your applicant image and decided, is that not true? >> you investigated to bring and diverse voices and i did my best to do that. i can't explain all of the decisions that in some cases i felt like submitted was uncomfortable with journalism. >> professional ethical list, want to go but i have great

respect for the your profession has about a little how they will be solved but i do believe it will be in bits and pieces. i do think it is a great tragedy media but everyone probably recognize where the overall trend has grown in at least professional journalists and hopeless situations. if you have one decided to go one way entirely as a mechanism for what professional journalism ought to be. >> this concludes today's hearing and we think the

witnesses before hearing. questions to the witnesses or additional record. without objection, when hearing is adjourned. the losing and radiant. [background noises]

[background noises]