[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 88 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E931-E932]



 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2015

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. ALAN GRAYSON

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 28, 2014

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4660) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, 
     Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2015, and for other purposes:

  Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 4660) is an appropriations bill 
that funds various Federal Government programs and entities, including 
the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  My amendment reads as follows, ``None of the funds made available by 
this Act may be used to compel a journalist or reporter to testify 
about information or sources that the journalist or reporter states in 
a motion to quash the subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist or 
reporter and that he regards as confidential.''
  For purposes of this amendment, the definition of a ``reporter'' 
includes: any person, natural person, or entity who releases, reports 
on, or provides information of a classified or unclassified nature to a 
public audience or on the internet, does so on a regular basis, and 
receives compensation for doing so. The term ``reporter'' is a 
description of a profession.
  For purposes of this amendment, the definition of a ``journalist'' 
includes: any person, natural person, or entity who releases, reports 
on, or provides information of a classified or unclassified nature to a 
public audience or on the internet, and does so on a regular or an 
irregular basis. The term ``journalism'' describes an act, not a 
profession. A person, entity, or natural person is a journalist so long 
as he or she is engaged in the act of journalism. An act of journalism 
involves the collection, analysis, description, dissemination, and/or 
publication of information.
  James Risen, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and Glenn Greenwald meet the 
definitions of reporters and journalists under these definitions.
  This amendment also prohibits the use of any funds made available by 
this Act to compel testimony from any individual who is engaged in 
journalism in any supporting role, such as assisting a journalist with 
analysis, collection, description, dissemination, and/or publication of 
information to a public audience.
  Funds appropriated under this Act may not be used to compel testimony 
by journalists or reporters to reveal confidential sources.
  This amendment mirrors the language supplied in other federal 
statutes defining journalism. For instance, the Freedom of Information 
Act defines a ``representative of the news media'' as ``any person or 
entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of 
the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a 
distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.'' 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552(4)(A)(ii)(IIII).
  This amendment also follows the spirit of the United States Supreme 
Court and Circuit Court precedents, which have widely and historically 
protected the vital newsgathering function performed by journalists. 
The patriot pamphleteers had no corporate affiliations, no professional 
societies, and no journalism degrees. The key test is whether 
individuals are engaged in news-related activities. Former Chief 
Justice Warren Burger observed that adopting a narrower definition 
would be ``reminiscent of the abhorred licensing system of Tudor and 
Stuart England--a system the First Amendment was intended to ban from 
this country.'' First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 
765, 801 (1978) (Burger, C.J., concurring).
  Early Supreme Court jurisprudence recognized a broad definition of 
journalism, noting

[[Page E932]]

that the function of the press is ``performed by lecturers, political 
pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists.'' Branzburg 
v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 705 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring); see also 
Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1932) (``The liberty of the press 
is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces 
pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the 
defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our 
own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends 
every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and 
opinion.'')
  This amendment is consistent with the holdings of several federal 
appellate circuits which take a functional view of journalism, defining 
a reporter as an individual who engages in news-related activities to 
disseminate information to an audience. For example, the First Circuit 
Court of Appeals has held that reporters should be protected based on 
function, rather than credentials or status. Glik v. Cunnille, 655 F.3d 
78, 84 (1st Cir. 2011) (``Changes in technology and society have made 
the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult 
to draw [and] news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a 
blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such 
developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First 
Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.''); see 
also Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987) (``The 
individual claiming the privilege must demonstrate, through competent 
evidence, the intent to use material--sought, gathered or received--to 
disseminate information to the public and [] such intent existed at the 
inception of the newsgathering process.'').
  The Second Circuit's standard, based on newsgathering function 
articulated in Von Bulow, was reiterated by the Ninth and D.C. Circuit 
Courts. See Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir. 1993); 
Alexander v. FBI, 186 F.R.D. 21, 50 (D.D.C. 1998). A similar bar is set 
in the Tenth Circuit. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 563 F.2d 433, 436-
37 (10th Cir. 1977) (concluding that a documentary filmmaker was not 
precluded from the privilege because his mission was investigative 
reporting for use in preparing a documentary film, regardless of the 
fact that he was ``not a salaried newspaper reporter'').
  Finally, this amendment is consistent with the views of First 
Amendment scholars, who agree that a functional definition is most 
appropriate. See generally Sonja R. West, Awakening the Press Clause, 
58 UCLA L. Rev. 1025, 1065-66 (2011) (``[The functional] approach 
avoids some of the pitfalls of the definition-by-affiliation 
approach.''); see also Linda L. Berger, Shielding the Unmedia: Using 
the Process of Journalism to Protect the Journalist's Privilege in an 
Infinite Universe of Publication, 39 Houston L. Rev. 1371, 1407 (2003) 
(``[N]o patriot printer or colonial pamphleteer had a journalism 
degree. Certification by a government agency or by a professional group 
carries the possibility of de-certification based on value judgments or 
viewpoints.'').
  This amendment was passed in an environment in which the Department 
of Justice has increased pressure upon journalists and their sources. 
Many of the nation's most respected reporters have characterized this 
as an assault on press freedom that chills investigative reporting and 
the public's right to know.
  Recent revelations that the Department of Justice secretly subpoenaed 
twenty phones lines at the Associated Press, and a legal brief filed by 
the Justice Department calling a Fox News journalist a ``co-
conspirator'' for simply protecting a source, have provoked widespread, 
bipartisan criticism. Many are concerned that the Department of Justice 
is actively impeding newsgathering activities protected by the First 
Amendment. The House of Representatives intends, by passing this 
amendment, to reject this harassment of journalists by the Department 
of Justice.
  Moreover, recently-disclosed digital surveillance activities by the 
United States government have had an inherent chilling effect on the 
act of journalism and the exercise of the First Amendment. This 
amendment is intended to ensure that the rights and newsgathering 
activities of reporters and journalists are not chilled when uncovering 
information involving or implicating the United States government or 
associated institutions. Furthermore, both Congress and the President 
have recognized the problem of `over-classification' of documents by 
agencies across the Federal Government. If journalists are prevented 
from publishing classified information, and the government classifies 
enormous quantities of information that should rightfully be in the 
public domain, the public is prohibited from knowing the workings of 
its government. Using Federal Government resources to undermine 
legitimate news-related activities or chill journalism, particularly 
when those activities aim to disclose the workings of government 
because that information is classified, constitutes a threat to the 
self-government of the American public. Federal government attempts to 
undermine legitimate news-related activities and/or chill journalism, 
are prohibited by this amendment.
  Finally, the act of journalism has been transformed by the internet. 
New methods for uncovering and publishing newsworthy information, and 
for financing such newsgathering and dissemination, are now available. 
This amendment protects the ability for those who may not have 
traditionally been considered journalists to engage in journalism. It 
is further intended to allow for experimentation in publication and 
dissemination of news without the threat of the Department of Justice 
using its resources to compel the revelation of journalistic sources 
through legal coercion.
  This amendment is to be construed liberally and broadly, to 
effectuate its purpose of protecting journalists and their sources from 
any coercive action taken by the government and the legal system. Its 
spirit applies to other government agencies, and to litigation between 
private parties. The terms ``information or sources'' and 
``confidential'' are to be given the widest possible construction. The 
limitation applies not only to the quashing of subpoenas, but also to 
every form of discovery, civil and criminal contempt, arrest and 
imprisonment, and any form of coercion within the legal system.

                          ____________________

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 82 (Thursday, May 29, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H4968-H5016]


 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 

[...]

                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec._. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to compel a journalist or reporter to testify about 
     information or sources that the journalist or reporter states 
     in a motion to quash the subpeona that he has obtained as a 
     journalist or reporter and that he regards as confidential.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, I regret bringing this up at 10:30 at night. 
I apologize for that because this is a weighty matter, and I think it 
deserves fair consideration. I hope we are not all too tired to deny 
this question the attention that it deserves.
  The purpose of this amendment is to raise the possibility of a 
Federal shield law that corresponds to shield law already in place in 
49 States, but not at the level of the Federal Government.
  A shield law is legislation designed to protect a reporter's 
privilege or the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to 
information and sources of information obtained during a news gather 
and dissemination process. In short, a reporter should not be forced to 
reveal his or her source, and that is in fact the law in 49 States, the 
only exception being Wyoming.
  This has come up in court cases at the Federal level and at the 
Supreme Court level, beginning with the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes, 
which I think poses this question in the microcosm.
  In that case, a reporter wanted to inform his readers about the 
nature of the drug hashish, and he realized the only way to go about 
that was to find and interview people who had actually used the drug 
hashish, and so he did that.
  After he published his article, relying upon these two confidential 
sources, at that point, he was subpoenaed to provide those sources, 
compromising their identity and compromising the principle of 
protecting your sources.
  This is an issue that comes up from time to time, often at the State 
level, occasionally at the Federal level.
  Some of us may remember the case of the Plame affair, the CIA leak 
scandal. A reporter was asked to release the name of the person to whom 
he had been perceived to leak regarding Valerie Plame. Reporters were 
asked, in general: Who are your sources with regards to this leak?
  One reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, was jailed for 85 
days in 2005 for refusing to disclose her source in the government 
probe.
  At this point, under current law, journalists are in a quandary. They 
realize the need to protect their sources. That right is recognized in 
49 States, but it is not codified at the Federal level, so what I seek 
to do at this late hour today is to do just that.
  I think this is a very important principle, as Branzburg pointed out, 
that springs from the foundation of our law. The Constitution and the 
First Amendment provide for freedom of speech and of the press. It is 
completely incongruous to say we have freedom of the press, but the 
Federal Government can subpoena your sources and put them and you in 
prison--you, if you don't comply.
  This is something that should have been handled perhaps years, if not 
decades ago. It falls upon us tonight, at this late hour, to try to 
handle it ourselves. I respectfully submit this amendment as being a 
much-needed and long-delayed clarification that the Federal Government 
treats this matter no differently than 49 States now do, and therefore, 
I ask for support on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is significant 
change. The authorizers should be looking at this. This is not 
something to put on an appropriation bill at 10:35 at night.
  I listened to the gentleman, and a lot of what he said, I seem to 
agree with, but you have to really look at this and have hearings, and 
for those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I share the 
gentleman from Florida's interest and support for shield laws as well, 
but I don't believe this has been carefully vetted. There are 
implications here about exactly who has the right to make the 
determination about whether or not funds could or could not be used. 
The way the language reads suggests that maybe the reporter would have 
that right, rather than a court.
  To me, this is not the best way to go about doing this. We will 
continue to work on shield law legislation in the House Judiciary 
Committee, which has passed out forms of shield law in the past, and we 
will continue to work on it.
  I must oppose this amendment in these circumstances. I don't think 
this is the right place to legislate something as complicated as this 
issue.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments 
and think he is exactly right.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H4997]]

  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. Without claiming my own time, I just want to support the 
thrust of this proposed amendment, which is that we should provide a 
shield law. The idea that, in 2005, a reporter was jailed for over 85 
days is wrong, and we do want to have the freedom.
  We have a constitutional responsibility to protect the freedom of 
press, but I agree with the chairman, we don't want to do it on an 
appropriations bill at 10:30 at night. We want to make sure it is clear 
what we are doing, so I oppose the amendment under those circumstances.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Supreme Court 
decision that we are talking about here was decided in 1972. There have 
already been hearings. There has been plenty of draft legislation. It 
is hard enough to get anything voted on around here. It is time to vote 
on this.
  After 42 years since the Supreme Court first addressed this, we don't 
have this body on record saying whether or not there should be a 
Federal shield law. I understand the reservations that have been 
expressed, but the time is now.
  The reporters in this country have waited long enough. It is time to 
be fair and show fealty to the First Amendment and to pass this 
amendment tonight.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.

[...]

                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Grayson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 183, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                               AYES--225

     Amash
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Flores
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gosar
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harris
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reed
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--183

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Connolly
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tonko
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0039

  So the amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H5012]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[...]