[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the subcommittee will come to order. without objection the chair has

authorized to declare a recess at anytime. we welcome everybody to today's hearing on a free press and protecting journalists. i'll remind everybody the guests in the chamber are guests and you're free to be here, but this is no audience participation in the hearing. this is a hearing and we're going to conduct it accordingly. i will now 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're still true today. first amendment guarantees freedom of the press and prohibits the government from making any law to that freedom. just hugo black stated, the founding fathers gave the press the role.

the press was to serve the governed, not the governors. and the hale to the freedom of the press is the keystone upon which all of our other freedoms rely. as is the case today. the journalists are often the first to expose government abuse and waste and fraud for the personal freedom that we hold dear. sadly, the freedom of the press is under attack in the country from multiple angles. the white house, the judges and mainstream journalism. and the obama administration hacked into a journalist's for a source. and to silence anyone blowing the whistle on waste and abuse by seizing the phone records of those who write stories. they were not just the

associated press, but also the personal home and cell phone. the seizure of the records was alarming that a coalition of 50 news organizations, abc, cbs, and others, submitted a letter of protest about the raids that stated the administration's action called into question the department of justice, policies towards the president's ability to balance on its own, its police powers against the first amendment rights against the news media and the public interests in reporting on any manner of conduct. and obama administration's war, was a chilling effect that disincentivizes those coming forward with freedom of information. that affects the harm and quality of journalism on a major scale. meanwhile, we've gene the biden-garland justice department arrest steve baker reporting from the capitol

building on january 6th, from events inside the capitol. and we saw a court order, investigative journalist catherine herridge to identify 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 government action such as this could have devastating consequences around a free press. around that time cbs news terminated ms. herridge's employment and unprecedented actions toward 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 developed or worked on for cbs news. cbs news threatened to trample on her first amendment rights

and could have divulged sources from her previous work with other networks. along the same lines, we've seen the federal government seek to impermissibly shape news stories, and social media companies as to content. and protecting from these attacks, we will examine the infringement on the freedom of the press and examine the prospects for a federal shield law. on july 19th, 2023, the house committee on the judiciary with a vote of 23-0, that doesn't often happen in the house judiciary committee, 23-0 favorably reported on the protect reports from exploitive act. the press act was written to

prohibit the federal government compelling journalists from identifying a source as well as any records, contents, communication, documents obtained or 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's now the senate's turn to take up this legislation and continue congress's commitment protecting our freedom. it's our job to stand up for that right and to protect journalists and their sources, i look forward to hearing from all of our distinguished witnesses today who will all bring unique and professional perspectives to this important issue. please note that a joint schedule of congress is scheduled for 11:00 a.m. and the committee will recess for the duration of 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 guarantee of a free press is one of the fundamental pillars of our democratic republic pre-dating and inspiring our constitution and the first amendment. we all know that a democracy truly works when its citizens are properly informed and a free press contributes to this goal by assuring truth and accountability by those in power and a free press informs on policy issues and impacting their lives and crucially revealing incompetence, corruption, deceit, fraud or bad states by political candidates and government officials. thus, attempts by government actors and leader to undermine the press whether by promoting conspiracy series and lies, attacking members of the press with whom they disagree or

undermining the ability to obtain vital information are an assault on the pillars of our democratic foundation. one particularly pernicious way this occurs is when the government to disclose confidential sources. it's important to talk about the different ways where the government can compel. it's one thing for the government to seek access to confidential sources, it's another when a court is enforcing the law that is written because congress hasn't acted to create a shield law. so confidential sources provide crucial information to reporters that help them to share full and impactful stories with the public and government attempts to undermine the sources erodes the press's ability to perform that function. if the press cannot important its sources then important truth may never come to light and americans in our democracy suffer. unfortunately under both

republican and democratic administrations going back decades. we've seen the government in attempts to crack down on leaks seize phone and e-mail records from journalists or seek to compel them to reveal the identity of the sources. the trump administration's department of justice seized phone records from three washington post reporters and e-mails trying to identify sources. and the trump administration similarly from reporters at cnn and new york times, and in addition to other press freedoms, tracking, detaining reporters reporting on conditions at the u.s.-mexico border. in these and other instances the house four times since 2007 passed with overwhelming bipartisan support a federal reporter shield law. that's legislation to protect journalists and prevent the government from revealing their

confidential sources with exceptions. former vice-president mike pence, then a member of the committee introduced such legislation in 2005. more recently representatives kevin kylie and jamie raskin helped to spear pass to protect reporters from the state spying act or press pact and as mentioned, that bill passed the house this past january unanimously by voice vote under suspension under the rules. after the committee voted favorably by a bipartisan vote. the press act would create a qualified federal statutory privilege that protects journalists from revealing confidential sources and information. the bill protects third party service providers such as telecommunications carriers and interactive services to reveal

accounts on a journalist's device. unfortunately the house repeatedly with strong bipartisan support passing some for the of reporters shield legislation, the senate has yet to act. today's hearing should be an opportunity to spur the senate to action, of concern that our republican colleagues appeared to have squander that chance at a hearing and instead trying to crank up right wing conspiracy theories. make no mistakes, we intend to move forward and try to promote both the press act and our constitutional protection. there is, of course, little evidence of ideological bias at cbs news as has been suggested and even if that were true, congress's authority by intervening, private news organizations whether cbs, msnbc or fox speaks through their journalist employees. if congress tried to punish or shape coverage by 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 right and its right to editorial control over its own content. so, today, we hope to inquire further from our witnesses about the importance of the federal shield act and why it's long past time for congress to enact it. our democracy is already under assault on numerous fronts and we should not be adding fuel to the fire. so, let's focus instead on something that would actually protect press freedom, would be completely within our article one authority and duties and let's talk about the critical need for a federal reporter shield legislation. i thank our witnesses for being here and i yield back. [inaudible conversations] [gavel pounding]

>> will be in order. i thank the ranking member, the gentle lady ms. scanlon for opening statements and i recognize the full committee, mr. jordan for the statement. >> thank you, it's not just the press that's under attack. every liberty we enjoy is under attack. the right to practice your faith, free press, free speech. a couple years ago americans were told they couldn't go to church on sunday, think about that. two and a half years ago, i spoke to the new mexico republican party in amarillo, texas, they had to get the freedom to assemble because they couldn't in their own darn state. you wanted to petition the member, you couldn't do it in congress because the speaker wouldn't let you in. your own darn capitol that you pay for. the most important to a free press and free speech. we're going to hear about the press today what's happened to two of our witnesses.

how freedom of the press, how they went after miss adkinson, what happened to ms. herridge, this is scary. and then just a couple of weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago, i went to the argument-- this should frighten us, i went to the argument in front of supreme court, we had a justice of the united states-- this is a big censorship case, something this committee spent a lot of time on, big government pressures big tech and ak deal-- academia to sensor speech, and one of the justices said to the solicitor in louisiana, counselor, your first amendment has the position to hamstringing the government. that's what it's supposed to do, for goodness sake. so 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 disputes by arguing and debating, the

alternative is frightening. so there's no more important hearing than this. and i want to thank our chairman and i really want to thank our four witnesses for being here. this is a critical importance. and you know what? this is why we've got to pass the press shield act, the house has got it. let's hope the senate and white house can figure this out. we pass this so we don't have this stuff that's happening to ms. herridge, happening right now. we actually had a situation in this committee room. we had matt taibbi on the stand and we had colleagues on the other side pressuring to divulge his sources. i look forward to the witness's testimony and with that i'll yield back. thank you, with the chairman. >> and i recognize this opening

statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, over the course of the last two decades, repeated overzealous prosecution of leaks to the press have made it clear that congress needs to enact a federal reporter's shield law. congress must protect journalists from being compelled to reveal their confidential sources in order to ensure the free flow of information and management related to the public interest. during the 117th congress when i was chairman of the committee we came together in a bipartisan vote to pass the press act to protect journalists and confidential sources except in seven circumstances. it passed in bipartisan fashion and unfortunately the senate did not act on the bill. i was pleased when the committee under chairman jordan's in this congress in a unanimous vote of 23-0. and again passed the house by voice vote. i think even a casual observer of the 118th congress

understands how rare it is for me, chairman jordan, and practically the entire house all to agree on the need for the same piece of legislation. we 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. and that's why it's disappointing according to news reports, this hearing has not really been called to serve as a forum to building greater support for the bill as the title of the hearing might suggest. instead it appears the true purpose is a forum to discuss allegations that chairman jordan made around one of our witnesses around a news organization and a false narrative around media bias. i'm sympathetic for anyone who was abruptly laid off from a job, and cbs laid off 800 people, one of whom, happened to be a close personal friend

of mine. but even if any allegations of so-called political bias made today are true, and to be clear, i have no reason to believe that they are, congress is not the proper forum for the personal grievances to be aired or resolved. as we listen to the testimony today, we should remember that news media organizations have their own first amendment rights, which include the right to exercise editorial judgment about what does and does not get reported as news. news media organizations ultimately speak or act through their employees and agents. barring some other unlawful reason for termination, like race or sex discrimination, congress does not have the authority to meddle in the relationship between reporters and their employing news organizations especially if it is intervened in a reported conflict over what story to investigate or not to investigate. to do so would, in my view, run

afoul of the first amendment. indeed, some might say this very hearing is the hearing jaw boning over the news media's coverage or lack of coverage of a particular subject and improper intrusion into the affairs of the apress. a history of overwhelming support is any indication, i hope we had universal agreement on the dias that the government should respect the freedom of the free press and continue our work to compel journalists from revealing their sources. the united states senate, for the fourth time is sitting under a federal reporter's-- is sitting on federal reporter's field legislation, that the house passed in overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the ranking member for his opening statement. ...

>> previously she served as chief intelligent correspondent for fox news from 1996-2019. ms. mary cavallaro, chief broadcast officer for the news from broadcast department at sag aftra, a position she held since 2010. she is responsible for overseeing the negotiation and administration of over 250 labor agreements, network, network and local broadcast employers nationwide. ms. sharyl attkisson, a five-time emmy award 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. johnson is a policy director of the institute at columbia university, raises work at pen america, state department and a private practice as a patent litigator. we would begin by swearing you in. would you please rise in raise your right hand? [witnesses were sworn in] >> let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. thank you, and please be seated. please know your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. accordingly we ask you summarize your testimony in five minutes. ms. herridge, you may begin. >> good morning, chairman jordan, ranking member ballot, chairman roy and ranking member

scanlon, and members of the subcommittee. i'm here today with 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 safeguard provided by the press. as you know in february i was held in contempt of court for refusing to dispose my confidential sources for national security store that i think my current situation can help put the important of press act into context. 11 of our children recently asked me if i would go to jail if we would lose our house and if we would lose our families savings to protect my reporting sources. i wanted to answer that in this united states where we say we value democracy and the role of a vibrant and free press, that it was impossible that i i cod not offer that assurance. bipartisan press act which came out of this house committee would put it into the sort of

legal jeopardy that i had experienced firsthand in the federal courts. and without the legislation more journalists were run into the uncertainty of the contempt in the future. this legislation will provide protection for every working journalist in the united states, now and for the next generation. the legislation provides strong protections at the federal level for reporters and their sources. it would block litigants and federal governments from prying into reporters files, except when there's imminent threat of violence including terrorism and in defamation carry entered cases. similar rules are already in place at the state level to protect press freedom. it is my sincere hope the passage of the press act will provide similar protections at the federal level. i hope i am the last journalist who has to spin two years in the federal courts fighting to protect my confidential sources. my current situation arises from a privacy act lawsuit.

i am only a witness in the case. it is not common for these cases to reach the stage of holding a report in contempt. but when such cases happen, they have profound consequences. impacting every journalist in the united states. forcing a reported to dispose confidential source would have a crippling effect on investigative journalist. because without reliable assurances of confidentiality, sources will not come forward. the first amendment provides protections for the press because an informed electorate is at the foundation of our democracy. if forces are not protected, i fear investigative journalism is dead. each day i feel the weight of that responsibility. as you and 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'm not here to litigate the case. it will play out before the appellate court in washington, d.c. but the fact that i've 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 to major expenses like in recent weeks losing a job come losing your company health insurance, having to reporting files seized by a former employer and being held in contempt of court gives you clarity. the first amendment, the protection of confidential sources, and a free press are my guiding principles. they are my north star. when i was laid off in february, and instant reinforced my mind the importance of protecting confidential sources. cbs news locked me out of the building and sees hundreds of pages of my reporting files,

including confidential source information. multiple forces said they were concerned that by working with me to expose government corruption and misconduct, they would be identified and exposed. i pushed back in with the public support of my union sag-aftra, the wreckage were returned. cbs news decision to receive my reporting records crossed a red line that i believe should never be crossed again by any media organization in the future. the litigation being held in contempt had taken a toll on me and my career. this is not a battle you can fight about. i am grateful for the support of fellow journalists and multiple first amendment organizations, colluding the reporters committee for press freedom, the freedom of the press foundation, the coalition for women in journalism, the ninth first amendment institution, the

society for pressure journals as well as the club he journalism school, of which i am a graduate. i have also been fortunate to have support for my former employer as i continue to fight this case. not many jewelers genen 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 with individualism and news platforms are expanding opportunities for reporting diverse voices and strengthen our democracy. i manager lieu sort and courage by the recent comments of the senate majority leader chuck schumer who said he hopes to the through the senate and on the te president's desk this year. i deeply appreciate the committee's commitment to this legislation and holiness public hearing. thank you. >> thank you, ms. herridge. ms. cavallaro, you may begin. >> good morning. thank you, committee chairman jordan, committee roy to

committee ranking member nadler, subcommittee ranking member scanlan and distinguished members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on fighting for threats, protecting journalists and their sources. my name is mary cavallaro. i service a chief broadcast officer sag after, national union of over 160,000 members that represents professionals in the entertainment and media industry. i am responsible for overseeing the union's collective bargaining agreements with our news and broadcast employers across the country. i was invited to today for the purpose of providing testimony in support of the most basic of first amendment principles, protecting journalists from being compelled to reveal their sources, and the critical nature of the confidential source relationship. government intrusion upon the relationship between a reporter and their sources undermine the foundation of the freedom of the press. a free press is essential to our

democracy. to quote walter cronkite, a longtime sag-aftra member, freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy. while sag-aftra core responsibility is to negotiate, and diminish in force collective-bargaining agreement which our members work, the union is also charged with advocating on behalf of of our members for legislation that directly impacts their work and their profession. sag-aftra's work as recently focus on artificial intelligence, protecting intellectual property, and restricting noncompete clauses in employment contracts, all of which are important, important initiative. and for decades of the union has enthusiastically supported the passage of a federal reporter shield law. we thank the house judiciary committee for its leadership on this issue, and it's bipartisan unanimous passage of the press act at the cuny level. we also thank the entire united

states house of representatives for each unanimous passage of this vital legislation in january of 2024. and 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 the confidential sources. the press act creates a federal statutory privilege to shield journalists from being compelled to reveal the confidential sources, and prevents federal law enforcement agencies from abusing subpoena power to access a journalists e-mail 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 a press. sag-aftra stands in solidarity with the journalists, their employers and press advocacy groups who share the common goal of a federal 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 a source is critical to long stories to be told and essential doling 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, overreached and malfeasance. any form of government control over journalists could shield instinct of potential source to come forward and tell their stories to journalists,

depriving the american people of critical information and the ability to hold those in power publicly accountable. recent events and ongoing litigation involving journalists and their employers and their shared concern for protecting sources have created some renewed interest in energy around this issue. sag after his opel that this interest in energy will be used in a production, productive a nonpartisan way to build the press act forward. thank you again for this opportunity to speak before the subcommittee today and i look forward to your question. >> thank you, ms. cavallaro. ms. atkinson, you may begin. >> good morning. it's honor to beer and also to get to meet catherine, finally. in thickets of reporting and ashley at scene come cbs pbs, as of the last and years on my tv show full measure countless new stories that i broke or facets of them could not even reported without sources whose identity need to be protected, to name just a few enron, bp oil spill,

darpa bank pella, followed manifestation on taxpayers pending congressional oversight, congressional fundraising, prescription drug drug and vaccine dangers, haiti earthquake aid, green energy sales, waste and fraud at the red cross, firestone tires, svengali, fast of your. >> the last a mention thanks to some information provided by sources who could not be quoted by me received recognition from the emmy awards. multiply that by thousands of reporters and countless stories and it's fair to argue that a lot of important facts would never have been exposed if journalists couldn't ensure protection of our citizens aditi. today's manage information and skip makes it more difficult for journalists and our sources report on ethical lapses, wrongdoing and crimes. more often than not the truth teller when named is smeared and ruined while the wrongdoers carry on.

they escape accountability and may even get promoted. they see what's happened to assange and snowed. the earth shattering revelations weekly eclipsed by over nice effort to distract by controversial icing them. so it makes sense to ask was, in fact, if we can no longer assure our sources we can protect their identities? it's 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 confidential source of mr. would be okay with ultimately having its identity revealed that a judge ordered it. obviously the answer is often no. 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. there's no way to quantify with any certainty what we lost but it don't think that many of the skin reporters who would say it's not having an impact.

their ideas up such as the press act would generally bar federal agencies from forcing telecommunications firms to turn over records belonging to journalists but it's important to note that some of the most egregious intrusions on press freedoms don't happen that way. intelligence agencies have been working -- pardon me -- it's important i need to clear my throat. our intelligence agencies have been working hand-in-hand with telecommunications firms for decades with billions of dollars in dark contracts and secretive arrangements. they don't need to ask for permission to access a journalists records or those of congress a regular citizens. current efforts to reauthorize section 72 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act relate to this. there's a lengthy record of government surveillance abuses to be found in just a wee been able to learn about intelligence officials have misled congress about savannah u.s. citizens even spying on journalists and

political figures, staff and alice. it's been a known a knor decades and inspector general report in 2020 found the fbi violated procedural safeguards in every single wiretap audit. pardon me. in just 29 application reviewed the were 409 errors, even when caught and pressed the attack only had fessed up to half of the pick it was all brushed off as innocent mistakes and poor training, as usual. it's been 11 years and cbs news officially announced that i was targeted by unauthorized intrusions and to my work computer. such good friends that the government controlled ip addresses using intrusions prove that that led to the guilty party monitor my work in real-time, they also accessed a fast and furious files, that into the largest cbs system, plant declassify documents deepen of the operating system and were able to listen in on conversations by activating

skype audio. i sued after his clear the department of justice would not hold its own accountable. the case was a versatile for which a journalist's spied on by the government received a clerks default against an agent working for government parties in the surveillance operation. it's a small victory because he was soon reported dead, which means we can't ask of potential information leading to the larger players. besides that i've learned wrongdoers in the public have their own shield laws that protect them from accountability. making sure journalists can protect their sources and do the constitutional protected job that we do is critical but new laws will not necessarily impact this honest players incumbent who have proven more than capable of angling to skirt laws to access the information they want. >> thank you, ms. atkinson. ms. johnson, you may begin. >> thank you, chairman jordan, ranking them in à la, chairman

roy and ranking member scanlon for members of the subcommittee for competing today's hearing. it is an honor and privilege to present assessment. we defend the defendant with freedom of president our work as conservator on intersection of first amendment freedoms and new technology a dedicated to protecting and promoting assessment free expression that serves content great democracies. our press freedom projects like all our work focus on fortifying infrastructure a first amendment law and valleys to me 21st century pressures. for journalists and media organization those pressures are formidable. based then from severe as joseph of government and private hands that create new possibilities for reporters. powerful government and private entities that are fiercely resistant to public oversight and accountability and the capacity of machines to generate and disseminate news and news like creation. visited as a leading voice for the first amendment rights of journalists and news or positions to publish final information in the public interest. our aim is to strengthen the constitutional and statutory protections will minimize threats and ensure journalists

and news organizations can carry out their vital work. no single piece of legislation is a strongly correlated with these efforts as the bipartisan protect reporter from exploitative spying or press act introduced in the skunk spike rat kiley of the subcommittee. and past and has been reporters are able to give assurances of confit salad to their sources. testimony protections for journalists are essential to core first amendment values. supreme court justice on a protection may choose to simply does. and the status of the two case, the court acknowledged newsgathering is that without first amendment protection but did not delineate what those protections might be. the murkiness of the decisions lead to confusion about its holding and a consistency in application. illustrating is a patchwork of federal circuit court test that is emerge in 52 years since the court's decision.

the difference is an approach result in the party to build and inconsistency and compromise the ability of journalists to do the work we need them to do. without a strong first amendment protections journalists are less likely be able to engage confidential sources as fewer will come forward and when that stops image american public is less and form. despite widespread shield laws and court recognize reporters religious cost the state prepares landscape at the federal level remain many congressional action is urgently needed. for these reasons the night institute felicitous the bipartisan press act 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 the patrol is today. we note in the digital age a significant amount of important reporting is done by journalists who do not fit traditional mold. journalists should be afforded a clear predictable protection from policies that account for a range of legitimate and found

the journalistic activities. clarifying who qualifies for protection the a federal shield bill is critical to preventing mr. scott attempts to compel journalists and media outlets to revealed source information, a contravention of the first amendment rights. it would insured durability across administrations which lead to less uncertain 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 at a partly wide swath of reporters and reporting activity. the the act protects communics ensuring information held by third-party phone and internet providers is that sickly seized by the government. these provisions are critical to protecting the journalists first amendment rights. there are of course a situation which competing interest will be at play in the determination of whether compelling the disclosure of information gained in the course of investigation or other journalist act is warranted. the press act addresses these concerns as well as a series of exceptions. in sum, passage would provide

critical support to the free press and thereby benefiting all americans you again. >> thank you,, ms. farid johnson. we will pursue the question. under the five-minute rule and the charitable recognize the children from california mr. mcclintock. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we've seen a growing number of increasingly aggressive acts by the federal government and its agencies to suppress debate in many different forms. the irs intimidation of tea party activists through its abuse of its authority. use of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to suppress vital information such as the contents of the hunter biden laptop or dissenting views on covid, all turned out to be factual correct. in the beating heart of democracy is freedom of speech, the right of every citizen to express their opinions freely.

it's by this discussion that we have the tools to sort out fact from fiction or wisdomro volley or right from wrong. that's up a free society finds its way. and a free press is absolutely fundamental to that process. without it, the people cannot make informed decisions or hold the government accountable for its actions. and human nature being what it is, we all know that the most closely guarded secrets of the government are not those marked with top secret. it so smart embarrassing, and it is precisely those embarrassing facts that are most important for the public to know. now i agree with the ranking members that cbs has a right to shape its own coverage no matter how biased it might be, but when the government pressures any news outlet for that matter any private party to suppress or shape its coverage, that crosses

a very bright and dangerous line. the ms. herridge, did you know if cbs actions were influenced by the government in any way? >> you to my expert pardon me, pardon me. congressman, on not someone who is known to offer speculation, so i can't really answer that question directly. >> okay, fair enough. but with all of the travailed you been dragged a medicament, has anybody within the government been held accountable for the use acts against you and your freedom? >> congressman, based on my experience i feel that we are in a very dangerous place. i'm facing crippling fines come up to $800 a day for protecting my confidential sources. i am fortunate that that is been stayed pending the appeal. >> who's responsible for that though? who are the actors within 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 opinions? >> you're referring to my particular case, i want to be respectful of the ongoing litigation that's in front of the appellate court that i want to emphasize that i'm only a witness in that speed is let me ask you this. has anybody been held accountable for these acts against you? >> no. >> ms. ackerson, which your expert? >> i think it's interesting to hear people say, and i agree with this, that the government should not be independent in news coverage, but in my experience at cbs that happens everyday. members of committees, heads of committees, members of congress and the white house called the bureau in washington, d.c., contacts that they have, editors and 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 threat

of force behind that. do you find that to be the case? >> i don't know what was said. i just know they call. there's no physical force friend but there certainly a great deal of pressure, you know, weighing on the networks in terms of the coverage. >> what about government asked directly? have you encountered such intimidation yourself directly from the government, or is that all kind of channel through your employers? >> well, i felt a great deal of pressure channels to my employers, you know. i was told certain stories were not going to air because we were getting phone calls, even though there's nothing wrong with the stories, let's just let it rest for a day. let's pick it up another time. they really mad this type. there was no objection over the content of the story are the facts. was just as i was told they just didn't like it or the story that they felt was unfavorable at times. >> if they were offering additional facts that might've been ignored, if they're

offering different opinions, that freedom of speech. but it behind the suggestions was the threat of force, that's a completely different matter. would you agree. >> was yeah, my position was when political officials called into the newsroom, they should be a policy where we tell them if they object to something or have a factual issue, that they should put it in writing and sent it in. but there are these extensive conversations they go on behind the scenes. i only know about a few of them, relative few of them. i'm sure they happen in other scenarios as well. >> thank the jump from california. i want to recognize the ranking member for any questions you might have on the five-minute rule. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. attkisson, the question of fisa unifies a is carly controversial before the congress. should i read your chest or hit your chest when to press act would not be sufficient? >> in my view to handle some of

the problems we discussed, i'm not saying it shouldn't be passed and i'm not an expert on -- >> but spitters i think that would not handle -- >> what else should we do? >> well, i think it's a global problem that has to do with cindy can message, and 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. i don't think there's been an effort they think a sister i collect intelligence agencies feel like they are running the community rather than the committee's conducting oversight of them. and that the needs to be something they understand that there would help accountable when they do things. and i don't know what that looks like in practice by the don't think the law spitters thank you. ms. johnson, the supreme court declined to recognize the first amendment privilege for news gatherers. why does a source of cogs authority to provide such a privilege by statute?

>> congress is authorized under statute to provide, create -- by statute to ensure these rights are enshrined for the into law. fact my understanding is in branzburg the court invited caucus to do so. we're really pleased the house has acted in this garden look forward to the senate doing as well. >> ms. johnson scored your written testimony a decade since a supreme court decided branzburg many federal circuit courts have recognized some form of what report is privileged. in that case why is it so important that we step into statutory report is privileged? >> that's right. exactly because the law is unsettled. you have different landscape all across the country where different circuit courts have different interpretations of branzburg. there is a decision were circuit court judge said the branzburg case is something like as clear as mud. it really has not allowed for a clear understanding of the landscape. with congressional action the press act would reduce chill on

sources that would help journalists because of provide clarity in the landscape that is now muddled and uncertain. >> thank you. ms. johnson, as 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]

the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. biggs: t