-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in a few minutes, I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass my bipartisan bill, the PRESS Act. And this legislation is deeply personal to me.

I am very proud to be the son of Peter Wyden, who was an award- winning journalist. My dad fled the Nazis in the 1930s, and members of his family died at the hands of the Nazis.

In the United States, my dad became such a good writer, he became part of our Army's elite group, the Ritchie Boys, that wrote the propaganda pamphlets that we dropped on Nazis.

Growing up, my dad always mentioned that several of our Founding Fathers--as I indicated to the majority leader here--stressed how important the free press was to our country. And my dad emphasized how important it is that American journalists can do their jobs without unneeded government interference.

So our bipartisan bill shields journalists from being forced by the courts to disclose their sources or information provided by their sources, with--as the majority leader and I have emphasized--key exceptions exist in our legislation for national security and other critical matters. And our bill also does not otherwise limit the government's ability to pursue leakers.

So this is so common sense that nearly every State in the country has some form of reporters' shield on the books. Democratic and Republican State legislators alike have found value in preserving the free flow of information and codifying these fundamental freedoms.

My bill, with Senator Lee--and I want to thank our colleague on the other side of the aisle on all his good counsel here. Our bill would finally ensure that these protections make it to the Federal level. This is a bill--and I note this. My colleague, the Presiding Officer, knows that sometimes it is pretty hard around the Congress to be able to get folks to agree to order a 7 Up or something. This bill passed this House unanimously and has the support of both the chair of the Judiciary Committee and ranking member Senator Graham. Not only that, but our bill has been endorsed by people from across the political spectrum.

I would say to my friend from Nevada, Tucker Carlson is on board. FOX News is on board. This is about as bipartisan as you can get. Past administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have exploited the lack of a Federal shield law to curtail the freedom of the press and, in some cases, even jailed journalists who have refused to break their journalistic ethics and reveal their sources.

It is long overdue that these abuses be stopped. So my substitute amendment that I put together with Senator Lee addresses feedback that we heard on this Senate floor and elsewhere.

My colleague from Arkansas, a member of the Intelligence Committee, spoke about this before, and we heard feedback from the Department of Justice that they wanted some key national security exceptions for section 702 and threats to critical infrastructure, and ensuring that the Federal Government can still respond to cases that require exigency.

I want it understood that, between the time this came up on the floor previously and today, we have reached out for feedback that addresses a number of the concerns that I heard from my colleague from Arkansas, a member of the Intelligence Committee whom I work with, that I hope addresses his concerns.

4250 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Wyden substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, let me be brief here.

This legislation that we have been discussing passed the House of Representatives early this year, and it was unanimous. So for people who are following the debate, every single Republican--everyone in the other body--in effect, approved this legislation.

Why did they do that? Because it clearly is sensitive to these national security concerns. We put in express exceptions for national security, including an area my colleague and I know a lot about, section 702 of FISA.

My colleague was very kind to me. He said, gosh, if I wasn't here, he would miss me. Well, that is very kind and thoughtful, but what we are really missing is the overwhelming support from Republicans for this legislation. I spoke about the Members in the other body, and no one else is objecting here.

I just think that, if we look at the writings of the Founding Fathers and their importance of a free press, what we ought to be saying is, yes, we should be listening to each other. That is why I made those changes since the last time my colleague from Arkansas objected. This is going to also--and I think my colleague and I would agree on this-- protect citizen journalists who don't have the legal budget to fight subpoenas the way big newspapers can. That is why my bill has been endorsed by independent journalists like Catherine Herridge.

I understand that we don't have unanimous consent today. I think it is unfortunate. I think America would be stronger and freer if we were passing this legislation today, but we will be back, and my hope is that we can work with the Senator from Arkansas to get his support.

I want it understood from the standpoint of good faith that I listened the last time. My colleague and I were here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and I thought he made good arguments. I am not here to say he is without good arguments. That is why I went out and I told our staff and all the folks on the Intel Committee and the people who work with us on it to make these changes to see if we can come aboard.

I realize we don't have unanimous consent this afternoon, but I would just say to my colleagues this is about as important as it gets. Free speech is fundamental to what makes our country so special. I have had more than 1,100 townhall meetings at home, and people always come and say: I don't agree with you about ``this,'' or I don't agree with you about ``that,'' but we are using our First Amendment. We are making sure we can always be heard.

I will tell my colleague, my door is open, and we will be talking to your folks to see if we can get this resolved. As I say, I made those changes since the last time we were on the floor for the express purpose of our being able to see if we could find agreement.

So I respect my colleague's right to dissent in spite of the fact that every single House Republican voted for it, and I am going to be coming back and seeing if we can find ways to work it out.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source