Reserving the right to object—and I will—I want to make a few remarks about why I object to the passage of this bill, the so-called PRESS Act, which would open a floodgate of leaks damaging to law enforcement and our nation’s security.
The press, unfortunately, has a long and sordid history of publishing sensitive information from inside the government that damages our national security. During the Vietnam War, the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers in an effort to demoralize the American people and turn them against the war effort. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the press routinely revealed details about America’s efforts to hunt down terrorists—details that helped our enemies cover their tracks and evade justice.
These leaks were reckless and harmful to our national security.
Yet the PRESS Act would immunize journalists and leakers alike from scrutiny and consequences for their actions. This bill would prohibit the government from compelling any individual who calls himself a “journalist” from disclosing the source or substance of such damaging leaks.
This effectively would grant journalists special legal privileges to disclose sensitive information that no other citizen enjoys. It would treat the press as a special caste of “crusaders for truth” who are somehow set apart from their fellow citizens.
But that’s not how the law historically has treated journalists. Our laws have always made clear that journalists can be criminally liable for what they publish. In the Pentagon Papers case itself—a kind of holy grail for the liberal media—Justice White wrote that the press is on “full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they publish” material damaging to our national security. So while prior restraints were ruled out, consequences for endangering our national security remained necessary—and they remain necessary today, as well.
Moreover, if recent history has taught us anything, it’s that too many journalists are little more than left-wing activists who are, at best, ambivalent about America and who are cavalier about our security and the truth. For instance, as the publisher of the New York Times during the Pentagon Papers case, Arthur “Punch” Sulzberger wrote during the height of the Vietnam War, “I am not sure that what we offer the Vietnamese peasant or what their own leaders offer them is any better than what the communists offer.” Think about that for a minute. The publisher of the New York Times, whose family still controls it today, couldn’t see the difference between us—between John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson!—and Ho Chi Minh, a murderous communist butcher. This is the kind of person we’d be giving special legal privileges to that no other citizen enjoys.
Supporters of this bill insist it’s necessary to grant journalists this special kind of immunity in order to “preserve the free flow of information to the public.” But of course, there are many legal avenues that whistleblowers can use to air their concerns about potential government misconduct. In the executive branch, they can go to their agency’s Inspector General. They can also go through the Office of Special Counsel. And of course, they can go to the proper oversight committee here in Congress.
Put differently, there are no shortage of legitimate and legal avenues for whistleblowers to unveil potential government misconduct. But this bill would allow any disgruntled bureaucrat, unaccountable to the democratic process, to circumvent these channels and go straight to the press—relying on the highly questionable judgement and unaccountable judgement of these bureaucrats and reporters alone to determine whether America’s most sensitive secrets should be revealed.
Finally, quite aside from these grave concerns, this bill hasn’t been through the Senate’s usual process for debating and refining legislation—and, as I’ve explained, it shows. It hasn’t been through regular order. There have been no hearings, no markups, or even a previous hotline, to my knowledge.
This bill needs to be thoroughly vetted before such a step is made to ensure we don’t open the floodgate of damaging leaks.
Therefore, Mr. President, I object.
