[Senate Hearing 109-837] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 109-837 REPORTERS' PRIVILEGE LEGISLATION: PRESERVING EFFECTIVE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 __________ Serial No. J-109-111 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 34-205 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------ For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Brownback, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas..... 26 Kohl, Hon. Herbert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement............................................. 94 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 95 Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York........................................................... 8 Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania................................................... 1 WITNESSES Baird, Bruce A., Partner, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C............................................................ 20 Clymer, Steven D., Professor, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, New York........................................................... 16 McNulty, Paul J., Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C....................................... 2 Olson, Theodore B., Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C................................................ 14 Schwartz, Victor E., Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Washington, D.C................................................ 18 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Bruce A. Baird to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy........................................................ 28 Responses of Steven D. Clymer to questions submitted by Senators Kyl and Kennedy................................................ 30 Responses of Paul J. McNulty to questions submitted by Senators Kyl, Leahy and Kennedy......................................... 46 Responses of Theodore B. Olson to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy........................................................ 69 Responses of Victor E. Schwartz to questions submitted by Senator Brownback...................................................... 72 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD American Beverage Association, Association for Competitive Technology, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Food Products Association, Grocery Manufacturers Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and Rubber Manufacturers Association, joint statement................................... 80 Baird, Bruce A., Partner, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C., statement................................................ 81 Clymer, Steven D., Professor, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, New York, statement................................................ 85 McNulty, Paul J., Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., statement........................... 98 Olson, Theodore B., Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C., statement.................................... 115 Schwartz, Victor E., Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Washington, D.C., statement.................................... 129 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, R. Bruce Josten, Executive Vice President, Government Affairs, Washington, D.C., statement..... 141 REPORTERS' PRIVILEGE LEGISLATION: PRESERVING EFFECTIVE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Specter, Kyl, Brownback, and Schumer. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Chairman Specter. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Senate Judiciary Committee will now proceed with our hearing on reporters' privilege. This issue arises from legislation introduced by Senator Lugar in the U.S. Senate and by Congressman Pence in the House. It has been modified and introduced under the caption of the Lugar-Specter bill in the Senate. We have had three hearings on the issue and have had testimony from some 21 witnesses. Our concern here is on public information. These issues always start with Jefferson, who said, ``I would prefer to have newspapers without government than government without newspapers.'' The noted columnist William Safire had the essence of the issue on a hearing before this Committee: ``The essence of news gathering is this: if you don't have sources you trust and who trust you, then you don't have a solid story, and the public suffers from it.'' The motivation to move ahead in this area comes from a couple of directions. One direction is that there is a deep split among the circuits. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh do not allow journalists to withhold information absent governmental bad faith. Four other circuits--Second, Third, Ninth, and Eleventh--recognize a qualified privilege which requires courts to balance freedom of the press against the obligation to provide testimony on a case-by-case basis. That split is important to rectify or to have some governing law, and we are very much concerned about the Judith Miller issue on being jailed for some 85 days. Where you have a national security interest, there is a reason to proceed and perhaps hold someone in contempt. I say ``perhaps'' because it is a very strong remedy. I visited Judith Miller in the detention center in Virginia, and as I have said in this hearing room before, I wondered why the investigation proceeded after it was apparent that there was no national security interest. It is one thing to pursue an investigation on a national security interest and to incarcerate even a reporter. It is quite another if you are investigating perjury and obstruction of justice. Those are serious matters. I was a prosecutor myself and know the importance of stopping perjury and stopping obstruction of justice. But it reaches a different level on incarceration of a reporter and on the issue of national security. That is perhaps the exceptional situation, and I say ``perhaps'' because it is a very heavy remedy. We have talked to the distinguished Deputy Attorney General about this matter informally. The Department of Justice is very concerned about whether it will hamper their activities on national security cases or in criminal prosecutions, and we decided to have an extra hearing today to see if we can find a way to modify the legislation, if we deem that appropriate with the wisdom of the distinguished panel we have here today. So that brings us to you, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, an outstanding record as a prosecutor and doing an outstanding job, in my opinion, in the Department of Justice. Parenthetically, we were pleased to confirm the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Ms. Fisher, yesterday in a very, very unusual proceeding. I have been joined by my distinguished colleague, Senator Kyl, to whom I yield at this point for an opening statement. Senator Kyl. Well, Mr. Chairman, it might surprise some that I would rather hear from the witnesses, and I am sure you would, too. So I will forego an opening statement except to say thank you for holding this hearing. And I especially thank all of the witnesses who are here to give us their advice and counsel. Chairman Specter. We are going to have to stick pretty close to the time limits because a vote is scheduled at 11 o'clock, and our experience has been that if you break for a vote, hardly anybody comes back. That might not be too big a difference in the crowd of Senators we have now, so we will see how it goes. But I would like to finish by 11, 11:15, if we can. Mr. McNulty, the floor is yours. STATEMENT OF PAUL J. MCNULTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. McNulty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Kyl. Among the benefits of serving in the Department of Justice leadership are the memorable experiences of testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and this is my second memorable experience in 8 days. And so I am ready to give somebody else a chance. Chairman Specter. Are you free next week, by the way? [Laughter.] Mr. McNulty. But what brings us here today again is another challenging issue. Challenging issues invariably require the balancing of important interests, and today's topic is a clear example of that. We are duty bound at the Department of Justice to conduct diligent and thorough investigations and, in doing so, to protect civil liberties, including the First Amendment right of free speech. As a Nation, we are fully capable of both protecting our security and preserving the media's right to engage in robust reporting on controversial issues. Security and freedom are not mutually exclusive or, as Justice Goldberg famously observed, the Constitution ``is not a suicide pact.'' The Department of Justice has developed a strong record in striking the right balance. At the heart of today's discussions is the concern for our National security. An individual who leaks classified national defense information to the press commits a crime. Leaking classified information reflects a profound breach of trust. The consequences of leaking can be particularly grave. Leaks lay bare aspects of our National defense and risk arming terrorists with information needed to avoid detection in their plotting against our Nation. Some see leakers as nothing more than whistleblowers who are caught in a dilemma between, on the one hand, allowing what they believe may be unlawful or questionable activity to continue within the Government and, on the other hand, an inability to disclose the information without committing a crime. These so-called whistleblowers, the argument runs, escape the dilemma by turning to the media and receiving a promise of confidentiality from a journalist. This dilemma is a false one. It incorrectly assumes that the media is an individual's only outlet. That is not true. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Act of 1998 was an effort by Congress to address this very issue. Congress established mechanisms through which members of the intelligence community could voice concerns while ensuring that classified information would remain secure. With these mechanisms in place, it is a mistake to dub an individual who leaks classified information as a whistleblower. A leaker commits a crime. A whistleblower, by contrast, follows the legal course of disclosure enacted into law by Congress. Upon learning of a leak of classified information to the media, our primary focus, as the Attorney General has stressed, is on identifying and prosecuting the leaker, not a journalist who may have published the leaked information. This focus is reflected in the Department's guidelines for the issuance of subpoenas to the media. Those guidelines ensure that subpoenas seeking confidential source information from journalists are issued only as a last resort. In the past 15 years, we have requested source information from the media in less than 20 cases. The Department of Justice's record then is one of restraint. We have diligently investigated leaks while protecting the media's right to report broadly on issues of public controversy. Only in extraordinarily rare circumstances--less than 20 cases in 15 years--has the Department determined that the interests of justice warranted compelling information implicating sources from a journalist. During this entire time, moreover, and indeed ever since the Department adopted its guidelines in 1973, the media has not missed a beat. It has continued to use confidential sources and to engage in robust reporting on issues of extraordinary importance to our communities and Nation. Against this history, I respectfully suggest that the Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 is a solution in search of a problem. Now, I see my time is about up. Chairman Specter. That is all right. You may proceed, Mr. McNulty. Mr. McNulty. Almost finished, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple more pages. In my remaining time, I wanted to highlight some of the bill's most serious flaws. First and foremost, by making it far more difficult to seek source information from a reporter in those infrequent circumstances when it proves necessary, the bill sends the wrong message to leakers. It may encourage their unlawful and dangerous behavior. Second, the bill shifts law enforcement decisions from the executive branch to the judiciary. This shift is extraordinarily serious in the national security area where the executive officials have access to the full array of information necessary to make informed and balanced national security judgments. The bill undermines this constitutional responsibility and separation of powers by thrusting courts into the altogether unfamiliar territory of having to weigh national security interests against the public's interest in receiving certain news. As numerous judges have recognized, the courts lack the institutional resources and expertise to make those decisions. The bill goes even further, though. In imposing the burden of proof on the government, it places a thumb on the scale in favor of the reporters' privilege and tips the balance against executive branch judgments about the nature and scope of damage or potential damage to our Nation's security. Section 5 of the bill is problematic for reasons of a different variety. The Sixth Amendment entitles criminal defendants to compel witnesses to appear in court and testify. Section 5, however, would permit defendants to access a class of witnesses only if, ``based on an alternative source,'' they are able to show that the witness had information relevant to a successful trial defense. The Sixth Amendment imposes no such ``alternative source'' requirement. Nor does the Sixth Amendment, unlike the proposed bill, require a court to balance criminal defendants' constitutional rights against the public interest in news gathering and in maintaining the free flow of information. Such a balancing requirement in this context is entirely out of place. For these reasons and the others contained in my written statement, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kyl, the Department of Justice firmly opposes the proposed bill, though we recognize the clear and well-intended purpose of its sponsors and supporters. And, Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the efforts that you have made personally, and your staff, to try to address some of the concerns we have raised and the changes that have been made in the legislation. But we still hold these positions even with those efforts. So thank you for the opportunity to testify here, and I look forward to discussing this with you. [The prepared statement of Mr. McNulty appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. Well, thank you, Mr. McNulty. Starting the 5-minute rounds now, at the outset I disagree with you that it is a solution in search of a problem. When you have got a split in the circuits and you have got the Judith Miller case, my view is it is something we ought to address legislatively. You have said or it has been noted that the legislation is modeled after the guidelines of the Department of Justice, what you already use. Can you give me a case illustratively where the standards in the pending legislation would differ from what the Department of Justice now does to prejudice the Department? Mr. McNulty. You are looking for a specific case where we have issued or an opinion has been issued-- Chairman Specter. Well, I am looking for the difference, and instead of asking you to comment on the differences between the two--and perhaps you cannot give it on the spur of the moment. But I would like you to address that in concrete terms. What kind of a case illustratively would prejudice the Department by this legislation that would not hurt the Department by using your guidelines? Mr. McNulty. I think, Mr. Chairman, the heart of that question or our response to that question goes to the national security area, and in that I would say just a couple things. By setting the standard the way in which the provision relating to national security does concerning the need for the Government--the burden is on the Government now, the burden of proving significant harm and through clear and articulable facts. So it is preponderance of the evidence, but it is clear and articulable harm that has to be proven. We are put into a very difficult situation, and I can think of a number of hypotheticals where that standard creates real problems for us. For example-- Chairman Specter. Let me interrupt and move it along because I have a couple more questions. If you want to supplement, do so in writing. You have the contempt citation of Judith Miller. Had the Lugar-Specter bill been in effect, I think she would not have gone to jail. Would she have gone to jail by a proper application of the Department of Justice guidelines? Mr. McNulty. I really do not know how to respond to that because that would require me to know all of the circumstances and facts involved in that investigation which would lead to our application of our guidelines to say that we have exhausted all the other methods to obtain the information. Chairman Specter. Well, may I ask you to make that inquiry? Mr. McNulty. Well, the problem is--I would be happy to do whatever the Chairman wants, but here is my problem. I am recused of the investigation being conducted by Pat Fitzgerald, and for me to get the information necessary to make a decision about whether or not the Judith Miller case-- Chairman Specter. Can you delegate that? You have a personal recusal? Mr. McNulty. Well, it is the leadership recusal. The AG is recused, I am recused. It is a Special Counsel investigation. Now, Dave Margolis in my office is the person who oversees or has supervisory control over the Special Counsel. Chairman Specter. Well, I would like an answer to that question from the Department of Justice. We are considering oversight at the right time as to what the Special Prosecutor has done. But that bears directly on this legislation. This legislation was, as I said earlier, motivated significantly by the Miller incarceration and the circuit split. So I would like the Department to know the Department has continuing responsibility for what Mr. Fitzgerald is doing. Mr. McNulty. Yes. Chairman Specter. The Department has the authority to discharge him, for example, if the circumstances are appropriate. So I would like whoever is not personally recused to give us a response. Mr. McNulty. I will take it back to the Department. Chairman Specter. OK. You say--and I am concerned about this, too--that the courts' lack ability to weigh national security interests, and there is a fair amount of judicial discussion of that dealing with the President's inherent authority, which we have in the surveillance legislation. But I was at the Judicial Conference yesterday talking to D.C. circuit judges who have to weigh classified information on habeas corpus, and the President has agreed to the electronic surveillance bill where the court is going to weigh it. Doesn't that show that the courts do have the capacity to weigh national security matters? Mr. McNulty. Well, I mean, courts do look at national security issues in certain ways, but this one presents, I think, an impossible task for the court because it requires the court to know so much about the significance of a harm and be able to say that this disclosure, which might, by the way, involve some tactic or some effort by the Government that is controversial and a matter of public discussion, and a judge is going to look at that, every different judge looking at it in a different way, and say that that outweighs this harm. Now, the harm will have to be understood in the context of all of the facts and aspects of harm that are going on. A responsibility that constitutionally has been committed to the executive branch, and courts have observed that repeatedly. That would be a very big undertaking. Chairman Specter. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Senator Kyl? Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me pursue that same course because I think while there are a lot of issues relating to the legislation, the one that probably is of most national importance and the one that raises the most questions in my mind is the exception for national security interest, primarily Section 9. The Chairman began to get into an area of inquiry that I wanted to pursue as well, and that is, what kind of standards there would be to evaluate whether or not the Government had met its burden here. The language, for example, ``outweigh the public interest in news gathering and maintaining a free flow of information to citizens,'' how would a court look at this? Is there a body of law? Is there some kind of a test? How would you define whether you have satisfied the ``public interest in news gathering'' test or ``public interest in maintaining a free flow of information to citizens''? Mr. McNulty. Senator, I think it would be highly subjective. I think each judge would have to make that kind of judgment on his or her own about this balance. And the problem is the judge would do that knowing something of the harm--that is, the intelligence community would try to muster all of its information in some ex parte proceeding and present that as best as possible. But by the very definition of the Act, it is going to limit some of that information. And even doing it--and this is one interesting point--even by going into court and making this showing of significant harm, we are potentially signaling to our enemy who may be involved in that story that we believe that this disclosure is a significant harm. And perhaps we have tried, for national security interests, to downplay the disclosure or to in any way limit the damage from the disclosure. But now by going after the source information, we are saying that yes, indeed, we have enough evidence here to convince this judge that a significant harm to national security has happened. Senator Kyl. And by the very nature of the effort here, it is not something that can be kept secret or classified because the whole point is to weigh the harm versus the other general interest-- Mr. McNulty. Certainly that exercise would be public. The information provided would be in camera. Senator Kyl. The ``significant harm to national security'' is what we are talking about. That is the exact language. Do you have a sense of what would have to be established in order to demonstrate the harm is significant? In other words--let me put it conversely--what harm to national security is not significant? Mr. McNulty. Well, that is right. I think that the term is going to mean different things to different folks. Some judges I think will say that, ``I believe if it involved national security, I am going to err on the side of agreeing with the Government in terms of the significance.'' Other judges will be much different about that and will want to see very specific information about that. Another problem is that a disclosure sometimes can occur that reveals something that may actually be partially known or suspected, but it is related to other programs that have not been disclosed. And now the concern of the Government is if we do not get to the source of that information, we run the risk of those other programs being exposed. And so now the significant harm is just a bit extended. It is not about that disclosure, but about that person's access to information where the harm could be much greater. Now, will a judge see that as clearly outweighing the interest of the public for the information? It is hard to say. Senator Kyl. What comes to my mind is the disclosure of the national surveillance activity, as it has come to be known, and immediately following the public disclosure were the calls for the Government to answer the question: What other programs do you have that are like that? Or are there any other programs that are like that? Is that a matter of concern? Mr. McNulty. That is right. I think that is the kind of widening circle effect that this can have. Senator Kyl. One of the provisions here talks about, in subsection (a)(2), ``unauthorized disclosure of properly classified information.'' What does that mean? Mr. McNulty. I am sorry. This is in section-- Senator Kyl. It is subsection (a)(2). It is part of general Section 9. The (a)(2) exception, the Act will provide no privilege ``against disclosure of information...in a criminal investigation or prosecution of an unauthorized disclosure of properly classified information...'' Mr. McNulty. Oh, right. This also is, I think, a significant problem with the bill because now the court also has to make a decision that this information has been properly classified. And that in itself is a big undertaking because it then puts the judge in the position of making--or exercising the kind of judgment that experts in the field have to exercise, which is to know that if this information were to get into the hands of the enemy or do harm to the United States and other aspects of classification. So the judge is now saying, ``I am not sure I even buy that you have classified this properly and, therefore, everything that follows is I do not think that the disclosure of it is a problem.'' Senator Kyl. Just a quick followup, Mr. Chairman. So you don't read that as narrowly as just a procedural limitation but, rather, the substantive judgment of whether it was appropriate to classify the information in the first instance? Mr. McNulty. That is how I read it. I certainly defer to the authors and supporters if I am missing something there. Senator Kyl. It does not say one way or the other. Mr. McNulty. That is how I see it. And I want to quickly just say and make sure there is no misunderstanding here, and I will have to repeat myself. When we are talking about the risks here on the national security front, the Government's interest is to find the leaker. And I know that, because this is such a sensitive subject, by talking about those concerns there in the bill, it is easy to jump to the next conclusion, which is, oh, OK, so every time there is a leak of something that is highly sensitive, you want to go after the reporter. And the answer is no. We want to go after the leaker, and that is why this authority has been sparingly used, less than 20 times in 15 years. But it is about whether or not we will ever have that ability if we believe that that is our last recourse in being able to get the information. Chairman Specter. Thank you, Senator Kyl. Senator Schumer? Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy's statement be made a part of the record. Chairman Specter. Without objection, it will be placed in the record. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding the hearing and thank Deputy Attorney General McNulty for coming by. I believe that--and I think everyone agrees--the press has a vital role to play in our country in providing people with information. A free and independent press is just as important as a fair and independent judiciary, and the freedom is enshrined in our Constitution with good reason. It is exemplified every day by brave and intrepid men who make up the most vibrant and effective press community in the world. To be sure, the threats to a free press come from many quarters, not just the Government. If you pick up a newspaper this morning, you will be shocked to see that a respected international company, Hewlett-Packard--it is here in the New York Times here--looked into infiltrating newsrooms to identify leakers of confidential corporate information. So this problem is everywhere, and it is probably going to get greater, not less, as we depend on information more and more and more in our society. So there certainly is a need to protect press independence. In order for the media to do their job, we know it is important for them to use confidential sources. In many cases, there is no problem in protecting confidential sources. When Government officials are acting as whistleblowers, as a confidential source in the Government says the agency has doctored a study, or when the Government is hiding important information whose disclosure will not harm national security in any way--in those cases I think every one of us would want the reporter to be able to get the information and have it out, unless we want to change the whole fabric as to the way this Government has been going for over 200 years. But in other cases, the leak itself is per se a violation of law, and that is the problem I had with the broader bill that was introduced. Not all leaks are OK, which is what the broader bill said. When a person leaks secret grand jury information, that is against the law. Society has made a determination: You leak grand jury information, that is against the law. There is no countervailing issue here because we have made that--and it is routinely done by prosecutors to aid their cases. We have all seen it. The Plame case is another one. Leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent is against the law. There is no justification for a reporter holding information. In cases like these, the harm done by the leak and the need to punish the leaker often far outweighs the need to keep a source confidential. So we have a balancing test here. How do you draw the line? And I think the bill that Senator Specter has drawn up and I have cosponsored recognizes there must be a balance. It recognizes we have to preserve a free press but ensure that criminals are brought to justice. It recognizes that not all disclosures by Government officials to members of the press are equal. That is the fundamental wisdom of the bill. And you have extremes on both sides saying the press is right all the time, it should always be protected, and then the press is never right, it should not be. We certainly want to protect a whistleblower. We certainly want, if someone at the FDA sees that tests are being short- circuited and goes to the higher-ups and they say, ``Go away,'' that they be able to go to the press and expose it. On the other hand, when something is publicly prohibited by statute from being made public, it is a different story. When there is an overriding public interest against disclosure, which there is not in the typical whistleblower case, the press must bend to the needs of law enforcement. One of the problems, of course, is that the government has a self-interest in overclassifying things, and not just in national security. You could make a hypothetical argument that some Government official would say everything we do is classified. So we have to be mindful of that as well, and you pointed out, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, someone has to make that determination. I would argue a judge is often better at making that determination despite his or her lack of familiarity than the self-interested Government is in case after case after case. So the legislation does seek that balance. It is not an easy balance, but I think this legislation, unlike the previous bill, it is better to have it than not to have it, and that is why I am supporting it. But I want to make two other points, and then I will conclude. First, I was struck by a statement in Mr. McNulty's written testimony. You say, ``There is no virtue in leaking. It reflects a profound breach of public trust and is wrong and criminal.'' I understand that point of view, but many leaks outside of the national security context have been good for America. Movies extol leakers. Books do. Our society does. Every President has. So I think that statement goes quite overboard, and I was wondering if you meant it only in the national security context. Second, I worry that this administration has engaged in a pattern of selective outrage. I worry that the administration employs a double standard when it comes to leaks and the harm to our National security. Congressman Delahunt and I sent a detailed letter to Attorney General Gonzales and John Negroponte on July 18th, pointing out case after case where it was clearly classified information that was leaked, and we did not hear a peep from the Government because it seemed to serve their interests to have that information out, and then others where everyone was on their high horse condemning the leak. So a review of the record, at least our review, leaves the impression that the administration is unconcerned about leaks of classified information to certain media sources, particularly when the revelation may have provided a political advantage to the administration, and that ultimately is destructive of the values that you seek to assert in your testimony. Well, I received a response from Mr. Negroponte. He said-- Chairman Specter. Senator Schumer, how much longer do you need? Senator Schumer. About 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Specter. We are looking at an 11 o'clock vote, and I had said-- Senator Schumer. About 30 seconds. Chairman Specter [continuing]. Earlier we would have to stay within the time limits. Senator Schumer. I need about 30 seconds. Chairman Specter. Fine. Senator Schumer. I did not receive a response from the Justice Department, even though Negroponte said, ``Questions regarding the number of referrals and the status of any associated investigation have been referred to the Department of Justice, which is best able to determine the information that can be provided in these matters.'' So I am asking you, am I going to get a reply to my letter? Mr. McNulty. I will check it out. Senator Schumer. Fine. Please, would you get back to me? Mr. McNulty. Yes. Senator Schumer. This is an important issue. It relates to this legislation. We deserve a response. It was a very careful and well-thought-out letter. Mr. McNulty. OK. Senator Schumer. OK, fine. Let me conclude by saying just as we have to balance liberty and security, we need to balance a free and independent press against the needs of law enforcement, and I think this legislation comes as close as one can to striking that balance. I yield. Chairman Specter. There is no question pending, Mr. McNulty, but would you like to answer. Mr. McNulty. Sixty seconds. I know we are moving along fast. I wanted to say first my statement's language was not properly qualified. I apologize for that, because my intention here is to talk about the unlawful leaking. ``Leaking'' is a general term, and it is best to use it in a qualified way. And I am referring here to where it is a violation of law. I certainly understand your point about the fact that disclosing information generally can be certainly not a violation of law and, therefore, can be of some help, or whatever, depending upon the circumstances. Just one other quick point, and that is, I really appreciate, Senator Schumer, your acknowledgment of the fact that there is an area where it is unlawful to disclose information, whether it is classified or it is grand jury. My concern about this bill is that no matter what side of the debate you are on here, you have to say that it is going to make it harder for the Government to get this information. That is sort of the point of it, that we have to go to court. We have the burden, and we have to convince the judge that this interest and this need outweighs the public right to know and gather information from the media and so forth. And that alone, I think, sends a troubling message to the unlawful disclosure of information because it says that now it is just that much harder for the Government to ever find me if the Government is going to try to do it. There is a greater burden, there are more obstacles, and I think it could encourage that process rather than discourage it. Chairman Specter. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. We are going to be pursuing this legislation, Mr. McNulty, and we will continue to work with you to see if we can find an accommodation. I understand your position today, and we wanted to have this hearing, as I said earlier, to have a public discussion of the position of the Department of Justice. And we want to see if we cannot accommodate your interest, but I think it is highly likely-- and, of course, I cannot speak for the Congress, only for myself. But I think it is likely we will be proceeding with the legislation. Mr. McNulty. Senator, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record an answer to a question I did not get, which is to respond to the former Solicitor General on his concerns about the case law and the split among the circuits. You raised it in your opening statement. Chairman Specter. You want to respond to a question you did not get? [Laughter.] Mr. McNulty. Because I think it is important for the record to have the Justice Department's view on that subject, since the former Solicitor General is a distinguished person and I want to make sure that we have responded to that issue in particular. And it is just to say that I think that this issue of what the First Amendment protects will still be in the circuits even after this legislation is passed. I think that reporters would still take that issue up, and you could have a disparity. You will shift the disparity, if there is one, in the circuits-- and I believe as a practical matter, that disparity has proved to be a significant issue. But you will shift it to the district court where you will have now all the Federal judges with their different way of making this balance, and you will end up with some weird things about how in some places in the country it is easier to disclose this to the press, other places it is not because of the way judges operate. And so I think that the problem is not fixed, if there is one, in terms of uniformity, by shifting this to the courts. Mr. Chairman, thanks for letting me say that. Chairman Specter. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. McNulty. Thank you for coming in. Senator Kyl. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping to have a second round of questioning. We will never have a more qualified witness than Mr. McNulty here. Chairman Specter. You may proceed. Senator Kyl. I would appreciate that very much. I will continue to be very brief. Chairman Specter. You may proceed. Senator Kyl. But I want to focus again on Section 9, on the national security exception, because I think this is where we really have to pay attention. One of the definitions is with respect to acts of terrorism against the United States. That is where you can have an exception to the privilege. And I am wondering whether, Mr. McNulty, there are situations in which we might want to act and situations where the potential act of terrorism is against Canada or the United Kingdom or Mexico or some other country. Why just an act of terrorism, in other words, against the United States? And, also, could you envision circumstances in which the issue would be preparation of an act of terrorism rather than an act itself? Mr. McNulty. The limitation to the United States did strike me as being a potential concern here because we are in such close alliance with Canada and the U.K., for example, in terms of threat. And the recent attack planning that went on in the U.K. this summer I think illustrates what you could get into here in terms of trying to convince a judge that this raises significant harm in the United States. But that is a potential problem. Senator Kyl. There is another definitional issue here, and I am just perplexed. Maybe I should address this more to the authors. But it applies, the words are, ``by a person with authorized access,'' and I am wondering what sense it makes for the bill to say that there is no privilege in a criminal investigation of unauthorized disclosure of information by a person with authorized access, but you could have a privilege when a person with unauthorized access discloses the information. Is that a situation that, in your view, could occur? And would it pose a problem? Mr. McNulty. Absolutely. The ultimate harm here is the disclosure of the information, so the chain of control may not be the deciding factor. And it could very well be that the individual who had access was not authorized to have it, but found the information anyway or went after it in some fashion, acting as an agent in some fashion. So I think it could create probably an unintended consequence. Senator Kyl. Even a staff assistant that obviously was not cleared-- Mr. McNulty. Right. Senator Kyl. OK. Just quickly moving on, in the definition section, Section 3, ``attorney for the United States,'' it appears to me that--and it is or any ``other officer or employee of the United States in the executive branch. . .with the authority to obtain a subpoena or other compulsory process.'' Wouldn't this provision include JAG officers? And if that is the case, could this negatively impact military tribunals or terror trials by limiting what Government attorneys can compel? Wouldn't it be worth considering a JAG exception, for example, to the rule? Mr. McNulty. Yes, I think the language is broad enough to include military attorneys because it refers to an employee of the United States generally in the executive branch. So that means then that some of the circumstances where this could come up with be--and this may be more of an issue down the road, an unusual situation involving a military investigation and prosecution, and they raise some question about the court of jurisdiction there, too, as well. Senator Kyl. Given the fact that we are considering how to do these military tribunals and so on, it seems to me that that is an important issue that we should look at. Let me just ask finally, to try to keep within the time here, there was one thing that struck me as odd outside of this National security exception, and I would like to get your comment on it. In Section 7, it says, ``If the alleged criminal or tortious conduct is the act of communicating the documents or information at issue, this section shall not apply.'' In other words, there is a privilege. Is there a rationale, in your view? Why should a journalist have a privilege when the act of communicating the documents or information to the journalist is a criminal act? What is the rationale for that, in your view? I guess the question from your point of view of a prosecutor, what issues would that raise? Mr. McNulty. Well, that is a complicated question. It raises the question of in what way does the violation of criminal law occur with the disclosure itself, and I concede that that is one of the trickier subjects here in this. The argument could be made on the side of those supporting the bill that the disclosures, generally speaking, would violate--in all aspects could violate the law and, therefore, that would swallow up the privilege itself. But then you have that issue that Senator Schumer raised as well, that you do not want to protect illegal activity. So it becomes a difficult matter to navigate in this legislation. Senator Kyl. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, in view of your time constraints, I would simply submit some additional questions for the record to Mr. McNulty, and thank you. Chairman Specter. Fine. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl. Thank you very much, Mr. McNulty. Mr. McNulty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Specter. We now turn to our second panel: Honorable Theodore Olson, Professor Steven Clymer, Mr. Bruce Baird, and Mr. Victor Schwartz. Our first witness is Theodore Olson, partner in the Washington law office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where he co- chairs the Appellate and Constitutional Law Group. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Olson served as Solicitor General. He was involved in high-profile cases involving Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld v. Padilla; headed the Office of Legal Counsel as an Assistant Attorney General during the Reagan administration, argued 43 cases in the Supreme Court; bachelor's degree from the University of the Pacific and a law degree from the University of California. Thank you for joining us again, Mr. Olson, and we look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF THEODORE B. OLSON, PARTNER, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Olson. Thank you, Chairman Specter, Senator Kyl. It is a privilege to be here before this Committee to testify concerning a matter that is important to the ability of citizens to monitor the activities of and to exercise a democratic restraint on their Government. One of the most vital functions of our free and independent press is to function as a watchdog on behalf of the people--working to uncover stories that would otherwise go untold. Journalists in pursuit of such stories often must obtain information from individuals who, for fear of retribution or retaliation, are unwilling to be publicly identified. Naturally, these stories sting. Uncovering corporate malfeasance, environmental pollution, official corruption, or governmental abuse of power quite often exposes powerful, influential interests. The response often is a lawsuit, a leak investigation, and full-throated efforts to find and tarnish the sources of the information. And subpoenas to the reporters who uncovered these facts, these uncomfortable facts, are often the weapons of first resort. Recognizing the need for some protection for journalists and their sources, 49 States and the District of Columbia have laws providing some measure of protection to reporters from subpoenas. Numerous Federal courts already grant similar protections, some based upon the First Amendment and others on Federal common law. And as you have observed, Mr. Chairman, the circuit courts differ. You mentioned the circuits that provide some measure of a privilege and some that do not. Some of them provide protections in criminal cases, some only in civil cases. So the Federal law is a hodgepodge. How can this make any sense in Federal courts? This lack of uniformity creates intolerable uncertainty regarding when a meaningful assurance of confidentiality can be made. This uncertainty renders many existing privilege provisions in the States ineffective. Reporters cannot foresee where and when they may be summoned into court for questions regarding a particular story, and their editors, publishers, and lawyers are similarly hamstrung by the confusion and can provide little help. This proposed legislation does not work a dramatic expansion of the reporters' privilege or a realignment of public policy, and it may not please everyone. That is usually the case with legislation. But it is a long overdue recognition that the privilege should be recognized and in Federal courts should be uniform, and to the extent, consistent with the privileges provided by State courts, those differences should be eliminated. This Act regularizes the rules, and it merely requires, among other things, that a party seeking information from a journalist in a criminal or civil case be able to demonstrate the need for that information, that it is real, that it cannot be gleaned from another source, and that nondisclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Concerns over national security and law enforcement have been properly addressed and fairly balanced. Naturally, the Department of Justice does not want its judgments second- guessed by judges, and I have the greatest respect for the United States Attorneys and the Department officials making these decisions, including General Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. But we do not recoil from judicial oversight of these types of decisions when it comes to attorney-client or physician-patient privileges or search warrants or FISA warrants. And there is no reason we should reject it when it comes to a journalist's source of communications. Bear in mind that 39 State Attorneys General, not bashful about protecting law enforcement prerogatives, have supported recognition in a brief filed in the Supreme Court in the Valerie Plame case. Indeed, they say that the absence of a Federal shield law undermines the State law policy decisions underlying those provisions. Now, reasonable minds can disagree on the value of anonymity granted for one story or another, even on the concept of a reporter's privilege itself. But there should be no disagreement that uniform rules are better than a hodgepodge of a Federal system that leaves all parties in a state of confusion. I have been on both sides of this. I have been in the Justice Department for 7 years in two different administrations, and I respect the interests and integrity of the law enforcement officials. But for another 30 years or so, I have been a lawyer representing journalists, reporters, broadcasters, and publishers, and it is extremely difficult to tell those persons, who are a valuable component of our constitutional system, what the law is. I do not see an objection to a Federal law that attempts to regularize the system and affect the common law policies that are already in existence in many States and reflected in the Department of Justice's voluntarily adopted guidelines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Olson appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Olson. Our next witness is Professor Steven Clymer, Cornell Law School, he began his legal career investigating police corruption as an Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia-- somewhat after my time, Mr. Clymer. Why didn't you apply earlier? [Laughter.] Mr. Clymer. I did not have my law degree then. Chairman Specter. Had been an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California, involved in the high- profile Federal prosecution of L.A. police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King; now teaches criminal procedure, evidence, and counterterrorism; undergraduate and law degrees from Cornell. Thank you for joining us, and we look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF STEVEN D. CLYMER, PROFESSOR, CORNELL LAW SCHOOL, ITHACA, NEW YORK Mr. Clymer. Thanks for having me here today, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Specter. When were you an Assistant D.A. in Philadelphia? Mr. Clymer. I started there in 1983 and I left in 1986. Chairman Specter. Was there much police corruption, police brutality in 1983? Mr. Clymer. Yes, there was a fair amount then. Chairman Specter. And the D.A.'s office investigated it? Mr. Clymer. Yes. Successfully, I might add. Chairman Specter. Aside from my tenure, they did not do too much of that. Of course, they did not have Commissioner Rizzo to deal with. Times change. Nobody remembers Commissioner Rizzo. Anybody remember Mayor Rizzo? This comes out of my time, Professor Clymer, not yours. [Laughter.] Chairman Specter. You may proceed. Mr. Clymer. Thank you. Thank you for having me here. I would just like to make a couple of points and then answer any questions that you may have. First, I want to address the question about why there is a need for this legislation now, and I guess that boils down to the question of whether the present law in its present form is an impediment to the free flow of information. And, quite frankly, I think that is a hard case to make. The principal example I will give are the recent high-profile leaks about the NSA wiretapping program and the leak about the CIA detention of al Qaeda operatives overseas. Those two leaks of highly classified information came in the face of widespread news coverage of the jailing of Judith Miller--newspaper coverage that made very clear that there was little or no Federal protection for anonymous sources. That suggests to me that people who are inclined to make leaks of that kind of information are going to make leaks whether or not there is Federal protection for anonymous sources. The people who made those leaks had to have known that if the reporters in those cases were subpoenaed, they could be compelled to testify about the identity of their sources. Yet they chose, nonetheless, to make those leaks. What are the other arguments we get for the need for this law now? Well, there is an argument that is made by the media often that there are more subpoenas now to reporters than there ever have been before. I haven't seen statistics, but let's assume for the sake of argument that is true, that now there are more subpoenas than they have been in the past. One thing is clear. Those subpoenas are not coming from the Department of Justice, which issues on average less than one subpoena to the media for source information every year. That would suggest that any law that this body passes ought to exempt the Department of Justice, which seems to do a very good job of policing itself in this area. The third argument that is made for the legislation is the need for uniformity, and I think there are powerful claims that uniformity across the Federal system is better than a lack of uniformity. However, the proposed legislation will not accomplish that uniformity. As the Deputy Attorney General said, this legislation has a very subjective, open-ended, and unstructured balancing test that individual district court judges are going to apply on a case-by-case basis. It is a balancing test that I believe is virtually unworkable because it requires district judges to predict in individual cases what disclosure of source information in that case will have on the future flow of information to reporters. With all respect to Federal judges--and they are due an enormous amount of respect--I do not believe they are competent to make that determination. And what that balancing test will boil down to on a case-by-case basis are the subjective, idiosyncratic views of individual Federal court judges. And so you will not get uniformity as a result of this proposed legislation. You will get greater disuniformity than we have today. Let's suppose I am wrong about that. Let's suppose there is now a need for some legislation to increase the flow of information to the news media. Will this legislation accomplish that objective? I think the answer is clearly no. The most important point in time for the flow of information is when an anonymous source calls a reporter and seeks an assurance of confidentiality. If the reporter cannot give a certain assurance, the source may not disclose the information, and the complaint about the present state of the law is there is no certain assurance that a reporter can honestly give to a source. This legislation does not change that one iota. This legislation is subject to eight or nine separate exceptions and a series of subjective balancing tests, depending on which exception applies. At the time the reporter talks to the source, it will not be clear which one of those exceptions and which one of those balancing tests may apply down the road. It depends on who subpoenas the information, whether it is a civil or criminal proceeding, the type of case it becomes, and who makes the request. The balancing test itself is entirely unpredictable. So even if this legislation were to become law tomorrow, that reporter talking to that source could not give any assurance of confidentiality. The third and final question, I suppose, is this: Could I do any better? Because it is easy to criticize. It is certainly harder to offer solutions. And so I will offer just in passing two possible ways that I think you could have a more definite, more certain piece of legislation that would go to where the problems actually are. One possibility is to exempt entirely any disclosures that are in and of themselves illegal: leaks of classified information, leaks of grand jury information, leaks of wiretap information, leaks of tax return information--all of which would violate and clearly violate Federal law. Simply make them outside the realm of the privilege. I have got a different proposal, but I see my time is up, so if there is a question, I will answer about that proposal as well. [The prepared statement of Mr. Clymer appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Professor Clymer. We now turn to Mr. Victor Schwartz, partner in the Washington firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon, where he chairs the firm's Public Policy Group; former Dean of the University of Cincinnati College of Law; serves as general counsel to the American Tort Reform Association, and had previously chaired the Department of Commerce's Interagency Task Force on Insurance and Accident Compensation; a graduate of Boston University and Columbia Law School. Thank you for again appearing as a witness before this Committee, Mr. Schwartz, and the floor is yours. STATEMENT OF VICTOR E. SCHWARTZ, PARTNER, SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Schwartz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kyl. It is a privilege to be here today, especially on this panel. The National Law Journal called me the other week and said there are four lawyers in this town that charge more per hour than I do, and two of them are on this panel. [Laughter.] Mr. Schwartz. So I thought that is definitely an honor. Chairman Specter. Is there some aspersion on the other panelist? Mr. Schwartz. No. I am looking up to them, and I am sure the professor would be in the same league. I have the privilege of testifying on behalf of NAM, which is the largest industrial trade association in the country, and we would submit a letter for the record, which includes other associations that generally concur in my thoughts today. And, Mr. Chairman, I know that you and your staff have worked hard to create a fair and balanced bill on the subject of the reporter privilege. But the purpose is to guarantee the free flow of information to the public through a free and active check on Government. And you emphasized this in your opening remarks--Government and the media. There has and will be serious debate about that, but my purpose today is outside of the perimeter of that debate. I would like to talk about how the bill, perhaps inadvertently, affects private litigation. The bill interfaces with the law of evidence, and I did teach that for over 15 years. And my first article was about the Federal Rules of Evidence, and it had a very interesting history that is relevant here today. When the Federal Rules of Evidence were sent up to the Congress, they did something that is almost unique in the history of this body. They struck the part that dealt with privileges, and the Senate Judiciary Committee was clear that this is a topic in private litigation that should be left to the Judiciary. The Committee report said, ``Our actions today in rejecting having specific privileges in private litigation outline should be understood as reflecting the view that a privilege based on confidential relationship and other privileges should be determined on a case-by-case basis.'' And they set forth a general rule, 501, that all lawyers who practice in the Federal courts are familiar with. In essence, the House Judiciary Committee Chair said the same exact thing. Congress's judgment I think was correct, especially in the context of private litigation, and you know that virtually the entire Rules of Evidence, Mr. Chairman, are based on finding the truth--the hearsay rule, evidence dealing with experts. There is only one area where the Federal rules put something at a higher value than truth, and that is privilege. And in private litigation, this is high-stakes poker and requires careful individual consideration in the private litigation context. In that regard, I think the bill is overly broad because its shield would rise up against all leaks--and others have discussed this--whether they are legitimate or illegal. For example, leaking a trade secret or leaking something protected under HIPAA would be given the same protection as a whistleblower, which should be protected. The Free Flow of Information Act could provide free flow of information that should not really flow--trade secrets, health files, and other areas of privacy. There should be no safe harbor for areas where the source has violated law. We just saw recently there was a leak where somebody who worked for Coca-Cola gave information over to Pepsi-Cola. Pepsi-Cola did the honorable thing and returned it. But if this information had been given to a reporter, a blogger, boom, everybody could go out and make Coke in their garage, and that would not be a very good outcome. People who are breaking the law should not be protected by simply handing information over to a reporter in the private litigation context. The people who have done this should be prosecuted, and impediments should not be put in the way. It is also true in private litigation. As the Chairman, who has extensive experience in litigation, knows, discovery is a difficult process, Senator Kyl, and you know this, too. If when I am handing over documents in discovery I realize that this material can be put in the hands of a reporter and these is no way to get any information about the illegal leaker, that is going to slow down the discovery even more. The great writers on evidence who I studied--and I am sure the Chairman remembers--Charles McCormick, who was also Secretary of the Navy; a great scholar on evidence, John Wigmore--all agree that privileges in the private context should not be absolute, these include priest-penitent, lawyer- client, or reporter. This system in the private litigation area has worked well. We have entrusted the judges. They have not always done it perfectly, but they know how to do it. I thank you for the time you have given me today. [The prepared statement of Mr. Schwartz appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Schwartz. Without objection, the statement from Senator Kohl will be made a part of the record. And we now turn to our final witness on the panel, Mr. Bruce Baird, senior partner in the Washington law office of Covington & Burling, where he specializes in white-collar defense and securities information. Mr. Baird had been an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, handled high-profile, complex cases involving Michael Milken, Drexel Burnham Lambert; and from 1981 to 1986, he was the lead prosecutor heading a 5- year investigation into the Colombo crime family; bachelor's degree from Cornell and a law degree from the New York University School of Law. Mr. Baird, we appreciate your being with us and look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF BRUCE A. BAIRD, PARTNER, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kyl. I will be brief. I think from a prosecutor's perspective and from a defense perspective, I have some experience on both sides. I have had some high-profile cases in which I would have given my right arm to be able to go to reporters and say, ``Give me your sources.'' But it is a value that I think we all share that resulted in the Department of Justice guidelines and that results in prosecutors not being able to do that unless there is a really good reason. There was a New York Post reporter who had the Colombo organized crime family dead to rights before we did, but I could not get that information. There were Wall Street Journal reporters who knew more about Michael Milken than we did, and we could not get that information. But we managed to prosecute those cases. There are, as we all know, many investigative techniques. Subpoenaing reporters for their sources is not the only way to prosecute a case. There has been some talk here about, you know, the requirement to avoid shielding people from these prosecutions or shielding people from the clutches of the Government. That does not happen just because you do not get information from a source. You undertake other investigative techniques. So from a prosecutor's perspective, I think the bill does no more than codify the Department of Justice's existing policy. The one difference, as, Mr. Chairman, you remarked and as the Deputy Attorney General remarks, is that judges are now involved. That is true. Judges are involved, but, of course, judges are involved in many respects in this situation and in many others. We rely on judges to make very complicated decisions about balancing tests. We require that in many areas of law. We require it every day. Judges decide whether prejudice outweighs probative value, a very subjective test. I recall a judge who taught himself patent law and electrical engineering to decide a case, wrote a 300-page opinion full of circuit diagrams. That is the sort of thing that this Committee knows better than anyone else. You put judges on the bench who have that ability, and I do not really understand the argument that judges are incapable of deciding these questions. So I think from a prosecutor's perspective, this bill will help. It will make the law more uniform. It will make prosecutors more able in an appropriate case to go to a court and seek a reporter's sources, and the judge will have something to hang his hat on, will have a bill, will have text, will not be left with vague First Amendment arguments about which people differ. From the defense perspective, the bill is also an improvement. There is explicit recognition of a criminal defendant's potential need for this information and for the needs of a party in civil or administrative litigation. And, of course, it is applicable to all Federal agencies, as, Mr. Chairman, you remarked, and not just the Department of Justice. So, in the end, I do not think this is an issue that should divide the Department of Justice and other prosecutors from defense counsel. Information is not always desired by the same people. As Mr. Schwartz said, sometimes private litigants want the information. Sometimes the Department of Justice wants the information. There should be a test, there should be judges administering the test, and I think this bill draws a line which is appropriate. You know, as was said, you cannot make everyone happy. There can be interpretation, much easier with a statute than with a constitutional bill. And so I think this bill in the end will improve the state of the law and will give both sides, both people who want the information in an appropriate case and the press, which does not want this information revealed in an inappropriate case, standards to go on. I want to particularly remark with respect to the Deputy Attorney General's statement that the Department of Justice has a great record in the last 15 years, I think they do. But my memory goes back 30, and there was a time when Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General thought they knew better than anyone else what the law should be and were indicted and cast out of office for it. Having judges decide these questions is something that goes deep in the fabric of this country and is the most appropriate way to deal with the issue. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Specter. Thank you, Mr. Baird. Mr. Baird, you have had extensive experience in the Department of Justice, but not, at least according to the resume I have seen here, in the national security field. Do you think your observations that the Department of Justice would not be prejudiced apply as well in the national security field? Mr. Baird. Well, you are right, Mr. Chairman. I am not an expert in the national security field. I see, though, that the bill has exceptions in the national security area, and the only thing I understood the Department of Justice to say in response is that they did not want judges to make the decisions; they wanted to make the decisions themselves. And it seems to me judges have made decisions, as I think Mr. Olson mentioned, in the FISA context, in many other national security-related contexts. It has not been my experience, either on the defense or the prosecution side, that judges are incapable of making hard decisions using balancing tests. Quite the reverse. Chairman Specter. Mr. Schwartz, there are some 49 States and the District of Columbia which afford some privilege to reporters. Are the interests of your clients prejudiced in those States? Mr. Schwartz. In some of them. There was a situation in California--and it is not a client of mine--where a company was told that they ought to polygraph their employees as an alternative source to seeking things from a reporter. They were not a client. And I do not think that is a very reasonable rule. It is an overly broad privilege. Most of the rules are fine. They have three factors: Is it relevant-- Chairman Specter. Well, you have to cope with reporters' privilege almost everywhere in the United States. Are you getting along? Mr. Schwartz. Well, things would be more difficult if this was added to the mix because States might copy it. They tend to do that. And there is something in the mix of this standard that I really have not seen elsewhere, and it is beyond the three normal parts. You usually have relevancy. Is it relevant? Is there a reasonable alternative source? If there is, you are supposed to seek it. And how central is it to the case? But in addition here, in the private sector area there is a Department of Justice guideline which has really nothing to do with private litigation where a judge has to weigh public interest against public interest. And we do not face that anywhere, as far as I know, and that is one of the reasons I am here today. It is an additional barrier that is just not in standard evidence law or anyplace. It may be relevant and important with governmental things, the things that other witnesses are testifying about today. But it certainly not in the private sector-- Chairman Specter. Mr. Schwartz, I am going to have to move on. Mr. Schwartz. OK, sure. Chairman Specter. Professor Clymer, do you think the incarceration of Judith Miller was appropriate? Mr. Clymer. I do not know enough facts to answer that question, but what I would say about this is that I think that is the wrong question to ask. And the reason I think it is the wrong question to ask is because the issue before this body is not should we give special privileges to reporters so that they can disobey lawful court orders. The question we should ask is: Will this piece of legislation increase the flow of information to the public through the news media? If we are going to privilege reporters, it is not because we are concerned about someone, a professional like Judith Miller, having to go to jail. It is because we are concerned whether that is going to have an effect on the flow of information. So although I can certainly sympathize with Judith Miller, a professional trying to do her job, having to go to jail, she went to jail for failing to comply with a lawful court order. And the real question is: If we change the law to allow her not to go to jail, not have to comply with a court order, is that going to increase the flow of information to the public? And I think the answer ultimately is no. Chairman Specter. Well, up until your answer, I thought it was a pretty good question to ask. [Laughter.] Chairman Specter. But maybe I am wrong. Mr. Olson, on a matter of oversight, would this bill have resulted in a different result in the Judith Miller incarceration? Mr. Olson. I think it may have, because as we are learning now through reports in the newspapers with respect to when that information was given to journalists and the memory of the journalists seemed to all differ from one another, and when the special prosecutor or whatever name is given to Mr.-- Chairman Specter. My time is almost up, and I want to put one more question to you. You have had extensive experience in the Department of Justice, and I have asked the Deputy Attorney General to respond to that question by somebody who was not recused. What are the parameters for discharging a special prosecutor? Whereas, in this case we have it fairly well established that there was no national security issue involved, and it has even been suggested that there was no crime involved, we have had some independent counsel cases which have gone on for a decade. What are the parameters for evaluating the special prosecutor's conduct, say, in the Miller matter and in the investigation generally, which has led to the prosecution of Lewis Libby? Mr. Olson. Well, that would be a very long answer. I think that if you do that oversight, you are going-- Chairman Specter. There is no time limit on the answer, just on the question. Mr. Olson. If you do that oversight, you are going--in the first place, this appointment was not under the independent counsel statute. This appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald was under the inherent authority by the Attorney General, which is set forth in a statute to delegate any of the functions in the Department of Justice to anybody that the Attorney General wants to do. So the Attorney General here has the power to dismiss and remove this special prosecutor at his pleasure. Chairman Specter. Would cause be required? Mr. Olson. Not as I understand the decision by the Attorney General to do this delegation in the first place. I think it is under a statute, 28 U.S.C. 505 or something like that, that allows the Attorney General to delegate any of the authority in the Department of Justice to any other person in the Department of Justice. So I do not think cause would be required. It is a political problem that, you know, if there is going to be a dismissal. But to get back to your question, it would seem to me you might start with the concept of when the appointment was made and how much collectively was known with respect to what was the nature of the crime. I think you asked in your question something about whether or not the remainder of the prosecution at that interval was necessary to determine whether or not national security was implicated, whether a covert agent fitting the standard of that particular statute was involved, and whether--and you made the point in your earlier question. It is one thing to subpoena reporters with respect to national security concerns. It is another when it is the whole range of other crimes in the Federal statutes. And those are things that this statute would address by requiring some concentration on the need for it, the importance of the information from the reporter, whether the need for the information from the reporter would outweigh the public interest that is embodied in the First Amendment and so forth. So that would be a relevant question, but I think that there would be a lot of other things that you would want to ask as well. Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Olson. Senator Kyl? Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Olson, let me ask you, would you agree or stipulate that Paul McNulty is a knowledgeable and honest and expert public servant on the matters to which he testified today? Mr. Olson. Absolutely. I have the greatest respect for Paul McNulty. Senator Kyl. I knew you did and that you would. It seems to me there is a direct contradiction between what you say and what he says. In your statement you say, ``The Act does not compromise national security or burden law enforcement efforts.'' In view of his testimony to the contrary, can you really make that broad a statement? Mr. Olson. Well, I believe that a lot of attention has been given to that issue, and I think you pointed this out in your questions--or maybe Senator Schumer did, between the earlier version of this statute, which was the subject of testimony last year, and there were questions--I was here for that testimony and-- Senator Kyl. Forget about that. My earlier questions to him were all from the current version of the statute. Mr. Olson. Yes. Senator Kyl. Which elicited a response from him that there were indeed problems. Mr. Olson. I respectfully disagree. I think that the issues have been addressed in Section 9. What I think Mr. McNulty did not acknowledge is that there is going to be judicial analysis of this process, anyway. The Department standards do not require the Department to go to a judge. But what is going to happen is the reporter is going to decline to respond to the subpoena. He is going to make a motion to quash. There is a going to be a motion before a judge to hold the reporter in contempt for not responding to the subpoena, and it is going to be before a judge. So a judge is going to be considering these questions: whether there is a common law privilege, whether there are First Amendment implications. And the Department is going to say it is a national security case and it is very important. And so I think Mr. McNulty is incorrect, respectfully, because I think these matters are going to be before a judge anyway. And judges do consider national security considerations when they deal with search warrants, under Title III and FISA. Senator Kyl. You know our time constraints here. Mr. Olson. Yes. Senator Kyl. This statute, I think you would have to concede, would make it more difficult, though, given the fact that it statutorily establishes a privilege beyond the current common law privilege, or I gather there is no need for it. Mr. Olson. Well, I am not sure that it does. As the Chairman pointed out, there are four or five circuits that recognize some level of common law privilege. There are several circuits that do not. Senator Kyl. So you are not sure that this goes beyond the currently recognized privilege. Mr. Olson. Well, the problem, as I pointed out, is there is a hodgepodge and it is not clear what the standards are. The Supreme Court ultimately would have the power to determine that there were a common law privilege. We urged the Supreme Court to take the case in--the Wen Ho Lee case on behalf of a reporter, Pierre Thomas. It may be that the Supreme Court might recognize a common law privilege, and then the question is: Should it all be decided by judges, or should the Congress of the United States exercise its judgment as to the standards? And I think the case is strong that Congress should-- Senator Kyl. Let me ask you, Professor Clymer, the third or fourth point that you made, Professor, was that there are so many--and it follows directly what Mr. Olson just said. The legislation is subject to so many tests and exceptions that a reporter cannot guarantee the privilege to the source at the time he makes it. Would you expand on that a little bit and explain why in your view that renders this a difficult privilege to implement? Mr. Clymer. The problem is this: The benefits from the privilege have to occur when the conversation occurs between the reporter and the source, because if the objective of the legislation is to increase the free flow of information, that is when the information flows. And what the source, if he is reluctant to give the information, wants is a guarantee or an assurance that his identity will remain confidential. Under present law, clearly, you cannot make that assurance. But under this legislation, you cannot make that assurance either because you do not know at the time you have that conversation which exception may apply, who is going to ask for the information, whether it will be in Federal or State court, or what a judge is going to do under one of these open-ended, unstructured balancing tests that are in this legislation. And, by the way, I think it is worth pointing out that these balancing tests do not appear in the Federal regulations that DOJ follows. They do not appear in the standard common law tests. These balancing tests that are in this legislation are, to my knowledge, brand new. I have not seen them elsewhere. And so this creates another layer of uncertainty so the reporter cannot give the sorts of assurances. So what we get from this legislation is all the costs--additional litigation, loss of the truth--without the benefits because the reporter still cannot give certain guarantees of confidentiality. Senator Kyl. Thank you very much. With no more time here, I will turn it back. Chairman Specter. Do you want to proceed with another question or two, Senator? Senator Kyl. Well, why don't I do this. I had two or three questions of Mr. Olson, one of Mr. Schwartz, and I think one more of Mr. Clymer. So what I will do is submit those for the record. Chairman Specter. OK. Thank you very much, Senator Kyl. Senator Brownback? STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not being here at the outset or hearing the testimony of the witnesses. I was in another hearing and presiding earlier. Thank you, though, for holding the hearing, and it is an important hearing. I want to step back on this because there seems to me to be a troubling confluence of things that are happening right now, and we are trying to address the things that--a lot of the things that I am concerned about do not seem like we are addressing here. We have got these security leaks that are taking place, and in my estimation, in this war on terrorism probably our most valuable tool is information, is our ability to gather information. And we need this in this war on terrorism. I used to chair the Immigration Subcommittee, and one of the things that shocked me was the number of legal entries we have got a year into the United States. We have nearly 250 million legal entries a year into the United States. And somebody--probably several people in that group seek to do us harm. But it is not like finding a needle in a haystack. This is a needle in a hay field. We have got to be able to really get some information, lawfully, legally, and in ways that the American public support it. And yet what we are seeing is more national security leaks taking place. And then recently--and I do not know that this ties into it, but it really strikes me as odd that in the Judith Miller case we have people being pursued for some period of time, her going to jail, and then somebody here 3 years later holds his hand up and says, ``Well, OK, yes, I am the one that did this.'' And I know the gentleman that said that, and this just really strikes me as odd taking place at this point in time. I appreciate the panelists and their thoughtfulness in putting forward their testimony, but my question to you is: Given that atmosphere and our need to maintain security in the United States today in a lawful fashion, a fashion that the public supports, are there things that we should be doing to further penalize leakers of national security information, to say, you know, OK, reporters should be able to have access to legitimate knowledge? But if somebody is putting out national security information, there needs to be a legitimate penalty with this, a significant penalty with this, if this is wrong to put out. This is a learned panel, and this is not what you came here to testify about, but I am sure you have thought about this angle of it as well. Would anybody care to comment about that? Mr. Clymer. Can I make two observations, Senator? Senator Brownback. Yes. Mr. Clymer. One is that I think this legislation, at least in some cases, will do exactly the opposite of what you suggest. In other words, it will immunize people who make those sorts of leaks, because it will require, in order to do an investigation of those people, that the Department of Justice has to satisfy certain requirements that a judge may determine for one reason or another are not satisfied, thereby preventing access to information that will result in prosecution of that sort of person. So I guess that is the first observation to make because I think that in some respects this legislation goes exactly in the opposite direction of what you are talking about. The second observation is I think your concerns are legitimate, but I think they should be expanded. There are leaks of nonclassified information that could be extremely harmful to law enforcement in a variety of ways that are not as strongly addressed in this legislation as leaks of classified information. And it seems to me that what would be a better approach would be to have any privilege not applicable whatsoever if the disclosure of the information itself constitutes a Federal crime, be it classified information, grand jury information, or other sorts of information the disclosure of which violates Federal criminal law. Senator Brownback. And the disclosure of which by the individual leaking and the newspaper entity that discloses it? Mr. Clymer. Well, I do not think you have to reach the conclusion that the newspaper itself is engaged in criminal activity, as long as the disclosure to the newspaper is a violation of the law. I think Congress has made determination that that is something that is very serious and we should not effectively immunize people who do that by foreclosing any effective investigation of the crime. Mr. Baird. Senator, I agree with the last statement on penalties. You could create legislation with more penalties. But I disagree with the statement that this legislation immunizes leakers. I think as a former prosecutor, there are many ways to investigate crime, and the first resort is never to go to a reporter and ask for sources. These are crimes--I agree with you, Senator, that these are serious crimes and they should be investigated, and they can be investigated. There are many ways to investigate them beyond asking a reporter for his sources. Senator Brownback. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback. Senator Kyl has asked that I include in the record a letter dated June 21, 2006, from Bruce Josten of the Chamber of Commerce to me and a letter from a group of trade associations dated today, September 20th, to Senator Leahy and myself, and they will be included in the record. We thank you very much for coming in, gentlemen. Staff has advised me, on an unrelated matter, that Mr. Schwartz has a good imitation of me. Mr. Schwartz. [Imitating Chairman Specter] I don't think I can do that here, Senator. That would just be wrong. Chairman Specter. Well, I have to agree with you about that. [Laughter.] Chairman Specter. We are concluded. [Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]