GOP senators want to query attorney general on reporter-shield legislation

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee want to question Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. about his support of a compromise reporters' shield law before they vote on it, according to congressional sources.

On Wednesday, Holder sent a letter to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the committee's chairman, outlining his views of the new version of the legislation. The proposed bill worked out with Senate sponsors, would provide varying levels of protection for journalists who use confidential sources when writing about criminal and national security matters.

In his letter, Holder urged that "no further amendments be adopted to this carefully crafted compromise."

"Republicans eagerly await the opportunity to question the attorney general about the true impact of this legislation on our ability to keep Americans safe and protect our most vital classified information," said Stephen Miller, press secretary for Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the committee. "The attorney general's two-page views letter was woefully short and left many questions unanswered," he added.

Holder is scheduled to appear before the committee Nov. 18 for an oversight hearing on the Justice Department. The bill's supporters, led by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), hope that will become the venue for the GOP senators to express their concerns to him about the compromise language.

Not all the panel's Republicans oppose the bill: Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) is a co-sponsor.

Holder's letter outlined the administration's view of the compromise legislation. The attorney general wrote that it "provides robust judicial protection for journalists' confidential sources, while also enabling the government to take measures necessary to protect national security and enforce our criminal laws."

Under the compromise, a "balancing test," in which a judge weighs the importance of the public having certain information against the potential damage such disclosure could do, would not be required when the government shows a judge that the information it seeks by subpoena from a reporter "would materially assist" it in preventing, mitigating or identifying the perpetrator of a terrorist act or significant harm to national security. The journalist could question the government's claims, but the government could present information to the judge privately.

In criminal cases, the compromise would put the burden on the journalist to establish in court why the public interest would be harmed by disclosing a source or sources.