2015: Schweikert Voted For A Journalist Shield Amendment. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] funds made available by the bill from being used to compel a person to testify about information or sources the person states in a motion to quash the subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist and that he regards as confidential." The underlying legislation was the FY 2016 Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 245 to 182. The House later passed the underlying legislation, but it but died in the Senate after an attempt at becoming a vehicle for a different appropriations bill [House Vote 284, 6/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/3/15; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.333; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2578]
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL): Purpose Of The Amendment Is To Raise The Possibility Of A Federal Shield Law; 49 States Have One. In a floor speech, Rep. Grayson said, "The purpose of this amendment is to raise the possibility of a Federal shield law that corresponds to protections already in place in 49 States but not at the level of the Federal Government. Again, to be clear about this, 49 States have a Federal shield law. The Federal Government does not--at least up to this point." [Congressional Record, 6/2/15]
Rep. William Goodlatte (R-VA): Amendment Is Written Too Broadly By Giving Anyone The Ability To Self-Identify As A Journalist. In a floor speech, Rep. Goodlatte said, "I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for joining me in opposition to this amendment. Shield laws for reporters are not a bad concept at all, but this is hardly the way to go about doing it. No State has a law like this language here, where it is so vague that virtually anyone in the United States claiming to be a journalist or reporter--and, by the way, nowadays, when lots of people maintain blogs or posts on the Internet, they could easily claim to be a journalist or reporter--would be covered by this." [Congressional Record, 6/2/15]