,,iv  #aafth ,,congress  #ast ,session  
,h4 ,,res4 #cbe  ,,in ,,the ,,house ,,of
 ,,representatives  ,april #ah1         
#bjai,ms4 ,wild 7for herself1 ,mr4      
,cisneros1 ,ms4 ,gabbard1 ,mr4 ,crist1  
,ms4 ,norton1 ,mr4 ,raskin1 ,mr4 ,rush1 
and ,mrs4 ,trahan7 submitted the        
following resolution2 which was referred
 to the ,committee on ,oversight and    
,reform  ,,resolution  ,to express the  
sense of the ,house of ,representatives 
that all briefings held by the          
,president or ,federal agencies should  
be made available to the press1 except  
for under circumstances that are        
consistent with ,federal law4  ,whereas 
colonial ,america endured oppressive    
media censorship at the hands of ,great 
,britain1 including the prohibition of  
unfavorable information and opinions in 
colonial newspapers2 ,whereas ,american 
free press ideals can be traced back to 
a collection of essays known as ,cato's 
,letters1 which criticized ,british     
corruption and tyranny1 and which armed 

the public with critical information    
that eventually formed the basis for    
,america's revolution and independence2 
,whereas in #aggf1 ,virginia became the 
first state to formally protect the     
press by a ,declaration of ,rights      
declaring the freedom of the ,press is  
one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty1
 and can never be restrained but by     
despotic ,governments2 ,whereas our     
founding fathers memorialized the       
efficacy of a free press by expressly   
protecting the press in our ,first      
,amendment to the ,united ,states       
,constitution1 which ,justice ,potter   
,stewart once described as the only     
organized private business that is given
 explicit constitutional protection2    
,whereas starting in #aijb1 the press   
moved into the first ,white ,house press
 room--a move that was more than just   
convenience and signaled that the press 
was no longer there just as guests of   
the ,president but they were filling a  
public function2 ,whereas the ,white    

,house ,correspondents ,association was 
founded to keep a daily watch on the    
administration2 ,whereas courts have    
consistently interpreted the ,first     
,amendment in such a way so as to       
prohibit prior restraints1 or government
 actions that attempt to enjoin         
publication except in exceptional cases 
where the press would cause inevitable1 
direct1 and immediate danger to the     
,united ,states2 ,whereas courts have   
routinely rejected viewpoint            
discrimination and have consistently    
prioritized the need for a free and     
robust press when weighing competing    
constitutional interests2 ,whereas a    
free press has long provided a vital    
national service by1 inter alia1        
reporting on the ,watergate scandal that
 enveloped the ,nixon ,administration   
and exposed pervasive corruption that   
existed within the ,executive ,branch2  
,whereas courts historically disfavor   
government censorship of a free press1  
including when the ,united ,states      

,supreme ,court ruled that the          
government could not enjoin the press   
from publishing newsworthy content based
 on vague pronouncements of national    
security and ,justice ,black stated1    
only a free and unrestrained press can  
effectively expose deception in         
government ''' paramount among the      
responsibilities of a free press is the 
duty to prevent any part of the         
government from deceiving the people    
'''2 ,whereas courts have held that once
 the ,white ,house press facilities have
 been made publicly available to the    
press--as they have been for            
generations--the protection afforded    
news gathering under the ,first         
,amendment requires that this access not
 be denied arbitrarily or for less than 
compelling reasons2 ,whereas a free     
press is essential to democratic        
legitimacy and longevity1 and past      
administrations have adhered to         
traditions and norms by holding regular 
open press briefings2 ,whereas today's  

press has been called the enemy of the  
people2 ,whereas the revocation of press
 credentials of certain members of the  
press without proffering compelling     
reasons or evidence to justify that     
revocation threatens the very principles
 upon which this nation was founded2    
,whereas the public and the press have  
sincere interest in key department and  
agency meetings1 briefings1 and         
activities1 and briefings have been held
 that exclude secular media without the 
proffering of compelling reasons or     
evidence to justify that exclusion2     
,whereas ,u4,s4 ,district ,judge        
,timothy ,kelly of the ,u4,s4 ,district 
,court for the ,district of ,columbia   
rejected arguments that the ,executive  
,branch has absolute discretion in      
deciding who is entitled to participate 
in a press briefing2 and ,whereas ,u4,s4
 ,district ,judge ,j4 ,paul ,oetken of  
the ,u4,s4 ,district ,court for the     
,southern ,district of ,new ,york has   
held that it is impermissible to exclude

 a single ''' news network ''' and to   
withhold ,white ,house press passes in a
 content-based or arbitrary fashion3    
,now1 therefore1 be it  ,that it is the 
sense of the ,house of ,representatives 
that all briefings held by the          
,president or ,federal agencies should  
be made available to the press1 except  
for under circumstances that are        
consistent with ,federal law4