Creating a federal shield law protecting journalists from having to disclose confidential sources is long overdue, but a proposed bill in senate committee, and news of an amendment to be proposed, could offer some hope.

A shield bill (S.1267) has been introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee by shield law advocates, Sens. Richard Lugar and Christopher Dodd (D-CT). During committee consideration, Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Charles Schumer, (D-NY) will be offering a compromise bill (S. 2035) as an amendment.

Journalists and news organizations in general, want to cite sources in virtually all stories. However, there are rare and usually extremely sensitive instances where sources would not come forward without a promise of confidentiality.

Without the use of confidential sources, such stories as the conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center, the Enron scandal and steroid abuse in Major League Baseball would never have been divulged to the public - or to Congress and law enforcement officials, for that matter.

Muddying the waters are matters of national security.

The amendment, S.2035 takes into account true matters of national security.

A confidential source's identity can be compelled if disclosure is necessary to prevent "a specific case of terrorism against the United States or significant harm to national security that outweighs the public interest in newsgathering and maintaining a free flow of information to citizens."

Journalists would not have privilege in situations where the journalist is an eyewitness to a crime and where someone's life or the prevention of bodily harm depends on the reporters' confidential source information.

Over the past few years, more than 40 reporters have been subpoenaed or questioned about their confidential sources, their notes and their work product in criminal and civil cases in federal court.

Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have shield laws in place in state courts. Sixteen others, Iowa included, recognize a privilege through court decisions. There is no such law at the federal level. The lack of such a law will have a chilling effect on whistleblowers and other sources who would wish to remain anonymous because they fear a loss of employment, or worse.

As Justice Potter Stewart wrote: "When neither the reporter nor his source can rely on the shield of confidentiality against unrestrained use of the grand jury's subpoena power, valuable information will not be published and the public dialogue will inevitably be impoverished."

The amendment could go a long way in establishing clear criteria for what is a national security issue. That, in turn, could help limit abuses of power by forcing journalists to identify a confidential source simply by claiming it's a national security issue.

Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones required in a true democratic society. The citizens' right to information concerning government will be eroded if journalists are unable to keep confidential sources anonymous.

In a 2004 poll by Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center, 70 percent of respondents backed confidentiality of journalists' sources. Congress should take heed of those numbers.

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley is a member of the Senate Committee on Judiciary. We urge the senator to vote yes on the Specter/Schumer Amendment when it is offered as the mark-up for S. 1267.