Utah's fourth congressional seat was not the only business Congress left unfinished as it adjourned for the year.

Two bills that would have created a federal shield law for reporters will die also, having never emerged from the House and Senate judiciary committees. The bills would have required government prosecutors or investigators to exhaust all avenues for obtaining information before compelling a journalist to identify a confidential source.

The bills were mired in objections from lawmakers who feared that the measures would allow journalists to protect sources who divulge information on national security. The Justice Department's claim that the bills would interfere with the tracking down of terrorists also contributed to their languishing in legislative limbo.

But the bills can be reintroduced in the next Congress, and we hope that the new leadership will make them a priority.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia already grant reporters the privilege of shielding their sources. Unfortunately, those laws do not apply in federal courts, and some journalists have been sent to jail for refusing to comply with a federal subpoena.

In 2001, Vanessa Leggett, a Texas freelance writer, spent 168 days in federal custody for refusing to turn over her notes on a murder case to a federal grand jury, while former New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for 85 days for refusing to name a source who told her about CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Seeing this problem, Reps. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and Rick Boucher, D-Va., introduced reporters' privilege legislation in the House, while Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., introduced a similar bill in the Senate.

Shield laws do not put journalists above the law; they benefit the public by ensuring a free flow of information on critical subjects that the public needs to know about. Many times, people with important information will not come forward for fear of retaliation. In some cases, it's a matter of life or death. By preserving confidentiality, journalists can help the public get such information.

Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, the Pike report on CIA assassinations, domestic spying, steroid use in major league baseball, secret CIA prisons and countless misdeeds in local communities would not have come to light had reporters not been able to protect the identity of their sources.

Society already exempts lawyers, clergy and doctors from divulging what is said to them in the course of their duties because it is believed that society benefits from unhindered dialog. The same is true with journalists. Forcing them to testify erodes their ability to serve as independent watchdogs of government, and this ultimately hurts society as people cannot get the information they need.

The federal bills, as drafted, did not grant an absolute privilege. They required that the government to exhaust all other possible means of finding the information before compelling a journalist to divulge his sources on the witness stand. This means that prosecutors cannot use journalists as an adjunct to their investigative staffs. If the journalist can get the information, often so can the government. They would be required to do their own leg work to build cases rather than coercing a news reporter.

When the 110th Congress convenes in January, we hope that the bills are reintroduced, and that Utah's congressional delegation uses its influence to move them quickly through the process.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A4.