[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
                   MARK	UP OF H.R. 140 AND H.R. 1162

=======================================================================

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 28, 2023

                               __________

                          Serial No. CP:118-3

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov                             
                             
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-804 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                              
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                   Christian Hoehner, Policy Director
                 Lauren Lombardo, Senior Policy Analyst
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page
Hearing held on February 28, 2023................................     1

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Emails, Twitter File; submitted by Rep. Armstrong.

  * Article, Miami Herald, ``Doctor Loses License, Must Have 
  Psych Evaluation for COVID Falsehoods, Board Says''; submitted 
  by Rep. Donalds.

  * Article, Politico, ``Medical Boards Get Pushback as They Try 
  to Punish Doctors for COVID Misinformation''; submitted by Rep. 
  Donalds.

  * Article, CNN, ``The Many Times Trump Has Praised China's 
  Handling of the Coronavirus Pandemic''; submitted by Rep. 
  Raskin.

  * Article, The Wall Street Journal, ``The Right's Wrong Attack 
  on DirecTV Over Newsmax''; submited by Rep. Raskin.

The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                    FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
                   MARK-UP OF H.R. 140 AND H.R. 1162

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, February 28, 2023

                       House of Representatives,

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability,

                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:08 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Gosar, Foxx, 
Grothman, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, LaTurner, 
Fallon, Donalds, Armstrong, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, 
McClain, Boebert, Fry, Luna, Edwards, Langworthy, Burlison, 
Raskin, Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, 
Ocasio-Cortez, Porter, Brown, Gomez, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, 
Balint, Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman, and Moskowitz.
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order. A 
quorum is present.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 5(b) and House Rule XI, Clause 
2, the Chair may postpone further proceedings today on the 
question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an 
amendment on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are 
ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to make an opening statement.
    The Committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider 
three different items: H.R. 140, the Protecting Speech from 
American Interference Act; H.R. 1162 by Mr. Perry, the 
Accountability for Government Censorship Act; and the 
Authorization and Oversight Plan of the Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability. As required by House rules, a copy of the 
legislative measures have been made available to Members and 
the public at least 24 hours in advance. I appreciate the 
Ranking Member working with me to finalize the 118th Congress 
Authorization and Oversight Plan for the Committee.
    Today is this Committee's first markup of the 118th 
Congress. It is also the Committee's first legislative step in 
combating the Federal Government's abusive actions to censor 
the lawful speech of American citizens on private-sector 
internet platforms. We have important work to do this Congress 
to uncover and prevent government waste, fraud, and abuse, and 
we look forward to getting started on this important work 
today. With that, I yield to the distinguished Ranking Member 
for whatever opening statement he wishes to make.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, kindly, Mr. Chairman. It is a 
delight to be with you for these significant matters we meet 
for today. And I just want to let the Members know that I have 
delivered the promised copy of Common Sense for every Member of 
the Committee on the theory that what we need to succeed 
together in 118th Congress, it is just common sense in an Age 
of Reason, which was the other great book that Tom Paine wrote. 
He said, ``You can't have common sense without an age of reason 
and age of reason without common sense,'' so I hope you all 
enjoy it. I look forward to talking to the Members about it, 
and I look forward to us getting into the details of today's 
legislation. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. All right. Our first item for consideration 
as H.R. 140, the Protecting Speech from Government Interference 
Act.
    The clerk will please report the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 140. H.R. 140, the Protecting Speech from 
Government Interference Act.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
140, offered by Mr. Comer.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for five minutes for a 
statement on the bill and the amendment.
    During our February 8 hearing on Protecting Speech from 
Government Interference and Social Media Bias, the Oversight 
Committee learned just how easy it was for the Federal 
Government to influence a private company to accomplish what it 
constitutionally cannot: limit the free exercise of speech. At 
the hearing, we heard hours of witness testimony that revealed 
the extent to which Federal employees have repeatedly and 
consistently communicated with social media platforms to censor 
and suppress the lawful speech of Americans. The hearing 
exposed just how much the Biden Administration have attempted 
to normalize a policy of Federal censorship.
    Biden Administration officials have publicly called upon 
and privately coordinated with private sector social media 
companies to ban specific accounts viewed as politically 
inconvenient. During our February 8 hearing, one of our 
witnesses, Mr. Baker, called for Federal legislation that would 
reasonably and effectively limit government interactions with 
private sector platforms. I agree with him. It is inappropriate 
and dangerous for the Federal Government to decide what lawful 
speech is allowed on a private sector platform. My bill, the 
Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act, makes this 
type of behavior an unlawful activity for Federal officials to 
engage in, subjecting those who attempt to censor the lawful 
speech of Americans to disciplinary actions and monetary 
penalties.
    The Federal Government should not be able to decide what 
lawful speech is allowed. We have the First Amendment for a 
very good reason. Federal officials, no matter their rank or 
resources, must be prohibited to coerce the private sector to 
suppress certain information or limit the ability of citizens 
to freely express their own views on a private sector internet 
platform. Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, for 
example, should not have been free to use her official 
authority to openly call for Facebook or any other social media 
company to ban specific accounts or types of speech from its 
platform. That was not appropriate use of the authorities or 
resources of a senior executive branch official.
    Further, Federal employees should not feel empowered to 
infringe on the independence of private entities by pressuring 
them to complicate or change their community guidelines and 
content modernization policies. If the Biden Administration 
needs to express its policy positions or political preferences, 
it has immense communication resources of its own through which 
to engage in the public square and offer its information and 
argument. If the Administration feels it is losing the policy 
argument or the public's confidence to stronger voices, the 
answer should never be to deploy the resources and power of the 
Federal Government to limit the speech of others.
    The legislation before us today expands the current Federal 
employee political activity limitations of the Hatch Act to 
include a prohibition on Federal employees using their official 
authority to influence or coerce a private sector internet 
platform to censor lawful speech. This includes a prohibition 
on actions that would result in a private sector platform 
suppressing, restricting, or adding disclaimers or alerts to 
any lawful speech posted on its platform by a person or entity. 
Whether an ordinary citizen or an established media 
organization, all Americans have a right to utilize these new 
and powerful communication technology resources to share their 
views and opinions without Uncle Sam putting his thumb on the 
scale to tilt the debate in one direction. Americans know that 
the First Amendment protects them from this kind of government 
censorship--protects them from Federal officials who seek to 
use their positions, their influence, and their resources to 
censor lawful speech.
    The only thing that has changed is that the public square 
has moved online with powerful new communication tools. We are 
discussing this legislation today because Americans know that 
something is wrong, and they have asked Congress to fix it. 
This bill is a targeted first step to address one clear part of 
the problem: the troubling development that the Federal 
officials in the U.S. Government view it as their role to 
censor the speech of Americans.
    I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Energy 
and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers for their early 
support in crafting this legislation. I urge all my colleagues 
to support this bill, and I yield to the Ranking Member for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, 
there is something a bit presumptuous about legislation called 
the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act, because 
that, of course, is the whole purpose and meaning of the First 
Amendment, which protects all private speech against government 
interference, censorship, and punishment. If our prideful 
ambition today is to improve upon the framers' handiwork 
crafting the First Amendment, we must be very careful to 
address actual real problems without creating numerous new 
problems and threats to free speech, democracy, and public 
safety along the way. Legislation should address real problems. 
The original flaw of this legislation is that it is based on 
the entirely false premise that government officials pressured 
or coerced Twitter to suppress the New York Post story about 
Hunter Biden's laptop for all of 24 hours.
    At our last hearing, none of the three witnesses called by 
the GOP Majority supported that theory in any way. In fact, the 
hearing ended with the conclusion on February 8 that there was 
no governmental pressure or coercion involved in the private 
company's fleeting, independent decision to moderate access to 
the Hunter Biden laptop story for a day or two.
    After that hearing failed to identify any government action 
in these sequence of events, the legislation conveniently moves 
to redefine ``censorship'' from meaning government suppression 
of private speech to meaning private entities regulating their 
own speech content and speech platforms. This move is radical 
indeed. We usually do not say the newspapers and TV networks 
censored themselves when they decide to put one thing on the 
air instead of another. Indeed, even with the recent shocking 
disclosure of internal conversation showing that Fox News 
anchors, like Tucker Carlson, completely knew that Sidney 
Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Trump were lying about their 
ridiculous 2020 election claims and called them behind the 
scenes insane, absurd, shockingly reckless, and dangerous as 
hell, but then credited those claims on air.
    Nonetheless, it would still be strange to say that Fox News 
was censoring itself. I don't think it was. It just made one 
terribly bad decision, which, for certain plaintiffs, might end 
up being unlawful. But in any event, the basic point is that it 
is a fallacy, what the philosophers call a category error, to 
treat a private entity's decision not to publish something, or 
to hold a publication by day, as censorship under our system of 
government. Yet, the whole purpose and design of the 
legislation is to protect private speakers from being censored 
by private media entities because of prior communications they 
may have had with the government or information they may have 
received from the government.
    But the receipt or collection of information from the 
government does not transform a private entity's editorial 
decisions into state action from the standpoint of the First 
Amendment. For example, the newspaper set to run an op-ed 
saying that the COVID vaccine is more dangerous to the public 
than COVID, for example, but then the CDC sends out a report 
completely debunking that claim, and so the editors decide not 
to run the op-ed. That is a private editorial decision entirely 
protected by the First Amendment. The disappointed op-ed writer 
has no First Amendment cause of action against the CDC or 
against the newspaper.
    Social media companies have a First Amendment right to 
establish their own rules governing their own speech, including 
false speech, and speech inciting violence, and race hate. 
Social media companies also have a right to use threat 
information shared by the government to enforce their rules and 
make private business decisions. But H.R. 140 now threatens the 
ability of law enforcement and other government agencies to 
share information that these companies want to get, such as 
information warning them of violence-inciting and violence-
planning speech on their platforms that poses a serious threat 
to public safety and democratic institutions.
    Based on the testimony of the Minority witness on February 
8, Ms. Anika Collier Navaroli, in the Twitter files hearing, it 
is obvious that Twitter should be using every tool at its 
disposal to become far more attuned to the use of its platform 
for incitement and planning of insurrectionary violence, not 
less so. Then, as private actors, they can make their own 
decisions about how to respond within the law and their private 
policies.
    Similarly, H.R. 140, as written, would interfere with the 
ability of national security and law enforcement agencies to 
contact online platform providers and tell them that Russia, 
China, or other malign foreign state or non-state actors are 
working to interfere with the integrity of an election, voting 
rights, or fear balloting on Election Day with propaganda 
techniques, disinformation, or direct tampering. In this sense, 
H.R. 140, would work as a Putin Protection Act, given his 
demonstrated propensity for spending tens of millions of 
dollars on his Internet Research Agency to pump propaganda and 
fake news directly into the bloodstream of American political 
campaigns. This is a serious danger created by this 
legislation, given the escalating global campaign by autocrats, 
theocrats, and communist bureaucrats to inject chaos and 
division in democratic societies.
    Mr. Chairman, most people will recognize as absurd all the 
whining by election deniers, COVID deniers, white supremacists, 
and neo-Nazis, that they somehow have a God-given right to 
spout off on other people's private internet platforms. Give me 
a break. If you don't like rules against public health 
disinformation or racist incitement, then go set up your own 
social media platform. Most of us don't want to live in a world 
where government cannot relay truthful and factual information 
to private media entities. Most of us don't want to live in a 
world where a government withholds critical factual information 
from social media entities and then right-wing politicians 
heckle and harass them, to force them to host election deniers, 
Holocaust deniers, COVID-19 deniers, racist antisemites, and so 
on. Compelling social media to carry the propaganda of big 
liars cannot be the meaning of free speech in the 21st century.
    In short, Mr. Chairman, this bill seeks to solve what we 
already established in our hearings was not a problem at all, 
but because of its selective nature, it would create numerous 
serious problems going forward for American democracy, while 
still allowing politicians to threaten private media entities 
over their content and editorial decisions. And we will have 
more to say about how much of that is really going on. I 
respectfully urge the Committee to reject H.R. 140, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard? The 
Chair recognizes Ms. Boebert for five minutes.
    Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am in support of 
this bill. I just wanted to briefly comment on the Ranking 
Member's remarks. You know, he mentioned that we want to have a 
government that is able to put out truthful information. Well, 
we have experienced a government that has put out very, very 
false information that has harmed people in the past two years, 
and you are going after American citizens for asking questions. 
These are the people who were censored on social media 
platforms, and come to find out we were right about the origins 
of COVID. We were right about it being a lab leak, the American 
citizens who were questioning the efficacy of masks, and 
lockdowns, and vaccines, and boosters, and so on, and so on, 
and even all of the hospital--everything that happened in the 
hospitals to treat COVID-19. And even the number of patients 
who had COVID-19 and died of COVID-19, how that was inflated, 
all of these questions that the American people were asking, 
they were censored, they were shut down. They were removed from 
social media. They were suspended. They were banned.
    And you want a government that just can put out truthful 
information? Well, how about allowing the real government, the 
people, to ask questions, seek answers and not be silenced in 
the process? While they are completely being lied to by their 
Federal Government, by the people who were put in these 
positions? And, this bill is addressing exactly that. Americans 
need to be able to ask these questions. They have the right to 
receive information about what is going on in our country and 
around the world, where things are coming from, how it is going 
to affect their children, their children's education, how it is 
going to affect their health, physically? This is what we are 
addressing. The American people were silenced for three years 
because of what China has done and because of our Federal 
Government colluding to cover up what China released into the 
globe.
    So, we want American citizens to, yes, have a government 
put out truthful information, and also the people are the check 
on the government to say, hey, is that right? Is that accurate? 
Something seems off here. I have a question. Here is some 
information that I found out because, hey, Federal Government, 
maybe you don't know everything. Mr. Chairman, I yield, and I 
support the bill.
    Chairman Comer. The lady yields back. Any other Member seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Sessions. I move to strike the last word. Oh, excuse 
me.
    Chairman Comer. Yes, Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Since we brought up 
COVID, I just want to respond and to remind the Majority that 
COVID did not start under the Biden Administration. It started 
under the Trump Administration, and it was Donald Trump who 
closed businesses. It was Donald Trump who closed schools. It 
was Donald Trump who mandated masks. It was Donald Trump who 
came up with the vaccine, which I don't have a problem with, 
but if you have a problem with it, it was Donald Trump's 
vaccine.
    And so, when we bring up COVID, we seem to have amnesia of 
when COVID started, who it started under, right? You guys don't 
like Dr. Fauci, but it was Donald Trump who listened to Dr. 
Fauci. And so, at the end of the day, you guys want to complain 
about things that happened under the last two years. You are 
allowed to have valid complaints, but what I would love to hear 
from the Majority is the criticism of the Trump Administration, 
and Donald Trump, and the decisions that were made during that 
Administration, which you guys use as talking points to hit the 
President of the United States over, Joe Biden, but he was not 
in charge when those decisions were made. I yield back.
    Ms. Boebert. Would the gentleman yield? I will respond. You 
want to hear a response from the Majority? I would be happy to 
respond.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair----
    Mr. Moskowitz. Sure. Sure, Mr. Chair, I will.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognize----
    Ms. Boebert. Thank you very much. You are right. President 
Trump was in office when the COVID virus was released from a 
lab in China, from the Wuhan lab, and he tried to make that 
very clear that this came from China, and reporters regularly 
dismissed that. They called him a xenophobe because he was just 
saying where the virus came from. He did not mandate masks, 
your President did. Joe Biden did. We were on airplanes, all 
masked up, forced to be in masks, shut down our businesses, 
shut down our schools, Governors shut down our businesses, and 
our schools. President Trump was very much in favor of 
federalism and saying let the states choose. He didn't make any 
Federal mandates. And there are plenty of vaccine mandates that 
came from Joe Biden. Ask our service members who have been 
wrongfully discharged, have not been reinstated, have not 
received back pay, and now what? If they want to continue to 
not serve, will they have an honorable discharge? We don't know 
because even in the previous NDAA, that language was not strong 
enough. And so, that is another fight that we still have to 
have.
    What about all of our medical workers who were forced to 
have vaccines? That is the problem with the vaccine, not that 
it exists? Great. It was created. It is your choice, if you 
want to get the vaccine, if you want to get the booster. It was 
forced on millions of Americans, and that is where the problem 
lies.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Boebert. Yes, I yield.
    Chairman Comer. Yes. Well, he has asked, yes.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Thank you very much, and thank you 
for yielding, Mr. Moskowitz. I appreciate the gentlelady's 
passion. There are true facts that she should perhaps be 
alerted to. One is that Donald Trump on more than 20 different 
occasions defended the performance of the Chinese Government, 
and specifically President Xi in terms of his treatment of 
COVID-19, and said he was doing a wonderful job and a great 
job, and they were working closely and they were constantly in 
touch. So, if there is a problem with the Chinese Government 
unleashing the virus, which has not been proven anywhere, but 
it certainly could be true, you would have to pin that on your 
favorite President, Donald Trump, not on Joe Biden.
    The second thing is President Trump's own special adviser 
on COVID-19, Deborah Birx, I am sure you are aware, and I am 
sure you have read her book, said that the lethal recklessness 
of Donald Trump's policies about COVID-19 cost Americans 
hundreds of thousands of lives. So, you don't have to believe 
anybody on the Democratic side of the aisle. That is Donald 
Trump's own special adviser on COVID-19. Thank you for 
yielding, and I happily yield back.
    Chairman Comer. I will now recognize Mr. Moskowitz for 
final 56 seconds.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will 
just close with this. Again, I don't have a problem having the 
conversation with the Majority on what decisions that were made 
during an emergency, that now that the lights are back on and 
we are no longer in the emergency, that they want to criticize, 
but that criticism needs to go both ways. It can't just be that 
COVID started only in the Biden Administration and those 
decisions were made only in the Biden Administration. I will 
have you know, and maybe you are not aware, but that the White 
House and the President called Governors around the country, 
and the President himself instructed them to close. How do I 
know that? I was in the room. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek--the Chair 
recognizes Mr. Biggs for five minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this piece 
of legislation, and I think as somewhat have an understanding 
of the concern of the Ranking Member, but I want to point out a 
few things as well. No. 1, the recent Wall Street Journal 
report regarding COVID with the DOE has known and suggested 
that there was an actual leak at the Wuhan lab, and that they 
knew about it for a couple of years. That is interesting 
because when some of us suggested that two years ago, my 
colleagues across the aisle said we were conspiracy theorists, 
we were nuts, we were xenophobic, all sorts of ridiculous 
complaints. I was censored, I was bumped, I was shadow banned, 
all types of things because they said it was COVID 
misinformation.
    Joe Biden stood up and said `I think social media should do 
more censoring of COVID misinformation.' Turns out that was not 
COVID misinformation. When I stood up and said I have on my 
desk two meta studies which encompass over 100 studies on 
masking and masks simply don't work unless you have a special, 
fitted, unique N95 mask--``misinformation.'' Taken down. Those 
were medical studies, scientific studies, peer reviewed 
studies. Now, we got the piece here where Lancet recognizes 
natural immunity, three years late. When we started talking 
about natural immunity and I brought in doctors and scientists, 
and I did podcast with them, we were censored. That is what 
this bill gets at. Who is driving the censorship?
    Well, you want to know who is driving censorship? How about 
what we had testified to just a couple of weeks ago, regular 
meetings between CIA, FBI, and Twitter officials, calling out 
and saying, hey, check out these accounts. We don't think they 
follow your private standards. That kind of pressure tantamount 
to coercion, to deny it is actually just leaves me speechless. 
How about this, out of the lawsuit that is coming via Missouri 
and Louisiana and the AGs there? We have one Facebook official 
sending to the Surgeon General, again dealing with COVID stuff. 
He says, ``I know our teams.'' This is a quote from an email. 
``I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of 
what the White House expects from us.''
    You know, you can have a violation of First Amendment if 
the government, just like if the government violates and gets a 
private actor, an Agent, to violate someone's Fourth Amendment 
or Fifth Amendment. I would tell you, you can do the same with 
First Amendment. That is what was going on here. That is 
fascistic when you have the government, enlisting the private 
sector to censor, not just enlisting them, but coercing them.
    This bill tries to get at that. You may not like the 
fineness of it. Maybe there are some nuances that you think 
should be there, but the reality is that is what was going on, 
is a huge problem, in my mind, having been a victim of it. If 
you are a conservative voice and you were out early, like I 
was, talking about these issues and constantly being labeled 
and attacked by social media companies, then you say, hey, yes, 
why is that happening, because the government was actually 
putting pressure and coercion on the social media.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentlemen yield for this line of 
question?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, I would. Yes, yes.
    Mr. Raskin. You make some interesting points. The people 
who I am aware of or were taken down from any social media 
entity over COVID disinformation were people who were either 
saying the vaccine will kill you, or the vaccine doesn't work, 
or you use Clorox or whatever. So, I am just wondering, are you 
aware of anybody who was taken down from social media because 
they said that there was a lab origin for the virus, because I 
didn't see any of those.
    Mr. Biggs. I don't know about the Wuhan lab. I know that I 
was labeled because of that.
    Mr. Raskin. But the labelling is part of the----
    Mr. Biggs. I am taking it back. But I do know doctors who 
were taken down and banned for making statements from research 
and science. My time has expired. But, yes, I do know examples.
    Chairman Comer. Yes. Does any other Member seek 
recognition? Yes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. You know, 
as I was reading the bills that were put forward today for us 
to vote on, there is one word that has continued to go through 
my mind, and that is the word ``gaslighting.'' You know, the 
definition of ``gaslighting'' is to manipulate someone, and in 
this case, the American public, using methods to question their 
own powers of reasoning and their own sanity by those who are 
in a position of authority.
    When I read the bill that we are discussing here, this 
concept is really in the forefront of my mind because when we 
talk about the facts, what we are talking about is we held a 
hearing just a couple of weeks ago, on February 8, where former 
executives of Twitter were hauled before this Committee to talk 
about a decision that was made within a private company--not by 
a government entity, a private company--after they had been 
briefed by American law enforcement about the potential of the 
use of disinformation by foreign adversaries, namely Russia and 
China, to potentially impact our election outcome.
    Now, the story at hand, that was the actual basis for this 
hearing, was actually a story that was planted in the media by 
Donald Trump's own campaign for the purpose of being an October 
surprise in his 2020 election. It was flagged within Twitter as 
a potential disinformation. And the executives who came and 
testified under oath said that they agreed that in hindsight, 
after examining the evidence, that they would have handled the 
situation differently. Let's be clear on the facts. This was a 
private company with a private platform that was acting after 
they had been briefed by Homeland Security, the FBI, and other 
American law enforcement officials while Donald Trump was 
President and sitting in a position of power, after they 
refused to amplify a campaign-planted story in the media.
    And so here presenting a bill, the Majority is presenting a 
bill and an amendment to that bill today, that would literally 
hamstring the ability of American law enforcement to prevent 
election interference and to ensure that we are protecting our 
democracy. And it is being done under the guise of ensuring 
that we are protecting the First Amendment rights of Americans 
to speak their minds. This is not about the First Amendment. 
This is gaslighting. This is literally the definition of 
gaslighting because what this bill would do, if you read this 
bill in the amendment, is actually tie the hands of our public 
officials to exercise their First Amendment rights and their 
ability to actually exercise their law enforcement duties as 
they take the oath to do in office.
    So, I think it is very important, as we undertake a hearing 
of these bills today and take a vote, that the American public 
understand that the arguments that are being stated here in 
this Committee today are not factual. They are gaslighting. 
This is not about the First Amendment, and this is really about 
undermining our basic ability to protect our democracy and the 
homeland. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The lady yields back. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Sessions for five minutes.
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. 
Chairman, I want to acknowledge and thank the Ranking Member 
for the book that we have now, Common Sense, that was placed in 
each Member's chair, and while I have not read it since 
probably my junior year of college, I do remember the essence 
of much of it, and it was actually Thomas Paine writing about 
the power of the crown, the king, to make decisions. Perhaps, 
we now have presidents instead of the crown. But the bottom 
line is on page 22, second paragraph, ``The nearer any 
government approaches to the public, the less business there is 
for a king.''
    We have been accused of gaslighting, but that is not even 
factually correct because the examples that we use came from a 
pontificator, not even the professional person who represented 
policy. We are not trying to stop policy. We are trying to stop 
those that pontificate political views. And for someone to say 
that our young chairman is trying to gaslight so that we can 
avoid the truth or law enforcement, that is not even close to 
the facts. It is when we have a king or a President that uses 
official public resources and the public's goodwill for them to 
come and utilize what is political statements.
    I would like to think that elected officials probably have 
that ability. They can hold a press conference. But when you 
take the oath of office to work on behalf of, let's say, 
Article II, the executive branch, your statements must be more 
disciplined and must align itself with actual policy, not 
politics. So, I think that what I view as what this Chairman 
Comer has done, is good for the goose and good for the gander.
    We seem to want to throw things at each other, and at one 
point, President Trump was in. Now President Biden is in. We 
are trying to get, I think, to a level playing field where we 
avoid anyone that works for the government espousing, 
especially from the podium at the White House, these political 
views that we believe are not well guided and lack common 
sense. So, I would like for our colleagues and the American 
people to see we are trying to do things that are away from the 
crown, the king, or an executive, like we call a President, 
utilizing their bully pulpit. That should be facts and facts, 
the case, and balance as opposed to politics. So, I would 
really like to have the gentlewoman rethink actually what the 
intent is because I believe the intent that I have always tried 
to align myself with is, it is good for one, it is good for the 
other, but it is also good for common sense of the American 
public. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. For what purpose 
does the Ranking Member seek recognition?
    Mr. Raskin. For the purpose of introducing an amendment, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman, are we already going to the 
amendments already?
    Chairman Comer. I am sorry?
    Mr. Donalds. I didn't know we were going to the amendments 
already. I thought we----
    Mr. Raskin. Amendments can be moved at any time.
    Chairman Comer. If it is OK. All right. I apologize. I 
recognize Mr. Donalds to speak up.
    Mr. Raskin. As a friendly point of order, just so people 
are aware, you can make an amendment at any point, and you can 
speak on the bill at any point as well.
    Mr. Donalds. Fair enough. Fair point. Real quick on----
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 
Ranking Member as well. I appreciate that. A couple of quick 
things. It was raised already in this debate what doctors were 
censored. Dr. Robert Malone, specialist mRNA technology, one of 
the forefathers of that tech that actually created the 
vaccines, he was censored on Twitter. Another one, Jay 
Bhattacharya, of Stanford, professor of health, economics, and 
medicine, he was censored on Twitter through information that 
might have come from some area of our Federal Government.
    I think it is important for the Members to understand that 
this bill is very clear. Let's go to the actual text. It does 
prohibit any employee from not using the employee's official 
authority to censor any private party, including outside of 
normal duty hours and while such employee is away from the 
employee's normal duty posts, and then we go to all the 
elements of that. We cannot have elements of our government 
using the power of their offices to push narratives or to 
censor narratives amongst the American people. The American 
people, of their own volition, choose to do with their own 
mind, their own thought, their own reason, their own logic, 
their own information set, whatever the case might be, we 
cannot allow for that. It is wrong. It is censorship. It is a 
violation of the First Amendment, and that is what H.R. 140 
seeks to address.
    I think it is something where we are going to have to 
rampant debate about it, but this is bigger than ``R'' / ''D''. 
It is bigger than who is sitting in the White House. This is 
the very nature of public debate amongst the American people. 
We should never tolerate medical professionals being silenced. 
Never. Regardless of their views, we should never tolerate one 
newspaper being silenced in regard to another newspaper's point 
of view when they are all members of the press. Let the 
American people decide these things through dialog, through 
debate that is in the public's interests. And that is why in my 
view, Members, and I know we are going to go through 
amendments--it is going to be a pretty long markup as I can see 
already--we should be in support of H.R. 140. I yield.
    Mr. Goldman. Would the gentleman yield for a question, over 
here?
    Mr. Donalds. Sure.
    Mr. Goldman. Those doctors that you referenced who you say 
were censored, was that done because of government 
intervention, or was that done by the private social media 
companies?
    Mr. Donalds. Well, I am glad that the gentleman that raised 
that question because one of the things that the Twitter files 
already suggested, and this is with respect to the Hunter Biden 
story, is that FBI was in constant contact with Twitter through 
that entire saga. The Twitter executives could say whatever 
they want about how well we made the final decision, and, of 
course, in all likelihood, they made the final decision. But it 
is crystal clear that there were elements of the Federal 
Government that were in Twitter's ear. That is not even 
something that is under conjecture. We see the email chains. 
The contact existed. Twitter executives talked about that 
amongst themselves within the operations of the company. That 
has continued under the current Administration with respect to 
COVID-19, from CDC and other elements of the government, HHS.
    So, if you are going to say that Twitter was taking 
information from FBI during the Hunter Biden situation with his 
laptop, it is only common sense to assume that CDC was also 
using that position to basically push their narratives into 
Twitter, which led to the silencing of Jay Bhattacharya, of 
Robert Malone. Marty Makary was silenced as well, et cetera.
    Mr. Goldman. I am sorry. Go ahead.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield for a follow-up 
question? Would you say that Twitter should be forced to carry 
those doctors on the air, or on their platform, regardless of 
whether or not there had been FBI or CIA contact? You were 
saying before no doctor should be taken down for any reason. 
Should Twitter be forced to take them even if there were no 
claim that the government was involved?
    Mr. Donalds. Well, in answer to that question, I think one 
thing is clear. I think if we are going to talk about reforms 
to Section 230, I think that is another question for another 
day about what the platform and how they should manage that. I 
think as for the purpose of H.R. 140, what we should be 
discussing is whether it is acceptable for elements of our 
government to be using their position to push narratives, or to 
silence dissent, or to silence opposing views, whether that is 
a medical professional with their criteria and the 
qualifications of Jay Bhattacharya, or whether it is the 
Ranking Member himself, or whether it is me, or any other 
citizen of the United States?
    If you are going to have the platform available for public 
use, which is the very basis of Twitter and Facebook and all 
the rest of them, they want the users, they want people in 
there, of course, they sell ads, and they use them. I get all 
of that. But if it is going to become the public square, which 
is what it has become, the Federal Government must, and I 
stress ``must,'' be very, very hands off with respect to 
manipulating, censoring, positioning viewpoints of the American 
people on these platforms. I am going to yield back because 
actually I have got to run to another hearing real quick, and 
we are over time.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, I would just, Mr. Chairman, if I could 
ask a question?
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Goldman, the Chair will recognize you 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you. I would just want to respond 
briefly to what my colleague from Florida said. We had a 
hearing on this exact issue from Twitter related to the Hunter 
Biden story. The witnesses were asked whether the Federal 
Government intervened in any way to limit the proliferation of 
the New York Post story. The witnesses said that that was not a 
direction from the FBI. So, I understand that my colleague from 
Florida doesn't like what the actual facts and the evidence 
are, but just the fact that he says it does not make it so and, 
in fact, there is no evidence that the FBI or the Federal 
Government had any impact on Twitter's decision. And I only 
respond to that because that is the example that he raised, and 
that gets to the larger point of these two bills, which purport 
to stop censorship of protected speech under the First 
Amendment.
    Essentially, what we have here is a solution without a 
problem, but I have found the problem. The problem is that 
there is no evidence, there is no factual support for the need 
for these bills. My Republican colleagues have not demonstrated 
any protected speech that was prohibited by the Federal 
Government. So, we can repeat the conclusion over and over and 
over, but that doesn't make it so when we have people who have 
no firsthand knowledge and no evidence to actually back it up. 
The evidence is what makes it so, the facts are what makes it 
so, and we have neither of those.
    Now, of course, we all agree that the government cannot 
prohibit lawful speech. That is already the law of the land. It 
is called the First Amendment. We don't need a bill that says 
that the government cannot prohibit lawful speech, but that, of 
course, is not what these bills are designed to do. They are 
designed to allow conspiracy theories and election interference 
to run rampant online. They are designed to allow foreign 
countries, like Russia did in 2016, to have unfettered access 
to our social media websites in order to spread disinformation 
and interfere in our elections. We know as a fact, supported by 
evidence, that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election. And 
we know as a fact, supported by evidence, that the Trump 
campaign welcomed that foreign interference, used that foreign 
interference in their messaging, and ultimately benefited from 
the foreign interference.
    So, I am sure we are going to hear now that my Republican 
colleagues are aghast at the suggestion that that is what we 
are here for, but that is what the impact of this bill would 
be. It is not actually to change the law in order to protect or 
in order to prohibit any censorship or interference of 
protected speech, because that is the law. What this is truly 
designed to do, and it will have the impact of doing, is 
allowing for all sorts of unprotected speech to be distributed, 
unfettered throughout our social media world online because how 
this will have an impact is that the Federal Government 
officials who are charged with making sure that our laws are 
not violated, that crimes are not committed, are going to be 
nervous. They are going to be deterred from doing their jobs 
because we must remember, notwithstanding what you may hear on 
the other side of the aisle, any speech is not necessarily 
protected speech.
    There are many forms of speech that are not protected by 
the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not protect 
speech in furtherance of crimes. And that is what this is all 
about, is that the Federal Government has been trying to stamp 
out foreign interference, stamp out disinformation that either 
has a public health impact or is in furtherance of a crime. So, 
we don't need this bill because our laws already solved for the 
actual problem we have, and what we are talking about here is a 
solution without a problem. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Armstrong for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I may have an 
interesting, maybe, disagreement with what evidence is. We have 
an email from an FBI special agent to Twitter asking them to 
take down emails based on their terms and services. Not the 
First Amendment, not the Constitution to which that FBI agent, 
special agent-in-charge, swore an oath to uphold. Twitter is a 
private company. They can particularly have whatever terms and 
services they wish to have.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman kindly yield for a second?
    Mr. Armstrong. Sure.
    Mr. Raskin. Just that I have heard a lot about that email, 
but I have never seen it. Can you share that with us?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes, I can get it.
    Mr. Raskin. Is it available with the Committee?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes, I can grab that.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, if you could distribute that 
because we have heard a lot about that email, but I have never 
seen it. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes, Mr. Armstrong.
    Mr. Armstrong. I actually think it is in the record last 
week, but we will pull it again. And so, we can talk about all 
of those things all day long, but if you can't do it forward 
facing, you should not be able to do it behind the scenes as 
well. And an email from a special agent-in-charge asking 
Twitter to look at their own tweets based on their own terms 
and services is a very different conversation than what is 
protected speech. This isn't about anything private companies 
are doing. I think we will have a lot of debates on that in 
other committees that actually have that jurisdiction. 230 has 
been a very interesting conversation for my entire time in 
Congress. But an FBI agent, a special agent-in-charge, did not 
swear an oath to Twitter's terms and services. They swore an 
oath to the U.S. Constitution. And if we are going to end-round 
it, they should stand up in front of the American people and 
tell them why and not do it outside of the view of the American 
people. And then with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Does any other 
Member seek recognition? Mr. Langworthy? I know he will still 
want to debate on the bill. I know we can debate----
    Mr. Raskin. However you want to do it.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Langworthy for 
five minutes, and then we will get into amendments if everybody 
is OK with that.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of free 
speech and government interference in Big Tech is one of the 
most important topics of our time. Free speech is essential to 
the functioning of any democracy. It allows us to express our 
opinions, share information, and engage in meaningful dialog, 
and without it, we cannot hold our governments accountable, 
challenge injustice or promote any progress. Unfortunately, in 
recent years, there have been a justified and growing concerns 
over the influence of Big Tech companies on free speech. And 
millions of Americans have felt Big Tech's wrath, and many 
others have witnessed the overwhelming power and control that 
these companies hold.
    Only a few weeks ago, we heard in this very room from 
Twitter executives, who were not just willing, but eager, to 
follow the demands of government officials and censor fact-
based New York Post reporting. We heard Twitter executives 
admit that they took orders from officials to censor speech, 
remove high profile accounts, and actively violate the American 
people's right to free speech. The eagerness of government 
officials and Big Tech executives to come together and to alter 
the course of what should have been a free and fair election in 
2020 is obscene and can no longer be tolerated.
    And as it stands, Federal Government has all of the power 
in the world to demand that Big Tech censor voices it does not 
support. New Yorkers and Americans from every corner of our 
country are demanding oversight and accountability over the 
Federal Government's blatant collusion with Big Tech to censor 
the voices of Americans. Free speech is the cornerstone of any 
democracy, and we must protect it at all costs, whether it is 
threatened by Big Tech, government interference, or the two 
colluding together.
    The current Administration under President Biden has been 
accused of undermining the First Amendment rights of Americans 
by using its influence to pressure social media companies, to 
censor specific viewpoints on their platforms. Government 
officials have worked hand-in-hand with Big Tech to label 
factual information as disinformation and to urge social media 
platforms to remove that content.
    To safeguard the First Amendment, the Oversight Committee 
will evaluate proposed legislation that both prohibits the 
Federal Government from exerting overwhelming pressure on 
social media companies to silence individuals expressing their 
opinions online. This legislation is long overdue, and I am 
proud to be working with my colleagues to end censorship of the 
American people. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Any other 
Members seek recognition before we get to amendments?
    Ms. Mace. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Mace for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As was asked earlier, my 
colleagues across the aisle, what evidence is there? The 
evidence is very clear. It is black and white. It has already 
been made public. Matt Taibbi, a journalist, in December 16 of 
last year revealed that you can go online and see the evidence 
here, any links to it, but Twitter's contact with the FBI was 
constant and pervasive as if it were a subsidiary, and I am 
quoting Matt Taibbi in this. Between January 2020 and November 
2022, there were over 150 emails between the FBI and former 
Twitter employees, one in particular, Yoel Roth, who was 
already here and testified before us. But there were a number 
of requests by the FBI for Twitter to take action on 
misinformation. They even tried to ban accounts that were 
telling jokes.
    I mean, this is the ridiculous nature of agents of the 
Federal Government. And some of it wasn't just Republicans. 
There were Democrats, too, that were targeted. So, some of this 
is bipartisan targeting on both sides of the aisle. Whether it 
was this Administration or last Administration, this really 
should be a bipartisan conversation.
    What Matt Taibbi also stated was that in the Twitter files, 
it was not just the FBI. It was DHS. It was DNI. It was other 
agencies participating in this, including elected officials, we 
found out just a few weeks ago, including a U.S. senator who 
tried to have constituents banned on Twitter because they said 
something criticizing him. And so, you know, this is a huge 
issue, I think, and we are not talking about, as my colleague 
said earlier, about terms and services of Twitter or other 
private social media companies. We are talking about agents, 
representatives of the Federal Government being involved here, 
and the evidence is very clear.
    And, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, we can reenter 
into the record again some of these tweets that expose the FBI, 
and DHS, and DNI. I would like to enter into the record, with 
unanimous consent, these tweets that show that Federal agencies 
were involved with manipulating content, censoring content, and 
moderating content at their whim. Thank you, and I yield back, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The lady yields back. Any further Members? 
OK. The Chair recognizes Ms. Luna for five minutes.
    Ms. Luna. I just wanted to piggyback off of what 
Representative Mace had said. So, we know that up until 
recently, a lot of people focused on conservatives being 
censored. But the fact is, is that it is centrist and also to 
people on the other side of the aisle that might not 
necessarily fit into the stereotype of what the progressive 
left wants them to think and talk.
    Young Turks was famously censored on Facebook, and 
according to an organization--I think it is Foundation for 
Freedom Online, you know, what DHS was doing and something that 
we tried to expose was that our own Federal Government in 
working with CISA, and then also to some of these fact-checking 
organizations, these tech companies like YouTube, Facebook, 
Instagram, they actually were coordinating to censor people.
    So, I think that it is important to remember that this is 
not just about our speech, but everyone's speech. Regardless of 
party affiliation, it is dangerous to have, for argument sakes, 
anyone demand, controlling what you are saying and thinking. 
And we are at a time, at least in our generation, where future 
generations are impacted directly by this because we consume a 
majority of our information on these social media platforms, 
and so I think that this is a step forward in the right 
direction. With that, I support this, and, again, this is not 
just for Republican or conservative speech. It is for 
everyone's protected free speech.
    Mr. Biggs. I would love to take your time.
    Ms. Luna. I yield my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields----
    Ms. Luna. Mr. Biggs, please.
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. Her remaining three-and-a-half 
minutes to Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you for yielding. So, I want to help, if I 
can, because I think some of the questions that were asked by 
the Ranking Member are prescient and need to be responded to. 
So, let us take a look at some examples of connection. Besides 
the hearing, besides the documents that are coming in, and what 
Ms. Mace and others have brought forward, our White House 
contacts Twitter and asked them to censor Robert Kennedy, Jr., 
because he was a critic of the White House's COVID-19 
narrative. The White House directed Facebook to shut down 
Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren. That is from the White House.
    The White House Digital Director Flaherty scolds Facebook, 
says that he couldn't care less about products unless they are 
having measurable impact at suppressing speech. Digital 
Director Flaherty informs Facebook that misinformation around 
the vaccine ``is a concern shared at the highest, and I mean 
the highest, level of the White House.'' Flaherty then demands 
that Facebook step up its operation of ``removing bad 
information'' on vaccines. In regard to anti-vax posts, 
Flaherty tells Facebook that, ``Slowing it down seems 
reasonable.'' Facebook assures Flaherty that, ``In addition to 
removing vaccine misinformation, we have been focused on 
reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that 
does not contain actionable misinformation.''
    The reason I bring these up, and there is still time, so I 
have got more, I will just read more. He then--Flaherty again--
he is the White House Digital Director putting pressure on 
Twitter. He says that, ``If your product is appending 
misinformation toward tweets, that seems like a pretty 
fundamental issue.'' Then Facebook responds that they are 
``removing claims that public health authorities tell us had 
been debunked or unsupported by evidence.'' Flaherty, then 
accuses Twitter of total Calvinball and bending over backward 
to tolerate disfavored speech. In other words, the White House 
is putting pressure. They are coercing. They are attempting to 
use the power of their political position to influence private 
social media companies.
    How about some of this? Biden Administration worked in 
tandem with social media giants to censor statements that they 
deemed were misinformation. So, let's get to some of those. 
First of all, we start with Jen Psaki, White House press 
secretary. She admitted publicly at a press conference--I 
remember that press conference--that her colleagues were 
``flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread 
disinformation.'' And oddly enough, that so-called 
disinformation turned out to be correct information. Then she 
also added, ``It is important to take faster action against 
harmful posts, and Facebook needs to move more quickly to 
remove harmful vindictive posts,'' or, excuse me, ``violative 
posts.''
    The point is that in a Fourth Amendment case would be 
enough to indicate that somebody was acting as an agent of the 
government in order to get evidence suppressed, when it was 
wrongfully or illegitimately obtained and that is what the law 
is, and I will yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. For what purpose 
does the Ranking Member seek recognition?
    Mr. Raskin. I rise to offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 140, offered by Mr. Raskin of Maryland.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. The Ranking Member is recognized for five 
minutes to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I feel 
like our dialog is getting somewhere. I was very moved by the 
comments of Ms. Mace and the comments that followed hers, but I 
think the burden of their statements was simply that 
politicians try to get the media to do their will all the time, 
and I cheerfully concede to that proposition.
    In fact, we proved that in the last hearing when we showed 
that Donald Trump on numerous occasions tried to get Twitter to 
take down people's material that he considered offensive. A 
famous actress called him a PAB. I will not spell it out in the 
interest of modesty, but he did not like that, and then the 
White House repeatedly called Twitter to say take it down. He 
tried to get Disney to take down the comments and to admonish 
and castigate certain late-night comedians who he did not like.
    So, if the point is, as my friend from South Carolina was 
saying, well, this goes way beyond Twitter and Facebook, 
certainly it does. This problem goes way beyond it. And that is 
why the Majority needs to think long and hard about going down 
this road because determined efforts by politicians and state 
actors to influence the entire media system, which is what we 
are talking about now, sweep far more broadly than just Twitter 
and Facebook. And if we are going to confront this problem of 
people using their public offices and state power to try to 
intimidate, then let's do it in a comprehensive way.
    Let's take an example, Mr. Chairman, that you will 
recognize immediately. Over the weekend, you appeared on 
Newsmax and you boasted that you had told AT&T, a private 
company, that they needed to restore Newsmax to carrying 
DirecTV or face the consequences. To quote you verbatim: ``I am 
very upset that DirecTV does not have Newsmax on there. I have 
been in constant communication with the leadership of AT&T and 
DirecTV. I have strongly encouraged them to meet with your CEO, 
Mr. Ruddy, to get this worked out or else.'' Or else.
    Now, I have no opinion about whether or not AT&T should 
carry Newsmax. Apparently, it was purely a business decision 
according to The Wall Street Journal. And I will ask unanimous 
consent to introduce this editorial by The Wall Street Journal 
called, ``The Right's Wrong Attack on DirecTV over Newsmax: A 
Commercial Dispute is Not About Censoring Conservatives.''
    Chairman Comer. Without objection.
    Mr. Raskin. So, we can submit that. There was also a letter 
written by 42 of our colleagues, including the Chairman, 
directly to AT&T demanding that they carry Newsmax, and the 
premise of it was there some kind of left-wing conspiracy or so 
on. And The Wall Street Journal completely debunked that saying 
political coercion of business is as distasteful from the right 
as it is from the left.
    But if threatening official discourse through pressure like 
this, ``follow our orders or else,'' applied against not just 
private social media entities, which is what they are proposing 
in this bill, but against any media entity, it would transform 
politics in America in the meaning of the First Amendment. But 
if we are going to do it, let's do it. And the First Amendment 
says if this is going to apply to the internet, if it is going 
to protect Twitter, arguably, which is the conceit or pretense 
of this bill, it should also protect AT&T against getting 
coerced into making a deal it does not want to make and 
spending millions of dollars it does not want to spend with 
Newsmax.
    It is hard to see why, if you actually believe this bill is 
improving the First Amendment, we should not block all 
government officials, not just executive branch, but us, too--
legislative branch--not just with respect to the internet, but 
with respect to all media from trying to force private media 
entities, whether it is Twitter or it is AT&T, to include a 
particular speaker or, indeed, to exclude a particular speaker. 
Mr. Chairman, that logic is partially echoed in your bill, 
which sets the policy of the Congress that employees acting in 
their official capacity should not promote the censorship of 
any lawful speech or presumably the compelled speech of private 
actors. But your amendment in the nature of a substitute rolls 
back the scope of the original bill so that the actual 
prohibition would only apply to online social platforms. I 
would like to take it back so it applies to all forms of media 
content, and AT&T will get the same protection that Twitter 
would get punitively under this legislation.
    That is my amendment and I submit it to the Committee for 
its consideration. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes himself for five minutes. I feel compelled to 
respond to that. What I encouraged was for Newsmax, AT&T, and 
DirecTV to work it out or else there is going to be a big 
backlash among Americans against AT&T and DirecTV. If we could 
have them in for a hearing, I would have already had them in 
for a hearing.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you yield for a second. 
The letter that you signed on January 20, 2023, said Congress 
intends to conduct extensive oversight on the extent to which 
House Democrats, and officials, and Federal officers colluded 
with private companies to limit, restrict, and circumvent First 
Amendment rights--implying that that is what they had done--
these investigations will not be limited to a social media 
companies.
    Chairman Comer. Well, we have been looking into that, that 
is correct, because there is a concern about censorship. That 
is why we have this bill. We are producing the email that Mr. 
Goldman recognized. I love it when Mr. Goldman talks because we 
take clips of that, and we save it because it is going to be 
valuable when we get into the investigative portion of what we 
do.
    Now, I am not a member of the executive branch. I cannot 
bring the full weight of the FBI and the rest of the Federal 
law enforcement apparatus to bear on a company like the 
executive branch. We can encourage private companies to work it 
out. We are not going to have a hearing like, I do not know, 
with three hearings with the Washington Commanders, on a 
private company.
    But there is a concern about censorship. There is a concern 
about government officials using their position to force social 
media companies into banning stuff that they say is 
disinformation. The whole purpose of the first hearing, 
honestly, was to see whether or not the laptop was legitimate 
because that is all we heard, especially on the left-wing media 
outlets, was that the laptop was Russian disinformation. And I 
think that narrative stuck with a lot of people, so people 
discounted the contents of the laptop.
    Now, we heard Twitter executives testify under oath that 
that was a mistake. They know, in fact, that the laptop was 
real. We have seen CBS do a forensic audit to prove that the 
laptop has not been altered. And that is important because the 
contents of the laptop pose a huge problem for this White 
House, and we will be getting into those investigations very 
soon, hopefully, but that is important. It is important to 
start out to understand that the contents of that laptop are 
real. They are not Russian disinformation as those 51 former 
intelligence officials tried to imply, as the FBI tried to 
imply to Twitter. So, this is a problem when the government 
tries to force social media companies into saying that stuff is 
disinformation when in fact it is not.
    Now, this amendment, offered by Ranking Member Raskin is 
unnecessary. It is an unnecessary distraction and a potentially 
dangerous precedent to introduce. Media organizations have 
editorial boards and are not immune from liability for the 
content they publish, examples being slander, libel, or other 
information they choose to publish, unlike interactive computer 
services or internet platforms, which are the target of H.R. 
140. That is the target of H.R. 140, internet platforms. 
Internet platforms carry the speech of Americans and other 
media organizations. The focus of our bill, H.R. 140, is on 
Federal censorship activities that target internet platforms 
that carry the speech of Americans and other organizations, 
including media organizations.
    We should not introduce this amendment. It is a dangerous 
precedent that would prohibit traditional Federal press 
engagement with media organizations that have journalistic 
independence and editorial discretion. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
    Does any other Member seek recognition? The Chair 
recognizes Ms. Balint.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will----
    Voice. Well, we will get through----
    Chairman Comer. Yes, yes. If it is OK, we are going to vote 
on this amendment, then we will recognize you for the next, 
yes.
    Ms. Balint. OK.
    Chairman Comer. The question on the amendment, offered by 
the Ranking Member. No, wait. We have, let's see here.
    Voice. Ms. Stansbury.
    Chairman Comer. Yes, Ms. Stansbury. The Chair recognizes 
Ms. Stansbury for discussion on Raskin's Amendment Number 1----
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. For five minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to ask 
you a direct question, Mr. Chairman, if it is OK, taking the 
argument to its logical conclusion here. You know, the stated 
purpose of the ANS, which, Mr. Chairman, you have introduced 
and which this amendment would modify, is to prevent government 
officials who either sitting in their official duty station or 
away from their duty station might seek to influence the way in 
which a social media platform was carrying information. Is that 
correct?
    Chairman Comer. It expands the Hatch Act, yes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes. So, you know, one of the things that we 
learned in this hearing on February 8 is that one of the top 
offenders in this realm was actually the sitting President at 
the time, Mr. Donald Trump. And so, my question to you, Mr. 
Chairman, is, do you renounce former President Donald Trump's 
actions in contacting Twitter and asking Twitter to take down 
the content of private citizens who were expressing their First 
Amendment rights about their beliefs about his performance as 
President?
    Chairman Comer. I think the government, to answer your 
question, the government employees should not be allowed to 
censor free speech, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, 
whether that be Donald Trump or Joe Biden or the next 
president.
    Ms. Stansbury. So, Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Comer. And I think this should be a good 
bipartisan bill. I yield back.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, you would agree 
that the President at the time was a government employee, and 
he was using his influence as a sitting President to try to 
influence a private social media company to take down private 
citizen speech. Is that correct?
    Chairman Comer. The legislation does not apply to the 
President. It is an expansion of the Hatch Act, but, again, 
this is something that should be bipartisan. Who is to say the 
next Administration does not come in, get a whole new FBI, and 
start censoring liberal speech? I mean, this should be a 
bipartisan issue.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that in 
your un-answer to the question, it is clear that the offenses 
that this bill is supposedly trying to address are primarily 
actually coming from the standard bearer of the GOP's own 
party. So this is part of why, during my comments earlier on 
this bill, I pointed to the definition of gaslighting because 
here we are, the Majority is introducing a bill that would 
actually limit speech under the guise that it protects speech 
when, in fact, the No. 1 abuser of the very thing that the bill 
would try to sanction is the standard bearer of the Majority 
party itself. So, Mr. Chairman, I find this very deeply 
troubling, and I support the amendment from our Ranking Member.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regrettably oppose 
the Ranking Member's amendment. I just wanted to make a quick 
comment on regard to the last statement that somehow this bill, 
the underlying bill itself, is a Trojan horse to limit speech. 
I do not think that is the case at all. I think what it does is 
trying to limit what the government does to interfere with 
speech. And I appreciate the argument that has been made, but 
we have the First Amendment. One of the most prodigious canons 
or areas of constitutional law is how you interpret the First 
Amendment. So, for us to come in and say that we are going to 
refine not the First Amendment, but the Hatch Act, to further 
direct limitation of the Federal Government's interference with 
speech, I think that is the real motive here. And I hope we are 
not impugning some other motive because that is not the case.
    And I would just remind you that it was shortly after Ms. 
Jen Psaki's statements when she was the White House Press 
Director that the very next day the President came out and said 
Facebook is not doing enough. People are dying because Facebook 
is not censoring enough. The President intimated that. That is 
not a direct quote. I am not going to give you a direct quote 
because I do not have it in front of me, but that is what he 
said the very next day.
    I think that this bill goes a long way to try to curb and 
restrict the interference of government into speech, not unlike 
what the Hatch Act does. This is an expansion of the Hatch Act, 
and, thus, I do not see it as curbing an individual's speech. I 
think my colleagues across the aisle, they are coming back and 
saying, well, you know, it is a private sector. That is what 
has been the focus of your arguments so far, is that this is a 
private sector issue, and you are curbing that. And I think we 
have effectively rebutted that by showing that in many cases 
when government takes action, it uses third parties to take 
action.
    I mean, for instance, in a contract case, the government 
can be held liable if there has not been a protection just in 
the contract to limit liability. Similarly, government can be 
held liable and evidence suppressed in a Fourth Amendment case 
because the informant or because the agent on behalf of the 
government has been tainted somehow. Similarly, you have the 
same issue here. You have the government that is attempting to 
influence, and the language that is used here is ``coerce.'' It 
is attempting to coerce action on the part of private sector to 
suppress information. That imputes government action. And with 
that, Mr. Chairman, I----
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield for question----
    Mr. Biggs. I am happy to yield.
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Because I am interested in your 
line of thinking about it. But I am racking my brains to think 
of a single Supreme Court decision that stands for that 
proposition. I know in the Fourth Amendment field, certainly 
the police cannot pay a private actor who goes in and violates 
the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. But do 
you have a case that stands for that in the First Amendment 
field that a government official who talks to someone, a 
newspaper editor, a TV editor, an internet editor or whatever, 
and that person decides not to run an article, that that 
constitutes government discrimination and censorship?
    Mr. Biggs. I think that case is pending and working its way 
up to the Supreme Court, and that would be the Missouri Biden 
case that is floating out there, Missouri and Louisiana. And I 
think that so far, the discovery has indicated pretty clearly 
that there was an effort on the part of the Biden 
Administration, and I am just reclaiming my time, the Biden 
Administration to actually censor what the Biden Administration 
was deeming to be COVID misinformation. You may be right. It 
may be a case of first impression, but that case is being 
litigated as you and I debate today.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, would you indulge in one more question 
just because I admire the way you are thinking about this?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. So, when Elon Musk took Twitter over in 
December, he removed six journalists' accounts because he did 
not like the stuff they had been writing about him.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. That was clearly censorship in the spirit that 
you guys are using it today.
    Mr. Biggs. No, I would disagree with that.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. I want to know what your position is. Did 
he have the right to do that?
    Mr. Biggs. We are over time, Mr. Chairman. I would need 
someone to yield time to----
    Chairman Comer. The time has expired, but answer his 
question if you want, yes.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. When I look at that, that was purely 
private action, was it not, by the new owner of Twitter?
    Mr. Raskin. So, you support that? That is fine?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, that is private action.
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    Mr. Biggs. Totally private action. I think that is the 
distinction that I think you are trying to make, and it is the 
same distinction I am trying to make. We just may not agree on 
how you get to that distinction and how that cuts. I yield.
    Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Voice. We have to vote on this one first.
    Mr. Lynch. Oh, I am sorry. I am sorry. We are still on 
this.
    Chairman Comer. We are still on the amendment. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Armstrong for five minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually do not 
agree with their decision to pull out opposing viewpoints. I 
like to consider myself a free speech or First Amendment 
absolutist, but I think the distinction between this amendment 
and the underlying bill is very much that. The 230 protections 
that allow companies to not have editorial control over their 
platforms is significantly different than The Wall Street 
Journal, The Daily Beast, your local newspaper, and fighting 
with editorial boards who might have an unflattering comment or 
portrayal of a politician is as old as time.
    But the distinction between the Ranking Member's amendment, 
I think, and the underlying bill is the entire regulatory 
framework that we have created surrounding 230, an absolute 
liability, or absolute immunity from liability, that exists, 
and they are a very different universe, whether I agree with it 
or not. The distinction here is we have a long and storied 
history with traditional media, who also has a long and storied 
history of at least potentially being legally liable for the 
types of conduct that none of these online platforms are 
exposed to.
    And so, with that, I would oppose the amendment just 
because I think while we may agree at a personal level about 
what we were talking about, what should or should not be taken 
down, again, this gets into 230, and the reforms, and all of 
the different conversations that are going to exist, quite 
frankly, in different committees. The reality is, is every 
single one of the legacy media and traditional media, people 
that we deal with on a daily basis are at least exposed to 
liability, that the tech platforms and the misinformation and 
all of those different issues just simply are not exposed to 
the same liabilities. So, I think while the amendment and the 
spirit of it might have some merit, the reality is we as a 
governing body treat them significantly differently, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. If I may, Mr. 
Ranking Member, we have copies of two emails from Elvis Chan, 
FBI agent out of the San Francisco office, to Twitter, 
encouraging--you can read the emails for yourself--basically 
what we said, and this is the purpose of the bill. So, there is 
evidence like that has been released in the Twitter files, just 
like Elon Musk told me personally. I ask that these emails be 
entered into the record.
    Chairman Comer. Well, before we do that, we will give 
everybody a copy of the emails.
    Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, could we get a copy of those?
    Chairman Comer. I'll pass them out, and you all can digest 
these emails. It may be a difference in this being a unanimous 
vote or not. So, any other Member seeks recognition?
    Mr. Lynch. Just a point of order, are we getting those----
    Chairman Comer. Yes, we are handing them out right now.
    Mr. Lynch. OK.
    Chairman Comer. Any other debate on the Raskin's amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question on the amendment, 
offered by Mr. Raskin.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. Can we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk report the amendment?
    The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 140, offered by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the former chairman 
of our Subcommittee on National Security, I offer this 
amendment to better ensure that the underlying bill does not 
eliminate or compromise the ability of Federal employees from 
protecting America's national security. To this end, the 
amendment is very simple. This commonsense amendment would 
simply add a national and full--excuse me--an express and full 
spectrum national security exception to the general prohibition 
on Federal employee activity included in H.R. 140.
    In its current form, H.R. 140 broadly prohibits Federal 
employees from taking any official action to engage in the 
censorship of a private entity. While the bill includes limited 
exceptions for so-called law enforcement functions, such as 
activities to combat human trafficking or prevent dissemination 
of classified information, H.R. 140 does not expressly exempt 
actions that our Federal employees must take in the interest of 
the security of our country and the American people.
    The most recent worldwide Annual Threat Assessment released 
by the U.S. intelligence community underscored that Russia, 
China, Iran, North Korea, and other authoritarian regimes have 
more than demonstrated their continuing intent to conduct 
foreign malign influence operations targeting critical U.S. 
infrastructure, public services, and elections, all while 
seeking to amplify discord and undermine fundamental democratic 
institutions. Our intelligence community has also reported that 
global transnational criminal organizations and other non-state 
actors are similarly penetrating and perpetrating malign 
influence operations to the detriment of U.S. national 
security. As evidenced by our own recent National Security 
Subcommittee investigation to review the security of U.S. 
elections, public-private sector cooperation is critical to 
addressing the relentless threat of foreign malign influence 
operations.
    During a key Subcommittee hearing that followed the 
unanimous assessment by America's intelligence agencies that 
Russian President, Vladimir Putin, ordered an influence 
campaign aimed at the 2016 Presidential election, executives 
from Twitter, Facebook, and Google all testified that 
substantive coordination between the private sector and the 
government is vital to disrupting the evolving influence 
tactics and strategies employed by America's adversaries. 
Absent a robust national security exception, H.R. 140 will 
significantly deter Federal employees from taking actions 
within their official duties to work with social media 
platforms and other relevant private sector entities to address 
the myriad national security threats stemming from ongoing 
foreign malign influence operations. So in closing, I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Thank you for 
raising this point, Mr. Lynch. However, this amendment creates 
an unnecessary and overly broad loophole for all kinds of 
censorship that may be mischaracterized as national security 
information. My staff is closely coordinating with HPSCI and 
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on this 
legislation to ensure that they are familiar with and 
comfortable with the text. The intelligence community has not 
raised concerns that would require a blanket national security 
exemption at this point. I am happy to loop your staff in those 
conversations in the future and pledge to work with you to make 
sure any identified concerns are addressed. As drafted, this 
amendment creates an unnecessary loophole and I encourage my 
colleagues to vote no.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to 
rise to strongly endorse Mr. Lynch's amendment, and I want to 
thank him for his wisdom and insight in bringing this forward. 
Everybody should understand precisely what we are talking about 
here. There is an exception explicit in the bill for law 
enforcement functions confined to child pornography, human 
trafficking, and dealing of drugs, but not a national security 
exception, which is what the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
advancing here.
    Now, why does he bring it up? Well, we know that in 2016, 
according to 17 national security agencies of our own, 
according to a bipartisan report from the U.S. Senate, that 
Vladimir Putin and Russia spent tens of millions of dollars on 
their so-called Internet Research Agency to promote electoral 
propaganda not just in American elections, but in elections in 
other parts of the world, as well, to undermine our elections, 
and engaged in cyber sabotage and cyber surveillance of 
particular campaigns of the DNC, of Hillary Clinton, and so on. 
Now, that might not have been your candidate, but I would think 
that as Americans all of us should stand up for the integrity 
of our electoral process against subversion by malign foreign 
actors, whether it is Russia, or China, or whomever it is.
    And all the amendment is saying, that Mr. Lynch brings 
forward, is we should not be tying the hands of our national 
security agencies in being able to tell relevant internet 
companies that there may have even been thousands, but 
certainly hundreds of counterfeit websites set up, counterfeit 
Twitter handles set up by state actors and the people that they 
pay from all over the world.
    Democracy on earth is under siege by Putin and Russia, Xi 
in China, Orban in Hungary, Marcos in the Philippines, you name 
it, Erdogan in Turkey. The enemies of democracy have found each 
other, and they cannot beat us in the realm of ideas, and they 
cannot beat us in the realm of economy, and they cannot beat us 
in the realm of our political system. But what do they have? 
They have got the internet where you can go and pretend to be 
anybody, and you can spread any kind of hate propaganda or 
incitement that you want.
    And we saw that also on January 6. And I do not know 
whether or not his amendment on national security would cover 
threats to the Congress of the United States and the Vice 
President of United of States. I hope that it would. Maybe we 
need a separate amendment on protecting the democratic and 
electoral process. But come on. Are we really going to lie down 
and let these people roll all over us and disarm ourselves 
online against foreign malign actors? If we are going to pass 
this thing, I would hope that every single member of this 
Committee would agree that national security should be a basis 
just like child pornography for allowing law enforcement to do 
their job. And I am happy to yield to Mr. Lynch if he has got 
anything else to say.
    Mr. Lynch. I do, and I thank the gentleman. Look, the bill 
is poorly drafted, and I share the concerns that the Ranking 
Member has raised previously, but think about this. So, in 
drafting this, you said if it is classified information, it is 
not subject to this bill. There is an exemption there for it, 
but there are reams and reams of information that are not 
classified. Look, you are banning Federal employees. You are 
talking about all of our national intelligence personnel in 17 
agencies. You are talking about every single Federal employee 
in the Department of Defense, both military and civilian. You 
are talking about every State Department person, every 
Department of the Homeland Security, all Federal employees, 
that they may not stop a communication unless has been deemed 
classified in the classification process.
    So, all of the privileged communication between agencies is 
subject to this bill, 140. So, you have to let all this 
information go out into the public even though it may be a 
national security threat. That is the problem with your bill. 
It is far too broad, and to try to create this bill, you have 
created a bigger problem than existed previously.
    Mr. Raskin. Reclaiming my time for a second. If we do not 
add this amendment, this legislation becomes the Putin 
Protection Act of 2023. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Any further discussion on the amendment? 
The Chair recognizes Mrs. McClain for five minutes.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 
spirited debate, and I want to go back to the origination of 
the bill. I mean, I understand the bill prohibits censorship of 
lawful speech on private sector platforms. I agree with this 
goal and hope this is an important first step in evaluating the 
public benefit these private sector companies receive. But I 
think herein lies the problem, is we have to be careful because 
we are on a very slippery slope with different rules for 
different companies.
    So, I want to make sure I heard this right because I 
listened for the past hour that Twitter is a private company, 
private company, private company. Then if Twitter is a private 
company, we need to treat them like a private company. And they 
need to enjoy all of the benefits and negatives that all other 
private companies enjoy.
    My question is, it seems to me that Twitter is a private 
company, but it is a private company with an asterisk, and at 
some point in time, that is the root of the cause, if we had 
private companies who all had to play by the same rules other 
than the special private companies with asterisks. I realize 
this is not our jurisdiction, but I think this is an immensely 
important topic that we use to our advantage when it fits our 
narrative.
    So, we need to go back to, I think, even the beginning of 
are you a private company or not? And I think a lot of these 
issues would solve themselves. But we cannot continue as 
lawmakers to talk out of both sides of our mouth, because the 
American people are sick of it, and quite frankly, it is 
deafening to them. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The lady yields back. The Chair recognizes 
Ms. Norton for five minutes.
    Ms. Norton. I yield to Mr. Lynch.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady. The 
gentlelady raises a fair point, but the operative sections of 
this bill operate against Federal employees. That is the 
important thing to remember here, and it does address unlawful 
speech. However, that speech does not become unlawful until it 
is classified and, therefore, made unlawful to communicate. 
What I am talking about is all of the communications between 
the 17 national intelligence agencies, DoD, State Department, 
Homeland Security, internal-external, if it gets communicated, 
it is subject to the penalties under this bill, and that is 
problematic.
    If you are a Federal employee, that, in the practice of 
your information you have a responsibility to protect 
information that is necessary and important to our national 
security, that is your job to do. That is part of your job, to 
protect national security, and to comply with this bill, would 
require you to stop doing your job.
    Mr. Donalds. Would the gentleman yield to a question, Mr. 
Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Sure, I would.
    Mr. Donalds. It is not a one of our usual questions in this 
Committee where I am doing something to set you up to gotcha. 
It is really about clarification. I really want to understand. 
If information from the intelligence community is not marked 
classified, then how can you then still treat it as an issue of 
national security if the intelligence community itself has not 
marked that information as classified information?
    Mr. Lynch. It is a very narrow band of information that 
actually goes through the classification process. Other 
information is regarded as privileged. It has national security 
import. However, it has not been categorized as classified--it 
is still very sensitive national security information, but has 
not gone through that classification process, and that is most 
of the information. It is a rare exercise when information is 
codified and gathered that actually it gets a classification. 
And so, there is a clear bright line prohibition against 
communicating that unless a person has that security clearance. 
And there are, as you know, several different levels of 
security clearance.
    So, this amendment would just take a broad approach to 
materials that any of these Federal employees regard as 
sensitive to national security. There would be an exemption for 
them to basically do their jobs, and that is what we are asking 
for.
    Ms. Stansbury. Does the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lynch. I yield.
    Ms. Stansbury. One question I have for the gentleman, which 
I think builds on the previous question, is, would you consider 
the protection of election integrity a national security 
function?
    Mr. Lynch. It could be, obviously.
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
    Mr. Lynch. That is an existential threat----
    Ms. Stansbury. Right.
    Mr. Lynch [continuing]. To our election and to our 
democracy.
    Ms. Stansbury. So, I want to just point out the Majority 
finally, after weeks, provided us with a copy of the supposed 
smoking gun regarding the communications between the FBI and 
Twitter. And the actual communication as it reads, as was just 
distributed to us here in this Committee, is that the FBI 
contacted Twitter to say that it appears that several Twitter 
handles and tweets that appear on the platform ``provide 
misleading information on time, place, and manner of voting in 
the upcoming election.'' So, the supposed smoking gun about our 
Federal law enforcement contacting a social media platform----
    Chairman Comer. I want to remind the lady. This was on the 
poster board during----
    Mr. Lynch. Reclaiming my time.
    Chairman Comer. Gentlelady, you may proceed.
    Ms. Stansbury. Is claiming that it was an inappropriate 
contact with a private social media company which actually 
threatened election integrity. In fact, it was misinformation 
that was intended to tell voters to go somewhere else at a 
different time and place of when to vote. And so, I think the 
point of this amendment is to make clear that part of our 
Federal law enforcement's duty is to not only protect the 
homeland from foreign adversaries, but also to protect our 
elections. This is a function of protecting the homeland and 
national security, and with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Lynch. My time has expired. I yield.
    Chairman Comer. Wow. Any other discussion?
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say to my 
distinguished colleagues across the aisle that this bill is 
born out of concern for national security, a national security 
that is built upon the cornerstones of freedom. Our fellow man 
across the world that have free will and they were born free, 
but they do not have freedom if they live in an oppressive 
society. And let me say that this bill, the underlying bill, is 
precisely concerned about the oppression of freedoms in the 
United States of America.
    This is a trust that has been betrayed. Having been 
extended for generations to our Federal Government, that trust 
has been betrayed. And Congress, as the legislative body of our 
republic, we must respond. We have to put some bit in the mouth 
of the Federal Government. It is precisely because we are 
concerned about our national security, our national security 
reflective of our freedoms, for what good is it for a man of 
China to have security in his home without freedom, without the 
freedom of expression? Where is our national security if an 
agent of the Federal Government can restrict the dissemination 
of data amongst its citizenry? This bill is born out of a love 
for country. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Seeing no 
further requests to speak, the question is on the amendment, 
offered by Mr. Lynch.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. A request for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    For what purposed does Ms. Balint seek recognition?
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 140, offered by Ms. Balint of Vermont.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered read.
    Chairman Comer. Ms. Balint is recognized for five minutes 
to explain the amendment.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment today is 
simple. Nothing that this Committee does should endanger LGBTQ 
people or protect misinformation that is intended to incite 
violence, and my amendment would do two things. First, it would 
clarify that nothing in this bill would prohibit a Federal 
employee from addressing harassment or from enforcing non-
discrimination laws. My amendment would ensure that this bill 
does not undermine our foundational civil rights laws, which 
protect against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, 
sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, disability, and 
other factors. As a gay American and as a Member of this 
Committee, it is particularly important to me to elevate non-
discrimination protections in this markup today.
    I'm also deeply concerned that this bill would have far 
reaching unintended consequences. We know that social media 
platforms can be vehicles for illegal discrimination. Just last 
year, the Justice Department reached a settlement with Meta 
related to allegations that Facebook illegally targeted ads in 
violation of the Fair Housing Act. Preventing illegal 
discrimination in housing sounds exactly like the type of thing 
I want Federal employees working on. My amendment would also 
clarify that this bill does not prohibit any Federal employee 
from addressing misinformation that would incite violence. We 
know, all too well, that online speech can have serious 
consequences. It can lead to real world violence. In fact, it 
has. It has led to real world violence.
    As Ranking Member Raskin and his colleagues on the January 
6th Select Committee made plain, there was a direct line 
between Former President Trump's online statements and the 
violence at the Capitol on January 6. My amendment would 
clarify that misinformation that is intended to incite violence 
is not protected by this bill. We should not be in the business 
of protecting misinformation that incites violence, and I would 
hope that we could all agree on this and that my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle would stand with me.
    Before I yield back, I would like to thank Ranking Member 
Raskin and my colleague, Sean Casten, for their collaboration 
on this amendment. I am grateful for your leadership on these 
important issues, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this 
amendment. And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. I oppose this 
misguided amendment. This amendment creates a carve-out that 
allows the Federal Government to censor lawful speech that it 
identifies as misinformation intended to incite violence. My 
question here is, what is misinformation? How is that defined 
by the Federal Government because that is a problem we have 
here. The Washington Post and New York Times reported a few 
days ago that the Energy Department now believes that the 
COVID-19 virus was caused by a lab leak. That was 
misinformation just a little while ago. As some of my 
colleagues have already noted today, this carve-out represents 
a dangerous view about the role of government controlling 
lawful speech, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote 
no.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield just for a question?
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. Before this hardens into an ironclad dogma, 
whoever declared the particular origins of COVID-19 to be a 
matter of misinformation or disinformation, because I certainly 
never saw any government pronouncement to that effect.
    Chairman Comer. There were. I will yield to the gentleman 
from Arizona.
    Mr. Raskin. It is an honest question. If it happened----
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, thanks for yielding to me. I read, 
I think, 10 different examples earlier. I will try get copies 
of those to submit those to the record. And----
    Mr. Raskin. There are official pronouncements of this being 
a form of disinformation? What I am responding to is----
    Mr. Biggs. So maybe I am misunderstanding your question. I 
thought you said----
    Mr. Raskin. Has the government ever said that that is 
disinformation?
    Mr. Biggs. Joe Biden did when he was President of the 
United States. Jen Psaki did as White House Press Director. And 
Flaherty, or whatever the guy's name is, who was the Digital 
Director of the White House, repeatedly said that, and they put 
that out. Fauci said it, whatever his official role was. 
Deborah Birx said it also. And then, even within the COVID-19 
Working Group, you had those who dissented from that, who were 
suppressed by Fauci and Birx. So yes, there were official 
pronouncements saying that.
    Mr. Raskin. I mean, I know about President Trump's 
pronouncements.
    Chairman Comer. Reclaiming my time. Thank you. All right. 
Any further discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on the 
amendment, offered by Ms. Balint.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. Seeking a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    For what purpose does Ms. Porter seek recognition?
    Ms. Porter. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 140, offered by Ms. Porter of California.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. The lady from California is recognized for 
five minutes to explain the amendment.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a mom of three, I 
do a lot of shopping at the grocery store, and when I shop, 
nearly every food or product I see has nutrition facts and 
other disclaimers that I have the freedom to read. That is 
because a government official provided health and safety 
information in the course of their work and ensured it got 
added to the product. So, at the store, I know I have a choice 
about which products to buy and I can make those decisions 
based on the disclaimer labels, or I can ignore the labels and 
make the decisions based on price, marketing. It is up to me, 
but either way, I am glad that I have a lot of access to 
information.
    As a consumer of social media, I find that a lot of the 
same rules apply. When I see content disclaimers based on 
scientific or technical information, I have the option to make 
a more informed choice about whether to consume that content, 
or, just like in the grocery store, I can ignore the 
disclaimers and do whatever I want. I have never found a 
disclaimer to restrict what information I can consider or what 
decisions I can make. It just gives me more information. 
Whether it is the grocery store or online, having a marketplace 
of speech gives us more freedom to consider more free speech. 
That is a great outcome for the American people.
    Mr. Chairman, this all brings me to one of my biggest 
concerns with today's bill. The bill defines government 
officials contributing to disclaimers or other social media 
alerts as censorship. Just like the experts at the FDA exercise 
their free speech, making food and drug labels, disclaimers and 
alerts are the way for many government scientists to 
communicate facts and findings with the public. Calling factual 
disclaimers and alerts censorship really targets the specific 
way that scientists can share their findings. Without 
clarification, this provision could really just censor the free 
speech of a narrow class of people, and that the intent of the 
bill is to stop censorship, I am hopeful that silencing 
scientists is not what Republicans want. In fact, I think 
Republicans have picked up on this concern. You guys worked 
through the weekend. You released updated bill texts that now 
clarifies that Federal employees can still communicate policy 
positions and relevant information to the public, but I do not 
think that change is specific enough, and I do not think it 
will give scientists the peace of mind that they need.
    According to a government executive article published just 
last week, about a quarter or 26 percent of scientists already 
said that they had to omit certain words in their work out of 
fear of being politically controversial, and 16 percent were 
told to avoid some science-based topics altogether. Fear of 
government censorship is already standing in the way of 
scientists producing innovation. We cannot afford to have a 
bill that does to scientists what they fear most: getting 
censored and punished for doing their jobs. As a representative 
of California, a national leader in science and innovation, I 
will not let this happen on my watch.
    My amendment here is very simple. It adds an exception to 
the bill that ensures that scientific and technical information 
will not be blocked under this bill as censorship. And that is 
the kind of specificity we need to ensure that this bill does 
not target the free speech of scientists and experts. If this 
bill is just trying to prevent political interference, but 
still allow scientists to share their findings, we should be 
able to agree on this amendment as a simple clarification. If 
Republicans vote this down, then it is plain what I think we 
are really trying to do, which is censor science, and I hope 
that is not the case. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this amendment and fix this issue, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back. I oppose this 
amendment. This amendment defines facilitating the distribution 
of scientific and technical information as a legitimate law 
enforcement function. This is a broad expansion of legitimate 
law enforcement functions and represents a dangerous view about 
the role of government in censoring or dictating speech.
    When I think about my friends on the other side of the 
aisle constantly defending the science for censoring things on 
platform, we all go back to the numerous examples of people in 
the science community labeling Donald Trump a racist for saying 
that the virus came from the Wuhan lab. And the emails that our 
staff unearthed between Fauci and Collins were they were 
disturbed early on that there were people insinuating that this 
was a lab leak. Dr. Fauci said, ``Well, that is just a shiny 
object,'' in an email to Dr. Collins. ``That is just a shiny 
object. It will go away, these conspiracy theories,'' blah, 
blah. They were our leading scientists. So, I encourage my 
colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
    Does any Member seek comment? The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first thing I want 
to do is to ask unanimous consent to introduce an article from 
CNN dated May 19, 2020, titled, ``The Many Times Donald Trump 
Has Praised China's Handling of the Coronavirus Pandemic,'' and 
my colleagues should all be aware of this. There are dozens of 
times when Donald Trump defended President Xi and the Chinese 
Communist Party and said everything was under control, they 
have a great relationship, and so on.
    So, speaking as someone who has a completely open mind 
about all of the factual evidence about where the coronavirus 
came from, although I do believe there was lots of 
disinformation and misinformation that Donald Trump engineered 
in our attempt to deal with the disease when he said you could 
solve it with Clorox and take this and take that, that is just 
wrong. Disinformation and misinformation exists, Mr. Chairman. 
They are real, and politicians are part of the problem. And the 
private media entities have to have the right to publish what 
they want to publish and to not publish disinformation that is 
dangerous to the public health. And it is the role of 
government, as the author of this amendment is urging, to 
promote science and promote the best understanding we have of 
how it works against pseudo-scientific propaganda and anti-
science disinformation.
    So, I am in very strong support of the gentlelady's 
amendment. I think it is critical that we move it forward 
because the effect of this legislation otherwise will really be 
to hamstring the ability of government employees and officials 
to do their job, and especially when it comes to matters of 
public health and science. So, I am happy to yield back to Ms. 
Porter if she needs the time.
    Ms. Porter. I would just add that this bill allows 
additional speech--so, the purpose of the amendment is to allow 
additional speech. It is to allow government to put a warning 
or a disclaimer. It does not silence other views. It gives 
Americans more information, and they can then decide whether 
they want to rely on that content disclaimer or they want to go 
ahead and read whatever is being posted. But we have to make 
sure that our scientists have the ability to get factual 
information out there and to flag things that are contrary to 
well-established scientific processes and findings, and that is 
a limitation of this amendment. It does not apply to anything 
any government official wants to say. It applies to scientists, 
public health officials, and others putting out information 
that has been found to be factual by a well-established 
scientific process.
    And what it simply does is let them add that disclaimer, 
and at that point, people are free in the marketplace of ideas 
to make a decision about what to make of whatever content has 
the disclaimer on it. It does not silence anybody, and I think 
the intent of the bill could go the other way without this 
amendment and actually censor and silence our scientists.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Boebert for five 
minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think our biggest 
issue with many of these amendments are that there is no clear 
definition of what these items are, and we are waiting on for 
some bureaucrat to define what these things mean. If it is up 
to the Federal Government, up to bureaucrats to define things, 
then we end up with terms like ``extremists,'' ``domestic 
terrorists,'' and they end up targeting conservatives. I mean, 
if we were wanting to have an additional disclaimer from the 
government, well, the Vice President of the United States just 
said the energy rates are down, that people's electric bills 
are lower, and they are able to afford vacations. No, energy is 
very expensive right now and continues to rise because of the 
policies implemented by my colleagues on the left and enforced 
through the stroke of a pen by Joe Biden.
    And so, to have a government disclaimer on something, I do 
not think is very helpful because it is whatever political 
narrative they are trying to promote at that time. And I think 
it is interesting. The gentlewoman, Ms. Porter, just aligned 
this with grocery shopping and with the nutritional facts 
because there are also issues there. Well, that is a government 
regulation to have these nutritional facts on the foods that we 
consume. Well, do you know that if we get beef from Brazil and 
it is packaged in America, well, you could put a sticker on 
that says that its country of origin is America? Well, that is 
disinformation because the cow was raised in Brazil and brought 
to America but just put in a box or in a different box in 
America, and now, we get to put that sticker on there.
    I mean, we have all seen the arguments with cage free. That 
is a government regulation to have these things on here. Well, 
your chicken is cage free? Well, that just means it is not a 
battery cage. It is still in an enclosure and probably a really 
tight one, too. These are not just free-range chickens on 40 
acres, 50 acres. They are still in enclosures. Sugar free. Fat 
free. You can go through all of these things, and these are 
from government regulations.
    So, I think with all of this, you can say that government 
ruins nearly everything, so why have government receive more 
power to restrict Americans to give their own definitions 
depending on who is in power at that time? And that is the 
issue that my colleagues over here are having with most of 
these amendments. It is not the context of the amendments. It 
is just how broad they are, and we do not want them later 
defined. Yes, I will yield.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you. I just have a quick question. Under 
this bill--you just have an issue as to who defines 
``misinformation,'' ``disinformation''--who is going to define 
``lawful speech?''
    Mrs. Boebert. Well, I think lawful speech is something that 
is already out there, and free speech is lawful speech. We have 
free speech here in America.
    Mr. Goldman. You do not think that----
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Boebert.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. When you are throwing these 
amendments out and you have them very vague and broad, then 
that is where we have an issue, and we need to have a clear 
definition before we can consider these things, but lawful 
speech is already determined. We have freedom of speech, and 
the Federal Government interfering in that, colluding with Big 
Tech. That is the problem that we have. That is the premise 
that we are facing, where American citizens have their First 
Amendment rights completely infringed by the Federal Government 
colluding with Big Tech. Thank you, and I yield.
    Chairman Comer. Yes. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
Chair recognizes Mr. Donalds for five minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and real quick, two 
articles to submit for the record. Article No. 1 from Politico, 
dated February 1, 2022: ``Medical Boards Get Pushed Back as 
They Try to Punish Doctors For COVID Misinformation.''
    Chairman Comer. Without objection.
    Mr. Donalds. Second article, Mr. Chairman, Miami Herald, 
February 8, 2022: ``Doctor Loses License. Must Have Psych 
Evaluation For COVID Falsehoods, a Board Says.'' I think----
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I think to 
the gentlelady's comments on her amendment about having science 
or technical information be suppressed from the public square, 
we have already experienced that. 2021 and 2022, 2020 for that 
matter, have been replete with suppression of scientific 
information because it wasn't viewed by CDC or HHS, or whatever 
alphabet soup agency you choose to reference as ``truthful 
information.'' That is crystal clear with some of the media 
reports in the last couple of years, comparing them to the 
media reports that are coming out right now. You can even go to 
whether it is Twitter or Facebook or anywhere else. If you even 
had a different viewpoint on how to treat COVID-19, you are 
immediately labeled on your post that this is COVID 
misinformation before anybody else could even actually go to 
view said post.
    Conversely, some of the stuff that CDC was coming out with 
at the time was viewed as appropriate information that every 
consumer should follow. And we have now come to know that some 
of that was actually misleading and/or wrong, or certain 
elements of the studies that were used were not followed 
completely to provide the public with full information, perfect 
information.
    I want to bring it back to the subject of the bill at hand. 
What the bill is expressly saying is that government actors 
cannot use their position to impress upon the social media 
companies what is accurate versus misleading information. They 
cannot use their office to do that. Through public dialog and 
debate, the public can see where the information lays or it 
doesn't lay. If you have enough dialog and enough competition 
of ideas, that is the very purpose of debate and democracy. So, 
I don't think that the gentlelady's amendment is needed because 
the whole purpose of debating these ideas is to actually allow 
for the public to see that debate in real time, to make their 
own purchasing decisions or acting decisions in real time based 
upon all the relevant information available at that time. When 
you have government actors step in and start to label 
information one way or the other, that is when we have this 
issue.
    To relate it off of COVID, bringing back to our previous 
hearing, we had 51 intelligence experts tell us that the Hunter 
Biden story was a Russian plant. Well, guess what? Those 51 
intelligence experts, they are wrong, too. So this is what H.R. 
140 is seeking to stop, is government actors putting their own 
thought processes on, short circuiting the process of 
legitimate debate and open conversation amongst the American 
people, so that the people, whether it is voting or consuming, 
can make an educated decision on the totality of the debate, 
not having the debate short-circuited by Members of our 
government who have their own thought processes, politics, et 
cetera. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The question is 
on the amendment, offered by Ms. Porter.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. A recorded vote, Mr. Chairman, please.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    Does any Member seek recognition? Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment Number 1 to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to H.R. 140, offered by Mr. Goldman of 
New York.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Goldman is recognized for five minutes 
to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill that we are 
focusing on today is purported to be modeled after the Hatch 
Act, which currently prohibits government officials from using 
their official positions for partisan political purposes. In 
the last Administration, the Hatch Act proved to be a toothless 
exercise against those who were intent on violating it. The 
Office of the Special Counsel, which is different than the 
special counsel within the Department of Justice, found that 13 
members of the Trump Administration violated the Hatch Act--
13--and there were no consequences for them.
    The poster child for this blatant disregard for the law was 
Kellyanne Conway, who violated the Hatch Act more than 60 times 
and showed absolutely no remorse. As a repeat offender who had 
shown such disregard for the law, the Office of Special Counsel 
recommended that she be fired. The Office of Special Counsel 
said, ``Ms. Conway's violations, if left unpunished, would send 
a message to all Federal employees that they need not abide by 
the Hatch Act's restrictions. Her actions thus erode the 
principal foundation of our democratic system, the rule of 
law.'' The OSC concluded that her actions, as a repeat 
offender, who had shown disregard for the law, were so 
egregious that she should be fired.
    Now, not surprisingly, President Trump never took her Hatch 
Act violation seriously and never fired her, but you know what 
Ms. Conway's response to her serial violations of the Hatch Act 
were? She said, ``If you are trying to silence me through the 
Hatch Act, it is not going to work. Let me know when the jail 
sentence starts.''
    Mr. Sessions said earlier today that the purpose of H.R. 
140 is to try to stop anyone from using the White House for 
political purposes. And so, in that vein, today, I am offering 
the Kellyanne Conway amendment that will allow for prison 
sentences under criminal violations of the law for knowing and 
intentional violations of the Hatch Act. This amendment will 
add a criminal provision to the Hatch Act to prevent the kind 
of blatant disregard for the law demonstrated by Ms. Conway and 
her colleagues in the Trump Administration. Unlike the bill 
that we are marking up today, which is a solution without a 
problem, the Hatch Act violations are a problem that needs a 
solution. So, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, 
which, unlike today's bills, addresses an actual problem that 
the government and this Congress should solve. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize 
myself for five minutes. Before I do, I would ask unanimous 
consent now since hopefully everyone has had time to review the 
two emails from Mr. Chan. I ask unanimous consent that they be 
entered into the record.
    Mr. Raskin. Enthusiastically, Mr. Chairman, yes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection.
    Chairman Comer. This amendment is outside the scope and 
unrelated to the discussion of our bill today. This legislation 
deals with expanding the U.S. Office of Special Counsel civil 
enforcement of the Hatch Act. The proposed amendment here does 
not amend our bill, but rather amends the Hatch Act's law 
criminal enforcement. Criminal enforcement is not something 
done by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in the Hatch Act 
context. However, it appears that we do share a common concern 
of Hatch Act penalties, and that is why this bill increases the 
civil enforcement fine up to $10,000 for senior officials.
    So, if my colleague is looking for stiffer civil 
enforcement penalties, this is the way to do it, in the 
legislation being discussed today. For that reason, I look 
forward to my colleague on the other side of the aisle to 
possibly supporting this bill. This amendment amends an 
unrelated bill that is not up for markup today. If my 
colleagues would like to explore Hatch Act reform, I am very 
open to having those conversations, but I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
    Does a Member seek recognition? The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just want to 
enthusiastically rise in support of Mr. Goldman's amendment. We 
saw massive sweeping breaches of the Hatch Act in the last 
administration where the White House was used to stage 
political events, and they essentially dared anybody to do 
anything about it. Ms. Conway is a great example of one of the 
employees who was very happy to repeatedly make partisan 
political statements from the White House. And so that wall of 
separation between what is official and what is partisan was 
bulldozed during the last administration, and this is a great 
first step. I am delighted to hear, Mr. Chairman, that you are 
interested in doing some work on toughening up the Hatch Act. 
That is something that we should put on a serious legislative 
work that, you know, lies before us. But I think this is a 
great, good start that the gentleman from New York has offered 
us, and if he needs any more time, I am happy to yield it to 
him. Otherwise----
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Raskin. I would point out in 
response to the Chairman's comments, that if this bill that we 
are addressing today is purportedly designed to prevent the 
government officials from engaging what the Majority alleges to 
be partisan political censorship of speech, then we ought to 
include the whole panoply of laws that addresses the misuse of 
government power and authority to have an influence on partisan 
politics. The Hatch Act was the original example of this, which 
is why, clearly, H.R. 140 is modeled after it.
    And so, you know, I understand it is a technicality that 
H.R. 140 is not actually included in the Hatch Act, but it is 
effectively the same structure for the same purpose. And if we 
are going to go down this road of trying to prevent the 
government officials from using their official offices for 
partisan political purposes, then we ought to make sure that we 
do that. And what was clear under the former Administration 
under President Trump, is that there was no regard for the 
violation of the Hatch Act and for using government offices for 
political purposes. And so, we ought to ensure, we ought to 
take the threat, or perhaps, I would say the chutzpah of Ms. 
Conway to only abide by the Hatch Act if there was the threat 
of a prison sentence, and we ought to do something about it. I 
am sure we can all agree that we should not be allowing 
government officials to be completely abusing the law with no 
consequence and no resource, and that is why this amendment is 
so important, is to actually put some teeth behind the 
purported purpose that H.R. 140 is supposed to adhere to. I 
yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. In all regards for this Committee and our 
future work with respect to bipartisanship, there is a 
willingness on our side to talk about expanding the Hatch Act 
and reforming the Hatch Act. I think that is an opportunity for 
bipartisanship moving forward, as well as what Chairman Raskin 
and I have had discussions about, reform within the National 
Archives on how documents leave, you know, that has been a 
problem for many Administrations. We need to fix the problem to 
ensure that there is an orderly process for how documents leave 
the office of President and Vice President and follow them into 
the private sector.
    And then, of course, I think there will be a great 
opportunity at some point in the next two years to talk about 
influence peddling, and to make it clear where the line is to 
significantly amend the ethics laws, and significantly increase 
the disclosure laws for family members of high-level members of 
political office and what they do, what they can do with 
respect to doing business with adversaries in foreign country. 
So, I think there are opportunities for bipartisanship in this 
Committee, and expanding the Hatch Act, at some point in time, 
I think, would be another opportunity.
    Does any Member seek recognition? Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Comer. I am sorry. What?
    Mr. Raskin. We haven't voted yet on that.
    Chairman Comer. Oh, yes, OK. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. Right there.
    Chairman Comer. Yes, right here. The question is on the 
amendment, offered by Mr. Goldman.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. Recorded vote please, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. I have an amendment at the desk, denominated 
Raskin Number 2.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
    Mr. Raskin. Oh, I am sorry?
    Chairman Comer. I am sorry?
    Voice. Do we have the updated text?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. OK.
    Chairman Comer. Oh, the Chair recognizes Mr. Moskowitz. The 
Chair recognizes Mr. Moskowitz.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Chairman Comer. Do you have an amendment at the desk?
    Mr. Moskowitz. I do, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 140, offered by Mr. Moskowitz of Florida. 
Page 1, line 8, strike ``and''; page 3----
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. You know, after the 
last Oversight Committee hearing, I posted on my official 
government Twitter account a video of myself pointing out the 
rise of antisemitism found on Twitter, Mr. Chairman, after, you 
know, we were talking a lot about Nazis in that last hearing. 
Once the video was posted, the reply section of my post of the 
video from the hearing was flooded with hateful, antisemitic 
comments and images from Nazis and antisemites. I received over 
200 such comments from Nazis and Nazi sympathizers.
    You know, these incidents are actually proving my point 
from the last hearing, Mr. Chairman, that I made in that this 
hateful rhetoric is running rampant without any consideration 
of the real and dangerous consequences these hateful posts have 
to the Jewish community. And so, because of the hateful 
rhetoric goes beyond free speech, because there is hateful 
rhetoric that incites violence, it becomes harassment, and, you 
know, I think it is time, Mr. Chairman, that we do something 
about it.
    You know, I heard earlier that, you know, some of these 
amendments we are putting forward are too vague. They are not 
narrow. And so, I am going forward, Mr. Chairman, with a very 
narrow, not vague amendment to make clear that speech from 
Nazis that incite violence is dangerous, and it should be an 
exception to this bill because I think the bill that the 
Majority is putting forward itself right now is casting too 
wide a net. And so, you know, if we are willing to make carve-
outs in this bill--and there are specific carve-outs in the 
bill--it should be an absolute no brainer. We should be able to 
agree on a bipartisan basis that Federal Government employees 
can work with, whether it is social media or other news outlets 
where Nazis are trying to incite violence. That is something 
that we should allow Federal employees to try to curtail, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment and stand 
against neo-Nazis. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself. I oppose this 
misguided amendment. This amendment argues that Federal 
employees across the government should be allowed to make a 
determination on what violent speech is instead of relying on 
the actual law. This is worrisome given that this 
Administration has a broad and political interpretation of what 
the ``incitement'' of violence is. Federal employees should be 
required to uphold the First Amendment-protected speech, not 
determine for themselves what is lawful. I urge my colleagues 
to vote no on this amendment.
    Any further discussion? The Chair recognizes Mr. Goldman 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you just said that 
you oppose this amendment because it would allow the Federal 
Government to determine what violent speech is, but the entire 
premise of this bill, it allows somebody, we don't yet know 
who, to interpret what lawful speech is. I think everyone will 
agree that the First Amendment does not protect against any 
speech. There are clear violations of the First Amendment 
through speech. So, the notion that we should not prohibit neo-
Nazis from inciting violence on social media networks because 
the government would have to define what that violent speech is 
flies in the face of this entire bill because the government is 
going to have to determine what is lawful speech and what is 
not, so your rationale makes no sense. If it is true that you 
support the underlying bill, which requires the government to 
determine what is lawful speech and what is not. I don't 
understand why it is OK for the government to be required to 
determine lawful speech, but it is not OK for the government to 
determine what is violent speech. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I don't think anybody 
disagrees that incitement to violence, legitimate incitement to 
violence definable in some--most states have criminal codes 
that define what incitement is. Federal law enforcement does as 
well. But I do think that this kind of language is covered in 
the language in the bill itself. I do think there is a problem, 
for instance, with the term ``neo-Nazi.'' Why didn't you just 
include the term ``Nazi?'' You know, ``neo-Nazi,'' what are you 
referring to as neo-Nazi? You haven't defined that here.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Biggs. Not just yet. If I get some time, I will yield 
to you. So, you haven't defined that. How about the KKK or the 
neo-KKK? How about a communist or a neo-communist movement, 
which all exist, all incite to violence. For those of us who we 
have a faith, we belong to a faith where we have been targeted 
and persecuted, how about your anti-Mormon language? There has 
been violence incited against Mormons. How about BLM inciting 
violence against Federal Government? How about Antifa?
    The point is you could list any number of groups that have 
been victimized, but the reality is that is covered under the 
terms and definitions here of lawful language. If you are 
inciting to violence, you are violating the law, at least under 
most state laws. Maybe I shouldn't even say state laws. I can 
tell you in Arizona, if I incite to violence, there is law that 
hinders that. What you are doing is you are trying to carve out 
your own exception for your own purpose when the entire bill 
actually covers what you are trying to protect, and so I am 
going to oppose that. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Would the gentleman yield?
    Ms. Stansbury. Does the----
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, I don't mind yielding.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, you know, my 
intent wasn't to start debating what a Nazi is. I mean, I 
didn't know that there is a disagreement over what a Nazi is--
--
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, reclaiming my time. Nobody is saying that 
we don't know what a Nazi is, but when you use the term neo-
Nazi, that becomes something different, perhaps. You didn't 
define that, and so that would be the point, and you are 
actually taking the point beyond where it went. The point I was 
trying to make is this. Your amendment is covered in the 
language of the bill as proposed, as your category is. Other 
groups that have been persecuted and maligned and attacked, 
they are also protected without specifically iterating who they 
are. That is why your amendment, in my opinion, is superfluous.
    Mr. Moskowitz. OK----
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, so I yield back so you can----
    Mr. Moskowitz. Sure. So, the term ``neo-Nazi'' is a term 
that is used to differentiate between today's Nazis and the 
Nazis of World War II. That is where ``neo-Nazi'' comes from. 
Again, I don't think anyone debates what that term refers to, 
and that is why that term was used. Of course, we could include 
other groups, but I wanted to make a very narrow, very 
tailored, so that we didn't talk about, you know, what about 
this, what about that. And I think it is pretty clear when neo-
Nazi groups online are inciting violence. This is not about 
speech.
    Mr. Biggs. So, I am going to just take it back for a second 
so I can respond to that. Just a moment ago, I believe your 
colleague said that--didn't want to let the government 
determine what that was, but you just said it is clearly 
defined when someone cites. I agree with you. There is always 
going to be some gray area because prosecutorial or, in this 
case, whoever is adjudicating this, they are going to make some 
determinations. But I would also tell you that by narrowing and 
tailoring this to neo-Nazis, you are excluding, for some 
unknown reason, other groups that purvey hate and incite 
violence, and I am focusing on inciting violence, because that 
is what you are getting at.
    And as one who has received the incitement when I was 
called an insurrectionist repeatedly from the left, people 
threatening me and my family with harm, and calling for it on 
social media, do I go after the individuals who I sit with in 
this Committee now? No. But my point is, you have it covered in 
this law, with this bill, as proposed. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
question is on the amendment, offered by the gentleman.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment Number 2 to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to H.R. 140, offered by Mr. Goldman of 
New York. Page 2----
    Chairman Comer. Yes, without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Goldman is recognized for five minutes 
to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 140 creates 
several law enforcement exceptions to the prohibition on, any 
government speech on, I guess, computer services. I am not 
exactly sure what the new term is in the ANS. Those exceptions 
include child pornography and exploitation, human trafficking, 
drug trafficking, and the safeguarding of classified national 
security information. Interestingly, the law enforcement 
exceptions in the ANS, as drafted in this bill, as drafted, 
does not include foreign interference in our elections. And 
yet, we know, once again, based on the facts and the evidence 
from the Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, that Russia 
interfered in the 2016 election through the use of speech on 
our social media platforms, which is purportedly exactly what 
this bill is designed to prohibit.
    So, this amendment is a commonsense amendment that 
addresses a recent problem that we are all familiar with of 
Russia, a foreign country, interfering in our elections by 
adding a law enforcement exception for defending the integrity 
of our elections, from interference from the Russian 
Federation, the People's Republic of China, or any other malign 
foreign state or non-state actor. I am not quite clear why this 
exception was not included in the original bill. But unless we 
are going to deny the facts and the evidence that has been 
unequivocally established that Russia did use the exact same 
conduct that this bill is designed to protect in order to 
interfere in our elections, and, as we learned in our hearing a 
couple of weeks ago, continues to try to do so. I expect that 
we will get full bipartisan support to add this exception for 
foreign interference in our elections.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Goldman. Yes, I yield to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. I wanted to thank the gentleman for his 
excellent amendment, which is obviously needed and something 
that should be of total bipartisan commitment. At this point, 
certainly if there is an exception for child pornography and 
there is an exception for drug trafficking, there has got to be 
an exception for malign foreign interference to subvert 
American democratic elections. And if not, what this 
legislation is saying is that we are going to stop the U.S. 
Government and its employees from rendering factual information 
to social media entities, but we are going to allow malign 
foreign actors to run free over the internet. And this really 
does, at that point, become the Putin Protection Act and the Xi 
Protection Act. So, I am happy to yield back, but thank you for 
introducing this critical amendment.
    Mr. Goldman. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment. This bill already provides 
an exception for legitimate law enforcement functions. This 
exception ensures that nothing in this Act will interfere with 
any lawful action taken by an agency to defend the integrity of 
elections. If an agency has a legitimate ability to take such 
an action, the agency is able and may properly to do so. While 
I share Representative Goldman's desire to safeguard our 
elections, H.R. 140 will not interfere with an agency's ability 
to carry out its mission. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Moskowitz, and I will remind 
everyone the votes have been ordered. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Moskowitz.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I will be quick, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 
So, I think what we are just trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is we 
are just trying to tighten the bill to a point by adding these 
exceptions into the bill so that you don't cast such a wide 
net. I mean, I think we should be able to agree that we don't 
want to see Russian propaganda or Russian misinformation in our 
elections. I think we would also agree that we don't want to 
see, you know, Nazis inciting violence. We want our Federal 
Government to be able to respond to that. But yet, for some 
reason, the Majority seems hesitant to define where this bill 
can and can't go, what Federal employees can work on and can't 
work on. It basically wants to pull back any protection that we 
have from misinformation or Russian propaganda or Nazis 
inciting violence online.
    And so, I support this amendment. I think it is crystal 
clear what the intent is here. I urge the Majority to show 
that, while they want to protect free speech, they also 
understand Russian propaganda and Nazis inciting violence 
should have limitations. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The question is on the amendment, offered 
by Mr. Goldman.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. A recorded vote, please, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I will go as quickly as I 
can because I know we got votes, Mr. Chairman. Well, again, 
having participated now for several hours, it is clear to me 
what the legislation is really about. It is not about Hunter 
Biden's laptop because we determined at the February 8 hearing 
that there was no coercive pressure being brought down on 
Twitter by the FBI, or the Department of Justice, or anybody 
else. All of the Majority's own witnesses testified to that 
effect. So, what is this really about?
    Well, it is about how right-wing politics operates today, 
and I don't want to tar everybody with the same brush. Some 
people have stayed away from Donald Trump in the GOP, which is 
why I am not talking about Republicans. But I am talking about 
right-wing politics and it operates on the basis of propaganda, 
disinformation, and Big Lies. And I don't want to take the time 
to go through all of them, but let's start with the paradigm 
Big Lie. The big lie that Donald Trump actually won the 
Presidential election in 2020 when Joe Biden beat him by seven 
million votes, 306 to 232, in the Electoral College, and so 
that has spread all over the internet.
    Now, there are a lot of people, including me, who wished 
that Twitter, and Facebook, and other social media had acted to 
take down the Big Lie long before they did, but they did not do 
it. They waited until January 6, when the Big Lie exploded into 
a violent insurrection unlike anything we have seen in American 
history before, a President inciting a violent insurrection 
against his own Vice President, against the Congress of the 
United States. And after 150 of our police officers were 
wounded, injured, came back with broken noses, broken arms, 
broken legs, broken fingers, heart attack, strokes, and so on. 
In the meantime, please call up my amendment if we could, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
    Mr. Raskin. I was just trying to go fast there.
    The Clerk. Amendment Number 2 to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to H.R. 140, as offered by Mr. Raskin of 
Maryland----
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Raskin is recognized.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. So, to complete the 
thought, it took the violent insurrection itself before Twitter 
decided to take down Donald Trump's account for incitement and 
glorification of violence, OK?
    Now, what is this hearing really about? It is about the 
fact that whenever someone gets taken down, way too late from 
my standpoint, but gets taken down for something like inciting 
a violent insurrection or glorifying violence, then there is a 
huge movement to say censorship. Twitter just censored Donald 
Trump, and they say, well, he violated our terms of service. We 
are a private entity. They say it is censorship, and then a big 
campaign is waged to force them to put him back on. And we have 
seen that with respect to people who lie about a whole bunch of 
different things across the board.
    This amendment is very simple. All it does is to say that 
we have a rule of construction, clarifying that nothing in the 
bill shall be construed to restrict or amend the right of any 
private entity to develop, maintain, or enforce its own terms 
of service, and that could include them enforcing their terms 
of service, as they see it. Lots of my colleagues have said 
today, oh, well, that is just private speech. When I asked 
several of them directly, well, Elon Musk is now just removing 
journalists from their Twitter accounts since he purchased the 
platform because he disagrees with them. Well, they are fine 
with that because that is private. Well then, let's be clear 
across the board that private media entities, internet, social 
media entities, have the right to develop and enforce their own 
terms of service. That is the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I 
hope we can move it quickly.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself. I oppose the 
amendment proposed by Ranking Member Raskin to add an 
additional rule of construction to this bill. Our concern here 
is with government censorship. This legislation is focused on 
Federal employees and government agencies coercing private 
sector companies into taking away First Amendment rights. This 
legislation is tightly drafted to focus on government activity. 
There is nothing in this bill that hints at anything broader, 
so this amendment is unnecessary.
    The question is on the amendment, offered by Mr. Raskin.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. A recorded vote, please, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. Mr. Chairman, this is a quick question of 
procedural order for the Committee, which is I understand there 
is a 3:00 Roundtable. Is it a 2:00 Roundtable? So that is just 
problematic because I think a bunch of Members are supposed to 
be in both places, and I thought we didn't do that.
    Chairman Comer. What I would like to do is come back and 
reconvene at 3:15 for votes. I just want to note, a Roundtable 
is not a hearing or an official meeting. We are not in 
violation of the Committee rules.
    Mr. Raskin. I appreciate that this time, Mr. Chairman. I 
hope in the future we won't schedule even Roundtables opposite 
hearings that we could predict to go for a few hours.
    Chairman Comer. Again, it is a Roundtable, so if we get 
this next amendment in, we will reconvene at 3:15 to take up 
the vote. Do you have time for the next amendment or not?
    Mr. Raskin. No, we should go.
    Chairman Comer. OK. At this time, we stand in recess until 
3:15.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. We will reconvene the markup for the 
Oversight Committee.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, thank you. In light of your 
expression of your desire for a good-faith effort to revise the 
Hatch Act, I would seek for unanimous consent to withdraw the 
request for a recorded vote to Goldman Amendment Number 1.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you.
    Our next item for consideration is H.R. 1162, the 
Accountability for Government Censorship Act.
    The clerk will please report.
    The Clerk. H.R. 1162, a bill to require the Office of 
Management and Budget to report to Congress on actions taken by 
executive branch employees to censor lawful speech, and for 
other purposes.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the bill should be 
considered as read and open for an amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes himself to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The clerk, please report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
1162, offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Scott 
Perry, is recognized for five minutes for a statement on the 
bill.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to you and 
your staff for working with me to include the Accountability 
for Government Censorship Act in today's markup. Thanks to your 
leadership, much-needed light was shed on government-led 
censorship and suppression at this month's hearing on Twitter's 
role in suppressing the Biden laptop story. On that note, I 
think we all agree that we have barely scratched the surface of 
this subject, so I hope we continue this important work in many 
future hearings including hearings with government witnesses.
    Now, this bill will build on that work by requiring a 
single comprehensive report on agency activities to censor 
lawful speech on social media platforms. Specifically, it will 
require agencies to report to Congress on each instance the 
agency has communicated with a social media platform for the 
purpose of removing, adding a disclaimer to, or suppressing 
lawful speech. It also requires important information from 
agencies, including the employees involved, the platforms 
involved, and any legal authority for the action. Agency 
compliance will be assessed by their respective inspector 
general. Here is the bottom line. The American people deserve 
to know how and why their taxpayer dollars are being used to 
censor their very own speech, and this bill would do just that. 
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield the 
balance.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I thank Mr. 
Perry for the legislation. I have to say, I taught 
constitutional law and the First Amendment for 25 years, and it 
never occurred to me that we needed a bill called the 
Government Censorship Act because that is what the First 
Amendment does. The First Amendment blocks and prevents 
government censorship. So, we know something else is going on 
here, and we continue to oppose this very strange attack on 
free speech, good government, and the privacy and security of 
dedicated Federal employees. The erroneous assumption of the 
bill is, again, that Federal employees are coordinating with 
tech companies to suppress speech, a claim for which there is 
no factual basis was made abundantly clear at the February 8 
hearing with respect to Twitter and the trumped-up claims about 
Federal Government officials trying to censor news of Hunter 
Biden's laptop story.
    The only real evidence we could find, you will recall, Mr. 
Chairman, was about Donald Trump. He did not like somebody on 
Twitter calling him a PAB. I am using the acronym there out of 
deference to our national audience. And he got White House 
officials to call Twitter to tell them to take it down. I still 
have not heard a single word from anyone on your side of the 
aisle denouncing that. There are numerous other examples. 
President Trump was so upset by a joke made by Jimmy Kimmel 
that he directed, again, White House personnel to call up the 
Disney Corporation, executives there, to complain and demand 
that action be taken against apparently disloyal comedians, and 
at least a couple of phone calls were made in that direction.
    So, this does happen, there is no doubt, but for some 
reason, none of the focus is on the actual events where we know 
this did take place. The only known serial official violator of 
the rights of the social media companies to be free of 
governing speech reprisal, Donald Trump, happens to be their 
hero, and he is no longer in office. So their bill in pursuit 
of the fantasy conspiracy to oppress right-wing speech would 
turn the Federal Government upside down now with a series of 
wasteful bureaucratic paperwork assignments for no reason at 
all, requiring every agency to submit a report to the OMB 
listing every instance during the past five years in which an 
employee of an agency communicated with the internet computer 
service on something completely lawful, on something totally 
within the course of their work. All of this has got to be 
reported.
    And if that is not enough, the bill also requires agencies 
to complete these reviews within 90 days, so even without 
speaking to the agencies, they would need to implement it. My 
colleagues should know that this is simply not feasible, and 
this is just an attempt to impose gratuitous and unnecessary 
paperwork on the work force. The bill should really be called 
the Targeting Public Servants for Doing Their Jobs Act. And one 
of the most disturbing parts of it, is the requirement that OMB 
submit a report to this Committee and to the Senate, listing 
the names and the positions of every Federal employee and their 
supervisors who interacted with any internet computer service, 
as well as the names and positions of any internet computer 
service employee that the Federal employee interacted with.
    But the bill generally ignores the fact that there is a 
need, as we have been discussing all day, for the Federal 
Government to do its job, not just in the areas where our 
friends concede there is a need to, with respect to drug 
trafficking, and child pornography, and human trafficking, but 
also with respect to the national security of the country, with 
respect to the protection of our elections, with respect to the 
protection of our environment, of our rivers, of our mountains, 
and so on.
    Information sharing between government agencies and social 
media companies is not censorship. It is essential to 
protecting the effectiveness of government. And the First 
Amendment is there to stifle anybody like Donald Trump, who 
would try to trample on the free speech rights of anybody, 
whether it is at Twitter, or AT&T, or any private media entity 
that exists. That is what the First Amendment is for. And, you 
know, forgive me for saying so, but I do not think that we in 
our collective wisdom today in America are smarter than the 
framers in terms of the formation of the First Amendment of the 
Constitution.
    So, my friends, this bill really does nothing but create a 
lot more mischief and a lot more bureaucratic paperwork, and we 
would urge a rejection for the same reasons we reject the prior 
bill. I go back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes myself for five minutes.
    I want to thank Mr. Perry for working to draft this 
targeted and timely legislation. H.R. 1162 is directly 
responsive to the primary question I had coming out of our 
February 8 hearing on protecting speech from government 
interference and social media bias. That is, how much more 
pervasive than we thought is this problem and the Federal 
Government's attempt to censor the lawful speech of Americans?
    This activity is not always as blatant as former Press 
Secretary Jen Psaki's development of the powerful influence of 
the White House bully pulpit to call for Americans to be de-
platformed or have their speech suppressed. It is sad, as we 
have learned from the Twitter files, the Federal Government's 
collusion with social media companies is often far more 
deliberately coordinated behind the scenes. Such activity has 
masked the real extent and impact of the troubling trend of 
government censorship. It has made transparency into the 
problem difficult and accountability nearly impossible.
    Mr. Perry's bill recognizes this oversight challenge. The 
Accountability for Government Censorship Act simply requires 
transparency for Congress to understand the full extent of the 
problem. This bill would require every Federal agency to review 
the past five years of its communications with external 
internet platforms and report to Congress each instance in 
which it can engage in an attempt to limit speech on an 
internet platform. Whether the activity can ultimately be 
justified or not, the appropriate congressional committees need 
to evaluate these activities and determine the proper policy 
reforms going forward. This will help us uncover the extent to 
which the Federal Government has censored lawful speech, and 
where it has blatantly crossed the line.
    Congressman Perry's legislation will equip Congress to 
understand which agencies have engaged in censorship activities 
and for what reasons. And the bill looks back into the prior 
Presidential administration so we can have a fair evaluation of 
how such activity has come to be in the Federal Government. 
Surely my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can 
appreciate this balanced transparency. This bill provides us 
with the information necessary to carry out this Committee's 
oversight agenda. It will help the 118th Congress deliver on 
key promises to the American people to ensure a government that 
is accountable and a future built on freedom. I urge my 
colleagues to support this straightforward transparency bill.
    Do any other Members wish to be heard?
    Voice. Mr. Moskowitz.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Moskowitz for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. You know, I 
actually think, you know, you guys listened in the last 
hearing, and I applaud you in this bill going back five years. 
I think that we can now find out what the Messiah Donald Trump 
did in 2019 when he reached out to Twitter to limit free speech 
when he was called a PAB, which we heard in the last meeting 
that, you know, that got under his orange skin, so we can find 
out now exactly who he called. Not only who he called, and 
maybe it was not the President, but did Jared call someone at 
Twitter? If it was not Jared, who in the Administration reached 
out to Twitter to take down free speech because he was called a 
name that he disagreed with. And was that the only instance in 
which that happened in 2019? Did it happen in 2020? You know, 
these are questions that I think the American people deserve to 
know because it came out in the last hearing that the previous 
Administration was going after free speech.
    Additionally, Mr. Chairman, it has come out, not just with 
Twitter, but it has come out that Donald Trump had White House 
staff call the Disney Corporation to try and censor Jimmy 
Kimmel because the former President did not like his jokes. And 
to quote Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Kimmel has responded to this 
saying that ``President Karen demanded to speak to my manager 
in order to censor my free speech through corporate 
ownership.'' Additionally, you know, not dealing with 
government censorship, but it has also come out, Mr. Chairman, 
that during the last campaign, Fox News provided Trump's son-
in-law confidential information about President Biden's ads and 
President Biden's debate strategy, trying to put their finger 
on the pulse of the election.
    And so, listen, you know, I applaud you guys for going back 
five years because we are going to find out that President 
Snowflake, through calling Twitter and calling Disney, was 
trying to hurt people's free speech because, you know, it upset 
him. He did not like being called names. And so, you guys 
deserve credit that you want to get to the bottom of who did 
Donald Trump call, who did Jared Kushner call, who did the 
chiefs of staff in the Trump Administration call to take down 
Americans' free speech, not just on social media, but also on 
television. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Before we go to 
the vote, I just want to relay something that was just stated 
during the Roundtable. Dr. Makary just said today at the Select 
Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Roundtable, the 
following: ``The greatest perpetrator of misinformation during 
the pandemic was the U.S. Government,'' which again, is why we 
are having the markup today.
    The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you for telling us that. I do not know 
who Dr. Makary is, and had we not been countered scheduled 
against the Roundtable, we could be there to listen to that, 
and see the full context, and whether anybody responded. So, I 
do look forward to being able to read through the whole 
transcript or us ending as quickly as possible. As I said, 
several of us have withdrawn amendments, so we can finish as 
quickly as possible so we can get to the Roundtable.
    Chairman Comer. Who is asking to yield?
    Mr. Raskin. I yield back.
    Voice. Yes, can you yield?
    Chairman Comer. If she will yield.
    Mr. Raskin. I am happy to yield to Mr. Moskowitz.
    Chairman Comer. I will have to recognize her to yield to 
you, if that is OK. Are you good with yielding him, too? OK. 
All right. Go ahead.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, based on 
those comments, I, too, would like to get more information. I 
mean, was that person specifically talking about the 
misinformation that President Trump put out about maybe putting 
light into the body could get rid of COVID or maybe using a 
horse tranquilizer to get rid of COVID? Was he talking about 
the misinformation about maybe we can do, like, a cleaning of 
the body, you know, as misinformation? And so, you know, I 
would like to find out the misinformation that was put out, you 
know, COVID is going to go away in, like, a couple of months, 
that misinformation. You know, there was a lot of 
misinformation that was put out, and so I would love--maybe 
hold a hearing on that, Mr. Chairman. I think that would be 
fantastic. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Did anyone else 
seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is on the amendment. Actually, 
there is no----
    Voice. No, on the bill.
    Chairman Comer. Yes, on the bill. Yes, there is no 
amendment.
    Voice. It is on the bill.
    Chairman Comer. Right. OK. It is on the bill. The question 
is on the bill. The question is on the bill, offered by Mr.----
    Voice. You have the ANS.
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. The ANS, offered by Mr. Perry.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the ANS 
is agreed to.
    So, the question is now on the full bill, H.R. 1162, 
offered by Scott Perry.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin: I am seeking recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    Now, pursuant to notice in Clause 2(d)(1) of House Rule X, 
I now call up the Committee on Oversight and Accountability's 
Authorization and Oversight Plan for the 118th Congress, copies 
of which were distributed in advance.
    The clerk will please report the plan.
    The Clerk. Authorization and Oversight Plan for the 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability for the 118th 
Congress.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the plan shall be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. I recognize myself for a brief explanatory 
statement. We have important work to do this Congress to 
uncover and to prevent government waste, fraud, and abuse. The 
topics listed in this plan provide a roadmap where the 
Committee will focus its resources to best serve the American 
people. Once again, I appreciate Ranking Member Raskin working 
with me to finalize this plan.
    Is there any further discussion or amendments on the plan? 
I recognize Ranking Member Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. You know, I am of two 
minds about the whole thing. As I have expressed to you, I 
supported you when you said at the beginning of the Congress to 
The Wall Street Journal that we were planning to conduct 
credible oversight, identify problems, and propose reforms. To 
the extent that the oversight plan embodies these values, I am 
happy to vote for it. As I have expressed to you, it is my real 
desire to work with you in conducting commonsense and 
bipartisan oversight in this Congress and the topics identified 
in the plan falls squarely within our shared charge to make the 
government work efficiently and effectively.
    But I am troubled that the Committee's work has already 
strayed so dramatically from this promise. For example, at our 
first hearing on COVID relief programs, I had hoped that we 
would pick up from the work of the 117th Congress where the 
Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus literally stopped tens 
of millions of dollars in rip-offs from taking place by blowing 
the whistle on particular scams across the country, and I hoped 
that we could continue to work with you on reforming the 
legislation to guarantee more structural efficiency. But 
instead, we got a series of attacks, false attacks on 
Democrats, saying we did not have any hearings on it, which I 
suppose is true about the Oversight Committee generally, but we 
had a whole select subcommittee, which had seven hearings on 
corruption and fraud in COVID-19 relief, and we saved at least 
tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to the people.
    And I was, you know, similarly disheartened at the Twitter 
hearing, for example, when instead of working together on 
common problems relating to Twitter or what I think is the 
major problem, which is that, as the whistleblower said, 
Twitter did nothing when it was told there were people planning 
for violent insurrection against the government, planning for 
race war, planning to attack the Vice President, planning to 
attack Congress--nothing happened on Twitter until after it was 
over when they started taking down accounts.
    Instead, we got, you know, the Hunter Biden laptop story, 
although it did allow us to debunk it because none of the 
witnesses called by the Majority supported with any evidence 
the idea that Federal Government officials coerced or tried to 
coerce Twitter into making its totally independent, sovereign, 
private decision on how to manage its own business, which 
should be really of no consequence to us. They did not run that 
stupid story or create that stupid link for 24 hours. Big deal. 
And yet, here we are on a continuing wild goose chase about it.
    So, you know, I am of two minds, Mr. Chair. I like, you 
know, your are setting forth of these different priorities, 
which do not include any of these scandals du jour and all of 
the wild goose chase stuff. But, at the same time, when I look 
at generally what is happening in Congress, I have to tell you, 
I am disenchanted. I am disenchanted by what I have seen from 
Mr. Jordan and his new committee, and I saw Mr. Jordan do an 
interview at the CPAC conference where he said that this 
Congress, he would be investigating Hunter Biden to, ``frame up 
the 2024 race when I hope and I think President Trump is going 
to run again, and we need to make sure that he wins.'' And that 
is the whole thing. The sum and substance of every one of these 
hearings is we need to make sure that Donald Trump is restored 
to office, because we do not have a king in America, but we got 
something close to it, and that is Donald Trump.
    Look, I am basically willing to listen to you, Mr. 
Chairman. If you are telling me that we are really going to 
stick to what is in that text and we are going to follow that, 
then I am very willing to vote for that plan. But if it is just 
going to be a series of wild goose chases and political 
vendettas, count me out. I do not want to be part of it. And 
so, I know that you are a man of goodwill and good faith, and 
so, but please just reassure me that this is what we are going 
to be working on. I am happy to yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard? The 
question is now in favorably reporting the Committee's 
oversight plan.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the plan 
is ordered favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is considered 
as laid on the table.
    We are going to take a brief recess for 10 minutes to 
gather everyone up, and then we will have the, as quickly as we 
can, the votes for all the amendments and the two bills.
    So, we stand in recess for 10 minutes.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will now resume consideration 
of H.R. 140, the Protecting Speech from Government Interference 
Act.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment, 
offered by Ranking Member Raskin, the Raskin Amendment 1.
    The clerk will now call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Foxx votes no.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins?
    Mr. Higgins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes no.
    Mr. Sessions?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes no.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Brown votes aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Mr. Gomez?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Balint?
    Ms. Balint. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Balint votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. How is Ms. Mace recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace is not recorded.
    Ms. Mace. Ms. Mace votes no.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner. Mr. Chairman, LaTurner votes no.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. LaTurner recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner was not previously recorded.
    Mr. LaTurner. LaTurner votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Sessions recorded?
    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as 
a no vote.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Sessions recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions was not previously recorded.
    Mr. Sessions. I would like to be recorded as a no vote, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Mfume recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume is not recorded.
    Mr. Mfume. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. And how am I recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Mr. Gomez. How am I recorded?
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Gomez.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez is not previously recorded.
    Mr. Gomez. Gomez is aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett. Mr. Chairman, how is Ms. Ocasio-Cortez 
recorded? I was just saying hey. Sorry.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. If you are curious, you can just ask me.
    Chairman Comer. Has everybody been recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Does the clerk have the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, the ayes are 19. 
The nays are 22.
    Chairman Comer. The amendment fails.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment, 
offered by Mr. Lynch.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins?
    Mr. Higgins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes no.
    Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes no.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Brown votes aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Balint?
    Ms. Balint. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Balint votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Does the clerk have the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes have 19. 
The nays have 22.
    Chairman Comer. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment, 
offered by Ms. Balint.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes no.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Chairman Comer. How is Ms. Foxx recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx is not previously recorded.
    Ms. Foxx. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Gosar recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar is not previously recorded.
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Brown votes aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Balint?
    Ms. Balint. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Balint votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Does the clerk have the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 19. The 
nays are 22.
    Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment, 
offered by Ms. Porter from California.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes no.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Brown votes aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Gomez, aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Balint?
    Ms. Balint. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Balint votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. How is Ms. Foxx recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx is not previously recorded.
    Ms. Foxx. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Grothman recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman is not previously recorded.
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. And Mr. Sessions, how is he recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions is not previously recorded.
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Chairman Comer. And Mr. Biggs? And how is Mr. Biggs 
recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs has not been recorded.
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Does the clerk have the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, the ayes are 20. 
They nays are 21.
    Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment, 
offered by Mr. Moskowitz from Florida.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Foxx votes no.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes no.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mr. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Brown votes aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Gomez, aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Balint?
    Ms. Balint. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Balint votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Sessions recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions is not previously recorded.
    Chairman Comer. And how is Ms. Mace recorder?
    Mr. Sessions. I want to be recorded as a no vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Chairman Comer. And Ms. Mace?
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace is not previously recorded.
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Chairman Comer. And how is Mr. LaTurner recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner is not recorded.
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Does the clerk have the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 20. The 
nays are 21.
    Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment, 
offered by Mr. Goldman from New York.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes no.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Gomez, aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Balint?
    Ms. Balint. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Balint votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Jordan recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan is not previously recorded.
    Mr. Jordan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Does the clerk have the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 20. The 
nays are 22.
    Chairman Comer. The nays have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment, 
offered by the gentleman--the Ranking Member. This is Raskin's 
Amendment Number 2.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes no.
    Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Foxx votes no.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes no.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes no.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes aye.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Balint?
    Ms. Balint. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Balint votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes aye.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes aye.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 20. The 
nays are 22.
    Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 140.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The 
amendment in the nature of a substitute H.R. 140 is agreed to.
    The question is on favorably reporting H.R. 140.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes yes.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Foxx votes yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes yes.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes yes.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes yes.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes yes.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes yes.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes yes.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes yes.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes no.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes no.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
    Ms. Balint?
    Ms. Balint. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Balint votes no.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes no.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Jordan recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan is not previously recorded.
    Mr. Jordan. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. And how is Mr. Palmer----
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. And how is Mr. Palmer recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer is recorded as aye.
    Chairman Comer. Good job.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, for this vote, the ayes are 24. 
The nays are 20.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably as reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    The question is now on favorably reporting H.R. 1162.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
    Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes yes.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Foxx votes yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes yes.
    Mr. Grothman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
    Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes yes.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Armstrong votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes yes.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes yes.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes yes.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes nay.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes nay.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes no.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes nay.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes nay.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Gomez, no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
    Ms. Balint?
    Ms. Balint. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Balint votes no.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes no.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes no.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Grothman recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman is not previously recorded.
    Mr. Grothman. I vote yes.
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, how is Mr. Mfume recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume is voted no.
    Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I vote nay.
    Mr. Connolly. That is what I thought.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. And does the clerk have the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 24. The 
nays are 20.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    Pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 2, I ask that Committee 
Members have the right to file with the clerk of the Committee 
supplemental additional Minority and dissenting views.
    Without objection.
    Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary 
technical and conforming changes to the bills ordered reported 
today, subject to the approval of the Minority.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    If there is no further business before the Committee, 
without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]