[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H599-H600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     GOVERNING REQUIRES COMPROMISE

  (Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, Democrats won the House by the slimmest of 
margins in November. In fact, it is the slimmest Democrat majority 
since 1875, a mere five seats. 31,718 votes are what determines the 
majority. Their victory in the other branches was also tight, 50/50 on 
the Senate side.
  Usually, when one party has a tiny majority, they recognize that 
governing requires compromise. Not this majority.
  Less than 2 months into controlling the House, despite promising to 
solve problems and restore democracy, Democrats have proven that their 
primary goal is not governing but grievance, the politics of 
censorship, not common ground.
  In January, they eliminated the motion to recommit, the last chance 
for the minority to improve legislation, without a single Republican 
vote. It will go down in history as the first time in the history of 
this body that a majority did that, deny the minority, the millions of 
constituents, their voice.
  Already, millions have lost their voice in Congress due to the brazen 
partisanship. What Democrats are doing this week is even worse.
  Today, they will hold a subcommittee hearing that will focus on 
broadcasters' and cable news' devotion to journalistic integrity. This 
explanation should concern every American.
  It has never been Congress' role to define and enforce journalistic 
standards. The First Amendment expressly prohibits the government from 
controlling what the press says.
  But Democrats are trying to give themselves the power to dictate what 
you can read and watch in your own home. And their assault on free 
speech goes beyond today's disgraceful hearing.
  On Monday, Representatives Eshoo and McNerney sent a letter to 12 
cable, streaming, and satellite companies, essentially threatening them 
to remove ``Fox News'', ``Newsmax'', and ``One America News Network'' 
from their airways.
  Here is just a quick snapshot of the answers they are demanding from 
the carriers:
  ``What moral or ethical principles do you apply in deciding which 
channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?''
  ``What steps did you take to monitor, respond to, and reduce the 
spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of 
violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of 
Americans?''
  Then the other question, coming from Congress in a majority of a 
committee: ``Are you planning to continue to carry `Fox News', 
`Newsmax', `One America News Network', both now and beyond any contract 
renewal date? If so, why?''
  Now, I am not an attorney, but some people have asked me, does that 
reach an ethical complaint against these Members by using undue 
influence?
  I don't know. I guess the Ethics Committee would have to decide that.
  These are Members of Congress who are using their official position 
to coerce and control the information Americans can watch and access in 
their own homes. They are demanding more censorship, more 
deplatforming, and more control of what Americans can watch.
  In their letter, Congresswoman Eshoo and Congressman McNerney suggest 
that censorship is necessary because conservative views are not only 
different, but they are dangerous. This is not only false; it is the 
same script used in countries like China to silence speech they 
disagree with.
  Democrats would bring those same socialist standards to America, but 
those standards are dangerous, vague, and easily abused. They have no 
place here.
  Democrats' action this week make it clear that the greatest threat to 
free speech today is not a law from Congress, which is bound by the 
First Amendment. The greatest threat is politicians who bully private 
companies to silence dissenting views.
  The sad part is it isn't only Democrats who have done this. They sent 
a letter to a company of Amazon that was created to sell books, to tell 
them not to sell books.
  Lastly, beyond these serious threats to free speech, the irony of 
Democrats' actions this week should not be lost on us. For the last 4 
years, we were told that the greatest danger to free speech was 
President Trump.
  To underscore this accusation, the liberal legacy newspaper in 
Washington adopted its first official slogan: ``Democracy dies in 
darkness.''
  As usual, the heated rhetoric from the other side was off base--
badly. The same party that is now worried about misinformation rumor 
mills and conspiracy theory hotbeds was comfortable with endorsing 
destructive and false narratives for 4 years.
  Back in August, Congresswoman Eshoo herself basically alleged that 
the Trump administration was intentionally attacking the U.S. Postal 
Service. She called it election theft and a campaign of sabotage.
  How about Congressman Adam Schiff? For years, he said he had more 
than circumstantial evidence of Russian collusion. We all found that to 
be false. Nevertheless, networks like ``MSNBC'' continue to perpetuate 
the baseless accusation. I wonder if they sent a letter there.
  Or how about our own Speaker Pelosi, who said in 2017, ``Our election 
was hijacked. There is no question.''
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are capable of making decisions 
about how best to live their lives. They deserve to decide how to take 
care of their families or open their businesses during a pandemic. And 
they deserve to decide to watch the news, judge the information they 
choose, and draw their own conclusions about its accuracy. They need us 
to trust them, not to try to control them.
  If Democrats accepted robust debate, they would find that more people 
would trust Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a body that is using its power to try to 
determine

[[Page H600]]

what books can be printed, what shows can be seen, and what can be 
said.
  Mr. Speaker, we have debated on this floor the things that happen in 
China. And in China, if you try to buy an airline ticket you could have 
the money, but they have an app there. And they say, first, we have to 
check.
  They have had people in their own press that were told: I am sorry, 
you can't take the plane.
  Why?
  You have said something that government doesn't like. You should 
apologize.
  The reporter apologized but the government thought it wasn't sincere 
enough.
  To me, it is something I would fight because I believe in free 
speech.
  I thought that was farfetched in a faraway land. I never thought it 
would be written on paper in the U.S. Congress, and the powerful 
members of a committee that oversees jurisdiction would threaten people 
of why they carry a network and will they carry that network in the 
future; and if so, why?
  I never thought I would see Members of Congress use their power to 
threaten others to go against the First Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, we will not stand for it, nor will the American public. 
This is not a partisan issue; this is a constitutional issue.

                          ____________________