[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1219-H1221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           PROTECTING SPEECH FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wilson of South Carolina). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 199 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 140.
  Will the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1212


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 140) to amend title 5, United States Code, to prohibit 
Federal employees from advocating for censorship of viewpoints in their 
official capacity, and for other purposes, with Mr. Amodei (Acting 
Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
March 8, 2023, amendment No. 6, printed in House Report 118-7 offered 
by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) had been disposed of.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Rose

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 118-7.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, after line 16, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent subsections):
       ``(e) Annual Training.--Not less than annually, the head of 
     each employing agency shall provide mandatory training on 
     this section and the requirements of this section to each 
     agency employee.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution No. 199, the gentleman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment designated as 
Amendment No. 9 to H.R. 140, the Protecting Speech from Government 
Interference Act, and I thank my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) for 
introducing this important piece of legislation.
  Federal employees should absolutely not be censoring lawful speech, 
and I am proud to support this bill which will clearly prohibit that 
practice.
  My straightforward amendment simply requires mandatory annual 
training on the requirements of the underlying bill. We were all 
recently made aware of the shameful instances of Federal Government-
driven censorship that occurred in conjunction with Twitter over the 
last several years, and with that revelation, we must be suspicious 
that similar censorship has occurred in conjunction with other Big Tech 
social media platforms.
  The goal of H.R. 140 is to eliminate such instances of Federal 
Government censorship, and my amendment furthers that goal by requiring 
Federal employees to undergo annual training to inform and remind them 
of their obligations under this bill to refrain from any and all 
censorship activities.

                              {time}  1215

  Kara Frederick, director of The Heritage Foundation's Tech Policy 
Center, recently penned a Heritage Foundation backgrounder titled: 
``Combating Big Tech's Totalitarianism: A Road Map.''
  In her piece, Ms. Frederick writes: ``The Biden administration is 
attempting to circumvent the Constitution by pressuring private tech 
companies to take down content under a broad and politically biased 
definition of misinformation. When Big Tech companies do the 
government's bidding by removing users and content that the government 
tells them are objectionable, they are essentially acting as government 
agents, a potential violation of the First Amendment.''
  Mr. Chair, I am proud that this Congress has made this bill a 
priority. Government censorship and government-pressured censorship of 
lawful speech are just plain wrong.
  Today, we are pushing back on this anti-freedom activity. My 
amendment will strengthen H.R. 140 by helping to ensure a high level of 
compliance with its requirements.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
which is, as the gentleman has described, a simple training requirement 
to ensure that this act is implemented correctly. Seems like a 
perfectly reasonable thing in and of itself; that is, it would be if 
the actual underlying bill that it seeks to modify was reasonable and 
not some sort of bizarre, Orwellian doublespeak designed to mislead the 
American people about what this bill is actually about.
  Nothing about this bill is reasonable. Nothing about this bill, the 
process of how it has been brought to the floor, and how it has misled 
the people of our country about what is happening is normal. It does 
not secure the freedom of speech or any other freedoms of the American 
people. It actually endangers them.
  In fact, it imperils our democracy by handcuffing the ability of law 
enforcement, national security, and intelligence officials to provide 
factual, critical information to social media companies and the public 
in order to prevent crimes or to ensure that election fraud tampering 
does not occur and that there is no foreign interference with our 
elections.
  This is not some unintended consequence of the bill; rather, it is 
the entire point of this bill, as my Republican colleagues have 
conceded.
  When we marked up this bill in the Oversight Committee, Chairman 
Comer produced two emails from a single FBI agent to Twitter that he 
said were ``the purpose of the bill.'' You might be asking, what 
terrible censorship was the FBI trying to achieve in those emails? When 
Democrats were finally provided with the email content, it was an email 
to Twitter from the FBI identifying fraudulent election tweets. In 
fact, the content identified that there were multiple tweets that were 
misleading about the time, place, or manner of voting in the upcoming 
election.
  This is the smoking gun that they are claiming is taking away our 
freedoms--that is right--election misinformation that was meant to 
deceive American voters, which the FBI flagged as part of their course 
of business. They would like to hamper the ability of our FBI and our 
law enforcement to be able to do their jobs.
  This is, of course, the same party that has engaged in voter 
suppression for countless decades, so we probably shouldn't be 
surprised.
  We know that the American people not only want us to protect their 
voting rights and their basic rights to express themselves, their 
freedoms as protected by the Bill of Rights and our Constitution, but 
we also want our public servants to be able to do their jobs and to do 
their jobs with integrity and ensure the integrity of our election 
system.
  Democrats sought to try to address some of the grave flaws in this 
bill and address the supposed intent of the bill by submitting 43 
separate amendments for floor consideration. In fact, only one was made 
in order.

[[Page H1220]]

  Republicans, on the other hand, submitted 20 amendments, many like 
this one, ignoring the dangers of the underlying bill and not wanting 
to improve it to protect American freedoms but simply tinker around the 
edges to make it more enforceable.
  My question is, why are we voting on this amendment and not 
Congressman Torres' amendment to ensure the bill does not prohibit 
Federal officials from preventing and addressing cyberattacks?
  Why are we voting on this amendment and not Congressman Lynch's 
amendment to ensure the bill does not prohibit Federal officials from 
protecting our national security?

  Why are we voting on this amendment and not Congressman Goldman's 
amendment to ensure that the bill does not prohibit Federal officials 
from fighting foreign election interference, as occurred in the 2016 
election?
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and oppose 
this bill. It does nothing to improve a deeply dangerous bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, when it comes to censorship or pressured censorship by 
Federal Government employees, ignorance is not bliss. My amendment 
seeks to further the anti-censorship goals of H.R. 140 by requiring 
mandatory education for Federal employees on the bill's new anti-
censorship requirements.
  Therefore, because of my amendment, Federal employees will not be 
able to claim ignorance of the new requirements we are implementing in 
the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act.
  Mr. Chair, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment and the 
underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, I will take a moment to reiterate that this 
bill is not as it appears or the majority is proposing it appears to 
the American public.
  This bill is not about defending the basic right to free speech and 
our constitutional rights. This bill is about hamstringing the ability 
of Federal law enforcement, our national security staff, and others in 
the Federal Government from protecting our country from election 
interference.
  This amendment would make the enforcement of that bill stronger by 
requiring training to further censor and allow for interference in our 
elections.
  I am opposed to this amendment, and I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Rose

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 118-7.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that inspectors general should not less 
     than annually for the next seven years publicly report the 
     number of complaints and tips received, the number of 
     investigations opened, and statistics on how investigations 
     were managed and their disposition by that inspector general 
     related to compliance with this Act and the amendments made 
     by this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 199, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Rose) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment designated as amendment 
No. 10 to H.R. 140, the Protecting Speech from Government Interference 
Act.
  Mr. Chair, I sincerely hope that after H.R. 140 is enacted, there are 
zero violations of the bill's new anti-censorship requirements. 
However, if any violation or allegations of violations do occur, then 
the public has a right to know.
  My amendment is simple. It states that it is the sense of Congress 
that inspectors general should publicly report the number of complaints 
and tips received, the number of investigations opened, and statistics 
on how investigations were managed and their disposition by the 
inspector general related to compliance with the underlying bill.
  The amendment specifies that the inspectors general should publicly 
report no less than annually. The amendment also sunsets after 7 years.
  Whether or not my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support 
the underlying Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act, I 
hope they will support this amendment as it is vital that the public 
have an accurate picture of whether the laws that Congress passes are 
being followed.
  Public reporting of the number of tips and complaints received and 
statistics on investigations related to compliance with H.R. 140 is a 
pro-transparency measure to hold the government accountable that I hope 
we all can support.
  This amendment is a commonsense and gentle nudge to inspectors 
general that it is the sense of this body that public reporting related 
to compliance with this bill is an important endeavor.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, our inspectors general conduct vital work 
on behalf of the American people. They help to safeguard taxpayer 
dollars and government operations from waste, fraud, abuse, and 
mismanagement, and they investigate what occurs inside our Federal 
agencies. To ask them to waste their finite resources and staffing on 
an annual reporting requirement for a bill that actually threatens the 
freedom of the American people and the American public and electoral 
system is gravely antithetical to their missions and their purpose and 
is, itself, an act of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Nobody 
could act in good conscience to support this amendment.
  One of the most concerning aspects of this bill is that it creates a 
waiting period of at least 72 hours before law enforcement officials 
can take action to prevent or respond to most crimes or threats they 
identify, either on or involving social media platforms.
  Let's imagine that you are a Federal official, an FBI investigator, 
and you see information being shared online that indicates that a 
sexual assault is imminent, some sort of violence is about to occur, 
there is some sort of election fraud about to occur. Under this bill, 
you would have a decision to make. Do you write and file a lengthy 
report to Congress and then wait 72 hours until it is too late, or do 
you act immediately, knowing that you might be subject to a $50,000 
fine or might be barred from Federal service for 10 years because you 
reported something that has been tagged as censored speech under this 
bill and amendment?
  Thanks to the excellent bipartisan work of Congresswoman Houlahan and 
Congresswoman Mace, we could have been considering a very different 
kind of amendment here on the floor today, one that would have made 
sure that this bill still allowed enforcement officials to act 
immediately in this exact case.

                              {time}  1230

  My Republican colleagues would not allow this amendment to come to 
the floor today, choosing, instead, to waste our time and the time and 
resources of our Federal agencies on this amendment. They choose a do-
nothing, wasteful reporting requirement over a bipartisan amendment 
that would protect the safety, in many instances, even the lives, of 
women and Americans across the country. It is outrageous.
  I believe that this bill and this amendment are dangerous, and I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers and I am prepared to 
close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, in closing, I will note one final time that 
this bill and its proposition are deeply dangerous. It proposes to 
actually address

[[Page H1221]]

free speech and censorship when, in fact, it would hamstring our 
Federal officials.
  This amendment adds dangerous changes to the bill that would make it 
even more difficult for our Federal officials to do their job.
  I am opposed to the amendment, and I am strongly opposed to the bill 
itself.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  By voting ``yes'' on Amendment 10, Members are reaffirming their 
commitment to transparency and government accountability. If my 
amendment passes, along with the underlying bill, the American people 
will be more well-informed of violations of the underlying bill.
  In closing, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, I think we have well established that not 
only the premise of this bill, but many of the requirements in it, are 
dangerous for our Federal law enforcement, dangerous to our 
constitutional rights, dangerous to the American people, and dangerous 
to our national security and our electoral system.
  Yet, the way it is being proposed to the American people is that it 
will defend their rights and their rights to speak freely under the 
First Amendment.
  During our markup of this bill, we talked about gaslighting. 
Gaslighting is the act of when somebody in authority actually makes you 
believe you are crazy because the truth of what is occurring is 
actually the opposite.
  This bill is a dangerous gaslighting of the American people. We will 
not stand for it. It is dangerous to our democracy. It is dangerous to 
our elections, and it is dangerous for the people of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rouzer). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Amodei) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rouzer, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 140) to 
amend title 5, United States Code, to prohibit Federal employees from 
advocating for censorship of viewpoints in their official capacity, and 
for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 199, he reported 
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
         Mr. Landsman of Ohio moves to recommit the bill H.R. 140 
     to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________