Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)

[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.

____________________