[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 147 (Friday, September 20, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5556-H5559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     LAMENTING THE DEATH OF COMEDY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ciscomani). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 9, 2023, the Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Kiley) for 30 minutes.

[[Page H5557]]

  

  Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lament the death of comedy in 
California, the death of satire in California or, more seriously, to 
lament a serious blow that has been struck against freedom of speech 
and a healthy democratic process in California.
  That is because the California legislature has passed, and Governor 
Gavin Newsom has signed, a law explicitly designed to outlaw political 
parodies. We don't need to speculate about this being the purpose of 
this law because the Governor said so directly.
  Several weeks ago, a parody video of Kamala Harris began circulating 
on social media. Governor Newsom reposted it, and he said this should 
be illegal. ``I will be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make 
sure it is.'' This week he made good on that promise. The Governor 
again reposted the parody and said: ``I just signed a bill to make this 
illegal in the State of California.''
  Sort of on its face, it is a classic authoritarian move, a person in 
power sees speech he doesn't like, sees speech that threatens his 
power, and so he uses that power, uses whatever tools he has at his 
disposal to silence those who would dare speak against him to make them 
go away. That is by his own admission, in his own words what he has 
done.
  Now, I will say, there are legitimate issues when it comes to AI, 
deep fakes, voice cloning, generative video, and other tools that may 
be maliciously wielded to confuse voters and corrupt the political 
process. There is room, and perhaps even a need, for regulation 
designed to assure that these tools are not abused.
  However, that is not what Newsom is doing. By his own acknowledgment, 
what he is doing is banning parody. Parody and satire have been central 
to American political discourse throughout our history, from the 
founding era, with satirists lampooning King George, through the works 
of Mark Twain, through the advent of television, ``Saturday Night 
Live,'' through the present day with The Onion, The Babylon Bee, and 
all manner of parody and satire on social media.
  It has thrived as a way for artists, comedians, and the public at 
large to humble those who have become too powerful, and to convey 
truths in a particularly compelling way.

  Not only that, but satire and parody are clearly protected by the 
First Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has long held 
that parodies of public figures are protected even if they are 
``outrageous,'' and the Court has long held that any satirical 
statement is protected so long as it cannot reasonably be interpreted 
as stating actual facts.
  In short, if a reasonable person could discern that something is a 
parody, then it is protected by the First Amendment; so the question, 
when evaluating this new law, would be, is it stepping over that line? 
We have a very clear test case in the Kamala Harris video that in the 
Governor's own acknowledgment was the inspiration for the law. It is 
exactly the sort of thing that the law was designed to stamp out.
  Let's just look at a few lines from this Kamala Harris video and see 
whether a reasonable person would actually believe that it is Kamala 
Harris.
  The first line of the video is this: ``I, Kamala Harris, am your 
Democrat candidate for President because Joe Biden finally exposed his 
senility at the debate.''
  Now, would a reasonable person think that Kamala Harris said that 
when they see this video, that she actually made that statement?
  The video goes on. It says: ``If you criticize anything I say, you 
are both sexist and racist.'' Would a reasonable person believe that 
was actually Kamala Harris saying that in that video?
  There are other examples. It goes on: ``I may not know the first 
thing about running the country, but remember, that is a good thing if 
you are a deep state puppet.'' Would a reasonable person believe that 
Kamala Harris actually said that?
  It goes on: ``Joe Biden taught me, rule number one, carefully hide 
your total incompetence.'' Would a reasonable person believe that this 
is actually Kamala Harris saying ``rule number one, carefully hide your 
total incompetence''?
  The video goes on. It says: ``My work on the border was 
`catastrophic.''' Would a reasonable person think she said that?
  One of the keys to effective satire, and you can judge for yourself 
whether this is effective or not, is that it actually does illuminate a 
deeper underlying truth. Therefore, one might argue, I would argue, 
that Kamala Harris' performance as border czar was, in fact, 
catastrophic, but a reasonable person will not actually believe that 
she is saying that herself in this video.
  Gavin Newsom, in order to maintain that consistent with the First 
Amendment he can eliminate this video from our public discourse would 
have to somehow argue that he thinks a reasonable member of the public 
would actually think that Kamala Harris would say those things. It 
makes you wonder about the regard that Mr. Newsom has for the public in 
California and across the country.
  The better explanation for his behavior is just that he doesn't have 
any regard for the First Amendment at all. The courts have time after 
time struck down measures that he has signed on First Amendment 
grounds. It just happened again a couple weeks ago.
  It happened not that long ago with respect to a law that he signed 
that sought to punish people for supposedly spreading COVID 
misinformation. The legislature and Newsom had to repeal their own law 
after the court weighed in on First Amendment grounds.
  This highlights a broader, very concerning tendency, not just in 
California but across the country, where we have this brewing crisis of 
freedom of speech, which in many ways started at colleges and 
universities and then expanded to certain social media platforms, and 
then became intertwined with the government.
  We got an acknowledgment of this recently from Mark Zuckerberg, CEO 
at Facebook, Meta, who said that he was, indeed, pressured by the Biden 
administration to censor content on his platform, and he acknowledged 
that Facebook was wrong to give in to that pressure.
  We are also seeing elsewhere in the world some alarming regression 
when it comes to protections for freedom of speech. This has been, 
throughout U.S. history, one of the things that has set our country 
apart. We have always had ironclad or at least striven to have ironclad 
protections for freedom of speech. It is one of the things that has 
propelled progress of all kinds in the history of our country.
  I would argue that there is perhaps no greater threat to democracy 
than the suppression of freedom of speech, so the assault on free 
speech led by Gavin Newsom and the Biden administration is cause for 
great alarm by all Americans.
  Fortunately, I think there are some reasons to believe that the tide 
is starting to turn. Of course, the social media platform X has become 
a leader in protecting freedom of speech after we have learned about 
prior efforts at that platform and others working at times with the 
government.
  We have seen, of course, the Zuckerberg letter that I just mentioned 
where Facebook is committing to be more mindful and respectful of free 
speech principles in the future.
  Just yesterday, this House passed my Free Speech on Campus Act, which 
is designed to restore the importance of freedom of speech on our 
college campuses as a foundational campus value. I would urge the 
Senate now to pass that same measure, and my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to join in whatever efforts we can to end the assaults on 
free speech we have seen in this country and return to the founding 
principles that have been so central to our country's prosperity and 
progress.


                             Proposition 36

  Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pass on some incredible news about 
Proposition 36 in California. This is an initiative that is designed to 
make crime illegal again in California, to restore appropriate 
consequences for theft and drug crimes.
  Prop 36, which will be on the ballot in just a few weeks here, was 
recently polled by the Public Policy Institute of California, and the 
results are overwhelming--71 percent of California voters are in 
support compared to 26 opposed. You have 85 percent of Republicans in 
support with just 11 percent

[[Page H5558]]

opposed. You have 73 percent of Independents in support with just 24 
percent opposed. There are 63 percent of Democratic voters in support 
with only 33 percent opposed, about two-thirds of even Democratic 
voters in support of this initiative to make crime illegal again in 
California.

  Seeing those numbers, you understand why the Governor of California, 
Gavin Newsom, fought tooth and nail to keep this from this even being 
on the ballot. He concocted a number of truly outrageous schemes that 
were specifically designed to cancel the vote, to stop Californians 
from even having an opportunity to vote on this important proposition. 
Fortunately, those efforts failed, and a vote will be held very soon.
  When the Governor was told about these numbers at a press conference 
yesterday, he said: ``I was wondering what State I am living in.'' ``I 
was wondering what State I am living in,'' Newsom said, when informed 
that Californians overwhelmingly favor restoring consequences for 
criminal activity.
  Maybe I will enlighten him about the State he is living in. The State 
he is living in is one where crime has simply spun out of control and 
where people are seeing the consequences of that in their daily lives.
  Proposition 47 is the primary culprit. It was passed about a decade 
ago, and it effectively eliminated consequences for retail theft, no 
matter how many times you stole, and it eliminated consequences for 
possession of even hard drugs, which basically ended the ability to get 
addicts into treatment.

                              {time}  1400

  The consequences of these two things are that in many parts of 
California, on your way to the grocery store or walking around a 
downtown, you will have to go through open-air drug markets. You will 
have to dodge needles. You will see people suffering, withering on our 
streets, tragically dying all too often from overdoses on our streets.
  Then if you want to go in and shop at a grocery store or even a 
convenience store, a CVS, you will see almost everything under lock and 
key. You have to go get a clerk to open up the lock for you if you want 
to buy frozen goods or if you want to buy shampoo and conditioner. It 
is really the sort of thing you really would have never expected to see 
in America, and yet it is what Prop 47 and its progeny in California 
have spawned, the reality they have created where Californians 
overwhelmingly say that crime has continued to get worse.
  Indeed, that is borne out in the numbers. Property crimes have gotten 
much worse since Prop 47, all types of crime. Violent crime has gotten 
significantly worse in just the last few years.
  The results of this poll, the overwhelming support for Prop 36, are a 
recognition of that. I will read you, by the way, the title of the 
initiative. It says: ``Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences 
for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes.'' That is all it says. That is the 
information people have.
  The overwhelming majority of California voters, Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents, liberals and moderates, conservatives, folks 
of all economic and racial backgrounds from all parts of the State, 
across every group, people say overwhelmingly: Yes, that is something 
we need. Yet, somehow, the Governor still lectured Californians 
yesterday about how they are wrong.
  I believe that once this measure passes--and there can be no doubt 
that it is going to pass--it is going to be a new day for California. 
We are going to restore commonsense policies when it comes to public 
safety. We are going to provide law enforcement with new tools to keep 
our communities safe. We are going to go a long way toward reversing 
the homelessness crisis in California. Maybe most importantly, the 
people of California will demonstrate the agency that we all have to 
set our State on a different course, even when our out-of-touch 
political class attempts to stand in the way.


                         Congratulating SpaceX

  Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate SpaceX on the Polaris 
Dawn mission, which is the first of three planned missions in the 
program and took astronauts in an elliptical orbit 870 miles from 
Earth.
  The four astronauts pictured here are Jared Isaacman, Scott Poteet, 
Sarah Gillis, and Anna Menon.
  Now, this mission sat a number of records, a number of firsts. For 
example, it climbed higher over Earth than any human spaceflight since 
the last Apollo mission in 1972. It contributed to having the most 
humans in Earth orbit at the same time ever. It was the first 
commercial space walk and the first time four people were exposed to 
the vacuum of space at the same time. They even downlinked the first 
violin performance from space using Starlink, and it was the first time 
that Doritos were eaten from space, with a special safe-for-space chip 
that was designed. As part of this, they collected data for future 
missions to the Moon and beyond.
  SpaceX, of course, is a company that started in California. I had the 
opportunity to tour their facility a few years back. It truly is a 
marvel.
  The company is also vital to U.S. leadership around the world when it 
comes to space, and is vital to our national security. This was 
recently underscored as NASA is now having to rely on SpaceX to bring 
home two astronauts that are stranded at the International Space 
Station.
  It is also underscored by the statistics. When it comes to delivering 
payloads into orbit, in Q1 of this year, 87 percent of the world's 
tonnage to orbit was delivered by SpaceX. Eighty-seven percent of the 
total tonnage delivered to orbit around the world was delivered by 
SpaceX. This includes commercial customers. It includes SpaceX's own 
Starlink system, which is providing internet to remote areas of the 
world, in fact, to some of my constituents in Death Valley as well as 
to cruise ships and airlines. It also includes launches that are 
absolutely vital to U.S. national security and space exploration.
  Given what a tremendous asset this company is, it makes it all the 
more stunning that the company is being targeted in multiple ways and 
for frivolous reasons. Recently, the FAA fined the company $633,000 for 
trivial, nonsafety-related reasons. More concerningly, the agency has 
delayed flight 5 of Starship for 2 months, again for nonsafety-related 
reasons.
  Now, Starship is the largest and most powerful space transportation 
system ever developed. It is fully and rapidly reusable in its design. 
They have already had four very successful missions where they have 
done better each time, and the idea is they iterate their design, and 
they learn from each flight. This fifth flight, which is ready to go, 
would attempt to return the super heavy booster to the launch site and 
catch it midair using what they call their giant chopsticks.
  Now, this rapid reusability is completely--and already is--changing 
the economics of space exploration and making it orders of magnitude 
more affordable. It is truly a Herculean feat of technology and 
ingenuity in order to make this happen. Yet, we have these roadblocks 
that are being thrown in its way.
  SpaceX itself put it this way: ``We continue to be stuck in a reality 
where it takes longer to do the government paperwork to license a 
rocket launch than it does to design and build the actual hardware.''
  When it comes to launching a rocket, obviously there are important 
regulatory concerns when it comes to safety. The company has been 
steadfast in prioritizing safety, and it is important that that 
collaboration exist.
  In this case, the reasons they are being held back are completely 
unrelated to safety or any other legitimate public interest. In fact, 
the company has bent over backward to comply with environmental 
regulations. There simply should not be delays related to paperwork or 
bureaucracy. The FAA and related agencies need to prioritize enabling 
launches, not standing in their way.

  Some have suggested that there might be political motivations here. I 
think that perhaps the broader issue might be one of cultural 
incompatibility, in the sense that when you think back to the lunar 
program, when you think back to President Kennedy saying that we will 
put a man on the Moon within this decade, not because it is easy, but 
because it is hard, and when you think about the way that the entire 
country was captivated when that vision ultimately came to fruition and 
what it meant for U.S. leadership in the world, for our national 
security

[[Page H5559]]

during the Cold War, it was a way in which the country was able to come 
together around a truly awe-inspiring vision.
  That is the sort of vision that SpaceX is pursuing, the sort of truly 
big and forward-looking thinking that captivates people's imaginations, 
that allows us to push beyond the limits of our current knowledge and 
to explore new frontiers.
  There is just something perhaps about the nature of modern 
bureaucracies in this country that is incompatible with that way of 
thinking. When they encounter it, their impulse is not to facilitate it 
but to throw roadblocks, to find trivial reasons to hold it back.
  I do think it is a moment to think about how we got to this point and 
the sort of reforms that we might make to our bureaucracy here and 
really across the board that will allow our government to be on the 
side of innovators, to facilitate innovation rather than constantly 
trying to hold it back.
  Notwithstanding, I know that SpaceX as well as others in this 
industry are going to push forward. I congratulate them on this latest 
history-making success, and I look forward to many more history-making 
successes in the years ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________