H.Res. 199

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill purports to protect free speech from government censorship. I agree, it is a great idea. It is such a good idea, in fact, that the Founding Fathers put it in the Constitution. It is called the First Amendment. We don't need a new bill to protect free speech because that is currently the law of the land, so we must ask ourselves: What is the point of this bill?

As our esteemed ranking member observed last night, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping probably don't make a habit of watching congressional proceedings, but we are willing to bet that this floor debate is of keen interest to Russian and Chinese agents bent on destabilizing our democracy and influencing our elections to serve their interests.

H.R. 140 would effectively allow these and other foreign malign actors--who have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into online propaganda to create chaos, mistrust, hate, and confusion for Americans--to continue using social media platforms unfettered to wreak havoc on our democratic institutions, including the integrity of our elections.

It would do so by undermining the only defense that we have against these operations, which is the ability of our national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies to warn social media platforms and the public about the deployment of counterfeit accounts, disinformation, and cyber surveillance by malign actors.

Now, I have no doubt that my Republican colleagues will claim that, of course, all of our national security apparatus is able to warn social media companies of foreign interference. But the way that this bill is written--even if that is the case, which it is not--they would have to wait 72 hours in order to do that. Seventy-two hours on the internet is a lifetime. Everything that they would want to accomplish would be accomplished within 72 hours.

Now, there are exceptions to that. So, clearly, my Republican colleagues recognize that there need to be exceptions, but those exceptions cover a very, very narrow window, a narrow scope of child pornography, human or drug trafficking, or the dissemination of classified information. Anything else that might not be lawful speech still has to wait 72 hours, far too long.

Now, Democrats acted in good faith to identify and correct these dangerous loopholes in our committee, but all of our amendments were voted down. Our Democratic and Republican colleagues attempted again to address the most dangerous flaws of this bill by submitting 64 amendments for floor consideration, but Republicans only allowed 10 to be considered here today. Of those, only one--one--was offered by a Democrat. So much for all the open floor rules that our Republicans have talked about.

Now, in fairness, Republicans accepted multiple minor amendments that were submitted late, and yet still rejected many of the timely amendments. Some of those Democratic amendments would have cured the obvious weaknesses and loopholes of this unnecessary bill.

There was one amendment that would allow our intelligence community, national security apparatus, and law enforcement to inform social media companies of national security threats.

Another amendment would allow them to inform the social media companies in order to combat domestic and international terrorism.

Another amendment would have addressed fraud targeting seniors.

Another amendment would have ensured the safety of children online. Another amendment prevented attacks on the U.S. Capitol.

One amendment even would have prevented the incitement of violence by Neo-Nazis and other hate groups.

They were all voted down. They even blocked a bipartisan amendment offered by Congresswoman Houlahan and Congresswoman Mace to ensure that law enforcement can still act immediately to prevent sexual assault.

By rejecting these commonsense amendments, Republicans have made it clear that this bill is not about protecting the rights and safety of all Americans. In fact, even though there is no evidence--and I will get to that in a minute--that warrants this bill, there is plenty of evidence that Russia interfered in our elections in 2016.

Now, what this bill does is it welcomes the same kind of election interference that we know Russia did in 2016 and that they continue to do today. Just like Donald Trump sided with Vladimir Putin over our intelligence communities in Helsinki in 2018, this bill and the Republicans who are sponsoring this bill are siding with Russia and Vladimir Putin over our national security apparatus and our law enforcement.

My Republican colleagues claim that they have put this bill forward because the FBI somehow colluded with Twitter to suppress the New York Post article on the Hunter Biden laptop story for all of 24 hours 3 weeks before the Presidential election, a private business decision based on the best information available at the time, and which had absolutely no discernible impact on the availability of the article nor the outcome of the election.

The chairman of this committee just referenced a hearing that we had where there were hours of testimony about censorship. Well, the only testimony I witnessed about censorship was former President Trump trying to take down tweets that he did not like on Twitter. There was no evidence--none at all--that the FBI or any other law enforcement agencies directed Twitter to take down any unlawful speech, and that includes the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Now, we can spend some time, although we don't need to, on why that story was both highly suspicious and also glaringly false, but the broader point is that this is a bill that seeks a solution where there is no problem. There is no protected speech that has been prohibited by the Federal Government, and there is no actual evidence of any censorship under the First Amendment.

We are basically trying to change the law to redefine censorship, and in doing so we would be opening up the floodgates to allow for all sorts of unprotected speech to be distributed throughout our social media world online because the government officials who are charged with making sure that our laws are not violated, that crimes are not committed will be handcuffed and unable to do their jobs for fear that they will be fined thousands of dollars if they are wrong.

I urge all my colleagues to stand with free speech and American democracy and oppose this dangerous bill.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would like to respond briefly because there is all this talk about collusion between the Biden administration and the FBI and Twitter, and you can say it as many times as you want to say it, and it still doesn't make it so because there is no evidence of that.

In this country we rely on facts and evidence. We don't just rely on conclusory allegations including fake polls that don't support what you're trying to say.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Chairman, I will point out one additional factor here that I think is very important for everyone to consider. When asked what evidence there is that the FBI colluded or directed Twitter to take down any speech, the chairman offered two emails from one specific FBI agent, which suggested that a couple of Twitter handles or tweets had given misleading information very specifically about the time, place, or manner of voting in the upcoming elections.

If my Republican colleagues believe that people should be able to lie on Twitter and provide disinformation about when, where, and how to vote, then they should absolutely support this bill. If that is all that you have, and that is all that you have cited, this bill is a complete waste of time and is totally unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what hearing the gentleman from North Carolina is referring to, because at the hearing with Twitter executives that I attended where the head of trust and safety was specifically asked if the FBI had given any information, instructions, or directions about the Hunter Biden New York Post story, he specifically said no, they did not receive any information.

If that is what you all think that you are basing this bill on, the actual facts in evidence are precisely the opposite of that.

It is preposterous that you continue to say that over and over and over as if it is true when the evidence is directly contradictory to that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I remind you and everyone that the First Amendment does not protect all speech. It protects lawful speech.

For example, if you make a death threat over the internet, that is not protected speech. That is a Federal crime.

Let's remember, as we take on this absolutist view that all speech is free speech, that there are many restrictions under our laws about what is lawful speech and what is not.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), our constitutional legal scholar and esteemed and distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Chair, I must commend my colleagues. Everyone is really consistent on the talking points that must have been circulated. Of course, they are not based on evidence, but everybody does seem to believe that somehow the FBI was censoring people on Twitter. Of course, those of us on the Oversight Committee who have sat through the hearings have not seen any of that.

I am also a little bewildered now because what is basically coming out is that my friends on the other side of the aisle apparently don't support law enforcement doing their jobs, don't support the Intelligence Committee doing their jobs to protect our national security, to protect our elections, to protect our democracy. Instead, they want to provide an opportunity for alternative facts to get around the internet as fast and as quickly and as unfettered as possible, but I am here to tell you that we Democrats fully support the First Amendment.

Every single one of us observes, adheres, cherishes the First Amendment. That is, in fact, part of the reason why we in the minority on the Oversight Committee have asked the chairman to do some oversight of Michael Cohen, the former President's former personal lawyer, who was jailed in solitary confinement for 16 days by the Trump administration because they did not want him to publish a book.

That is a prohibition on our free speech. That is censorship. That is a violation of free speech. If we want to talk about free speech, that is what we should be talking about, not some phantom issue that doesn't exist about the FBI trying to make sure that our elections remain free and fair and without foreign interference.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, I have now been here for about an hour. I have yet to hear any evidence at all that the FBI has, in any way, censored any one on social media, on Twitter, or otherwise.

What I have heard is a private company has temporarily restricted a false article from appearing on its website based on serious suspicions of its derivation and, in fact, the same basis for that false article, a hard drive, was proven subsequently to have been altered.

The basis of what we are talking about underlying their concern was false, but nevertheless it was still able to be sent around the internet with ample time, and the social media site even apologized for doing it.

This is a bill that, once again, is a solution searching for a problem. Our First Amendment covers everything that is in here, but the effect of this is it would allow foreign countries to jeopardize our national security, to jeopardize our elections, and to, once again, interfere in our democratic process.

That is the only thing that this bill accomplishes and it should be voted down.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment that is offered at the desk.

Mr. Chair, we hear that the gentleman is concerned about the censorship of conservative viewpoints on social media. But we don't hear the same concern when Elon Musk takes over Twitter and immediately takes down the accounts of six journalists that he does not like. There was no other explanation for it, but it certainly sounds exactly like what my Republican colleagues are talking about, horrific censorship on Twitter. But somehow, that is okay.

So the only, then, explanation we get is, oh, well, it wasn't the Federal Government who told Mr. Musk to do that. Yet, it was the Federal Government who told Twitter to--I don't know--stall the Hunter Biden story or whatever we did, whatever they were alleged to do.

Well, the facts don't bear that out. There was actually no effort by the FBI to censor any journalist, any New York Post story, or anything else. But we continue to hear that over and over and over. Unfortunately, the facts don't actually match up with it.

Now, Twitter can do whatever it wants; it is a private company. So we need to have some sort of nexus to the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the facts and the evidence that has so far been developed by the Republican majority on the Oversight and Accountability Committee do not support any of these allegations.

What this amendment will do is continue their effort to undermine our Federal law enforcement, because what this amendment will do is create more bureaucracy, more reports, more time wasted on doing things other than keeping Americans safe and protecting our national security and our democracy.

This is nothing but an effort to have our good men and women in Federal law enforcement be distracted from doing the jobs that they are supposed to do, which is to protect our elections and our democracy from foreign interference, rather than write lengthy reports.

For that reason, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, it is funny to hear about how the Democrats are colluding in order to censor free speech on social media when the administration in control of the Federal Government at the time of the alleged horrific censorship that my Republican colleagues are citing was a Republican administration.

It was the administration of President Donald Trump in October of 2020 when the Hunter Biden laptop story was paused for 24 to 48 hours. Yet, somehow, I gather that the FBI is supposed to be a Democratic- leaning organization and agency doing the Democrats' bidding. Well, you could have fooled me back in 2016 when the Director of the FBI announced 10 days before the election that he was reopening an investigation into the Democratic candidate for President while an investigation was also ongoing into the Republican candidate for President and yet that remained quiet. Explain to me how that is the FBI doing the bidding of the Democrats.

This whole thing, this amendment and this bill, have no place in this Congress. The amendment would just simply add more burdensome bureaucracy to what is already a fruitless effort of a bill. Therefore, we oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a technical amendment. It doesn't make much of a difference to what is already a bad bill.

But it is interesting to me that this amendment was allowed to come to the floor, and so many amendments from the Democrats, which actually made meaningful substantive changes to this bill, were not allowed to come to the floor.

Now, we have heard a lot over the past 2 months of this Congress about how the Republican majority is going to do things differently, that they are going to have open rules so that everybody can offer amendments on the floor. But what is clear is that the open rules, I suppose, only apply to the Republican Party. They don't apply to the Democratic Party.

What is upsetting about that, at least for me personally, is I had an amendment that I had also offered in the Rules Committee last night to include an exception not just for child trafficking, child exploitation, human trafficking, and drug trafficking, but also for foreign interference in our elections so that our law enforcement could actually do the work that is needed to protect our democracy, to protect our elections.

This is not some fanciful idea that this bill is actually addressing, a nonexistent problem where the FBI is not actually even censoring people. No, that amendment had to do with two charged indictments of Russians in 2016 for interfering in our election. There is actual evidence to support that amendment. Yet, my Republican colleagues did not even allow it to come to the floor.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Chair, I think this amendment and the chairman's comments are very telling. Of course nobody objects to protecting the free, lawful speech of any American from the Federal Government. That is the First Amendment. But what this bill does is it creates a tremendous barrier to our law enforcement intelligence community and national security apparatus from protecting Americans from all sorts of illicit, malign activity that occurs on social media.

So by preventing us from bringing our substantive, thoughtful amendments to the floor for a vote, what this bill is ultimately doing, the net effect of it, even if it is not the intent of it, is that it is allowing foreign actors to interfere in everything that happens in our democracy, including our elections.

Now, why does this matter? Why would it matter? Well, because we all know the special counsel definitively proved that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win. And the Trump campaign welcomed that interference and used it for their benefit. If you disagree, go look at Special Counsel Mueller's report. That is what is called conclusions based on evidence, not what this bill is.

Mr. Chair, for that reason, we oppose this amendment as well as the underlying bill itself.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, my esteemed colleague from North Carolina says that lawful speech on the internet should never be prohibited by Federal agencies, by the government. We agree. It is called the First Amendment. It has existed long before H.R. 140 was written.

What H.R. 140 does and what this amendment does even further is it makes it impossible for unlawful speech to actually be policed. What the private companies do not have is access to the intelligence agency information, national security information, law enforcement information that can determine whether or not the speech that is on the internet is being used in furtherance of crimes or is in and of itself a crime.

They recognize this because there is an exception. There is an exception to this prohibition on law enforcement agencies or Federal Government agencies from actually communicating with social media.

There is an exception for child pornography, human trafficking, and drug trafficking. I gather this amendment also deals with obscenity, but I think it is trying to close this loophole.

Clearly, there is a recognition that law enforcement needs to coordinate to some degree with our social media sites. What this law does is that, but for those very narrow categories, law enforcement has to wait 72 hours.

Everything is around the internet and over again many times within 72 hours. It is an exception that eats the rule. There is no way that law enforcement can do its job because of this bill.

One would say if you were correct and if there were actual prohibition and censorship of lawful speech that was going on, and if you could show us evidence of that, then maybe one could imagine that a congressional bill was warranted and necessary. Of course, we have none of that. All we have are allegations without any facts or evidence.

We have people who have clearly not read the Twitter files talking about the Twitter files. What we don't even hear about is all the evidence that Twitter algorithms actually promoted conservative voices more than they promoted Democratic voices.

If this amendment, as I understand it, restricts law enforcement's ability to coordinate with social media sites to protect the public, prosecute crimes, investigate crimes, protect our national security, and protect our infrastructure, then I oppose this amendment because it makes a bad bill even worse.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, it is unclear to me at all why this amendment is here because Federal officials are not allowed to censor lawful speech in their official capacity, which is also what the bill says. This is a completely redundant, unnecessary amendment, I suppose designed to rail against public service unions.

I do find it odd that the gentleman refers to the IRS not being able to respond to calls from Americans seeking help with their taxes when one of the very first bills that the majority passed would have eliminated the increase in IRS employees that was passed as part of the IRA last summer specifically so that the IRS would have enough employees to respond quickly to Americans seeking assistance.

Apparently, we have had a rise of conscience here recognizing that Americans and constituents of all of ours cannot get through to the IRS, which is why the IRA increased the number of agents working at the IRS. Apparently, that is not okay if they are collectively bargaining for fair wages and benefits.

This amendment is completely unnecessary. It is redundant. It makes what is already a bad bill duplicative and superfluous, and therefore, I oppose.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, part of the problem with having a redundant amendment on the floor is that there were so many important amendments that the Democrats offered that were not even allowed to come to the floor, notwithstanding the purported open rules that Republicans have been so proudly championing this Congress.

One of those amendments would have included in the category of exceptions to this unnecessary bill coordinating between law enforcement and social media companies about neo-Nazis inciting anti- Semitic violence on social media. That amendment was offered in the committee and was unanimously rejected by my Republican colleagues, who apparently believe that neo-Nazis should incite violence against Jews unchecked and unfettered on social media.

Unfortunately, that amendment was also offered and rejected at the Rules Committee last night, and so, therefore, we don't have it here to argue about, and we will not be able to vote about it on the floor. Instead, we are voting on this redundant, unnecessary, and confusing amendment that does nothing to meaningfully change this bill but, instead, is an opportunity to rail against union workers.

For that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is yet another redundant and unnecessary amendment. It is already presumably included in the exception for child pornography and child exploitation. I suppose if it is adding obscenity to those exceptions, then perhaps there is something there to it.

What really strikes me here is that there was a bipartisan amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee last night that would include an exception for sexual assault, and that was not passed through to the House floor.

If the chairman would indulge me for a moment and I could yield to him, can the gentleman explain why he opposed the bipartisan amendment that would prohibit sexual assault and yet he allowed through this amendment on basic obscenity?

Apparently, the chairman doesn't know what I am referring to.

There was a bipartisan amendment offered last night in the Rules Committee between Congresswoman Houlahan and Congresswoman Mace that would have added to the specified list of exceptions to law enforcement coordinating with social media companies in the event of information related to sexual assault.

That amendment was not passed through to the House, and we are not considering it today. Yet, here we are considering the gentleman from Virginia's amendment including as an exception, in the same way, issues related to obscenity and obscene matters.

Now, if my Republican colleagues believe that basic obscenity on the internet is worse than sexual assault, then they should say so. But that seems quite preposterous to me, and it is a shame that we cannot address the bipartisan Houlahan-Mace amendment on the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let's get this straight. We have an amendment here because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to protect children from obscenity. Yet amendments that the Democrats have offered to protect our national security, to protect our elections from foreign interference, to protect against live-streaming of terrorist events and attacks used by international terrorists around the country to strike fear in Americans and others worldwide, and to an amendment that could protect against sexual assault, none of those amendments are here for us to address today.

Instead, what we are addressing right now is in addition to child pornography and child exploitation--two very legitimate law enforcement purposes that, of course, should be permitted to have coordination with social media companies--no, now we are really worried about protecting children from seeing nudity online.

Apparently, that is of such paramount importance that we don't care if Vladimir Putin has a red carpet to interfere in our elections. We don't care if people are threatening to assault people online and to threaten sexual assault. And we don't care if people are sending death threats online. No. We need to protect our children from seeing some nudity. That is what is so important that we need an amendment on the floor.

The joke of it all--and the gentleman from Pennsylvania commented on how great it is that we are considering amendments--is that apparently it is only great if you are a Republican because only Republican amendments are allowed to be considered on the floor.

That is a travesty. That is not what we were promised. That is not what the American people want to hear. So for all of those reasons, I oppose this unnecessary amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, just briefly, we were at that Twitter hearing when the former general counsel of Twitter and of the FBI suggested that there needs to be legislation in order for social media companies to properly coordinate with law enforcement, and we wholeheartedly agree.

I am certain that he would never in a million years imagine that this would be the legislation because this completely guts the FBI's ability to protect the safety and security of the American people and our democracy.

Mr. Chair, let's not pretend the witness at that hearing wants this bill to be the legislation in order for social media and law enforcement to coordinate. I am happy to work with the chairman on that, but it is not this bill.

Mr. Chair, accountability matters, says my friend from Tennessee, and his amendment would place further penalties in the hands of the Office of Special Counsel which, as he mentions, is the office that also adjudicates the Hatch Act. Well, if you want accountability, let's start talking about the Hatch Act. Let's talk about the 13 Trump administration officials who violated the Hatch Act. Let's talk about Kellyanne Conway, who had more than 60 violations of the Hatch Act, so many that the Office of Special Counsel--that the gentleman from Tennessee references--recommended that she be fired.

Did anything happen to her? No. You know what she said? She said: Come talk to me when there is a jail sentence. Well, that is why last week in our markup on this bill I introduced the Kellyanne Conway amendment, which would have added criminal penalties for a knowing, willful, and intentional violation of the Hatch Act.

Now, as we all know, the Hatch Act is actually a law that prohibits government officials from abusing their office, as the gentleman from Tennessee just said. Without teeth in those penalties, the Trump administration senior officials ran roughshod all over that.

Unfortunately, what Mr. Ogles and the chairman are focused on is not on adding accountability to prohibit government officials from abusing their positions for political purposes. Instead, we are talking about the phantom problem of government officials abusing their authority to censor free speech, none of which has happened, and yet here we are with so many examples of violations of the Hatch Act, but we are not dealing with that.

We are not dealing with actual evidence, actual facts, actual violations of the law to put accountability, as the gentleman from Tennessee says, and some teeth into our laws under the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee to prevent abuse of power by government officials. That is where we should be spending our time, not on this bill and not on this amendment, which already has plenty of punishment for those who are in violation.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to appear so tough that 5 years of debarment from Federal employment is not enough, so we are going to make it 10 because 5 just doesn't do it. The difference between 5 and 10 is going to mean that someone, some government official who is trying to censor lawful speech on the internet is going to say, whoa, whoa, 10 years, oh, I am not going to do it now--but 5 years.

These amendments are trivial; they are unnecessary; they have no meaning; and yet the meaningful amendments were not allowed to be brought to the floor.

Apparently the open rules only apply to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they do not apply to us. That is a shame because there are some very significant amendments that would make this bad, bad bill slightly better.

For that reason, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the problem with these civil penalties is not that it is going to bankrupt any government officials, but it has a tremendous chilling effect on anyone trying to do their job, on any Federal law enforcement or intelligence community official trying to protect our country, trying to enforce our laws, trying to keep Americans safe, trying to keep our democracy safe because what these penalties will do is create an amorphous barrier to this amorphous law where no one has any idea whether what they are doing is lawful or unlawful because who is to define lawful speech?

Well, traditionally, it is a court, and it is government officials who have to make that initial call, that initial discretionary decision whether or not speech is lawful. In what world, if they are risking a $50,000 fine, are they ever going to take a risk to actually try to do something that might be on the line?

What these penalties will ultimately do is encourage good, upstanding, patriotic American Federal officials not to pursue their jobs, not to do their jobs in the way that we, the American people, need them to do their jobs, in a way that keeps us safe, in a way that enforces our criminal laws, in a way that protects us.

That will not happen because they are going to be fearful that they will lose a third to a quarter of their salary if they violate this

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule for three bills.

First, let me just say, this is an awful rule; and I don't want to hear my Republican colleagues talk about fairness or openness ever again. We got lecture after lecture about how they wanted to be more open and more inclusive.

Well, guess what? So far, in this Congress, 22 of the 26 rules have been completely closed. I mean, there are more closed rules in this rule than Democratic amendments made in order.

Speaker McCarthy promised he would open things up, but he has locked things down more than ever.

My colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) said that he joined the Rules Committee to be our conscience. So I would ask him, I mean, does he think this is okay?

Madam Speaker, 43 of 44 amendments submitted by Democrats were blocked by his majority; is that right? Is that the openness that we were promised by his Speaker?

The bottom line is the last time Republicans controlled the House they had more closed rules than any other time in the history of our country, and they are on track to beating their own record.

Our first bill today, considered under a closed rule, is S. 619, the COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023.

I think I speak for everyone when I say that we all want to know how COVID started. But I also want to point out, for the Record, that Donald Trump was President when COVID started, not Joe Biden.

Donald Trump said: ``China has been working very hard to contain the coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well.'' Joe Biden didn't say that.

What Joe Biden actually did do is he ordered this investigation, and thanks to his investigation and the work of the intelligence community, we now have a report that gives us some answers.

The gentleman from Kentucky says, Democrats all believe this was a conspiracy theory. Yet, strangely enough, it was a Democratic President who told the intelligence community to look into the origins of COVID. So I am just a bit confused here as to his logic.

I will quickly mention two other bills. H.J. Res 27, also considered under a closed rule, seeks to roll back a majority of the protections on rivers, lakes, and streams that have been implemented since the creation of the Clean Water Act.

I find it particularly ironic that Republicans go to East Palestine, Ohio, saying, we stand with you, we are with you, while here in Congress, they are passing a bill that makes it easier for the company that dumped toxic waste into their rivers to get off scot-free.

Finally, we have H.R. 140, the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act, which does not protect free speech from government interference. In fact, it seeks to expand the First Amendment to include Vladimir Putin and the Chinese Communist Party, while telling America's own Federal law enforcement agencies that they are now forbidden from even notifying social media companies of attempts by Russia and the CCP to spread propaganda.

But there is one more thing I want to bring up today, Madam Speaker, and it is not in this rule, but it is just as important and consequential for our democracy.

On Monday of this week, FOX News aired an offensive, dishonest, shameful representation about what happened on January 6, 2021. For nearly an hour, Tucker Carlson said that January 6 was not, in fact, a violent attack on American democracy. In fact, he said it was not an attack at all.

He called it a peaceful sightseeing day; downplayed what happened; tried to sanitize and gloss over the first responders who were attacked and died; called the people attacking our Capitol Police officers meek; ran interference

for a racist mob that came into these Halls that day to overturn an election.

I am furious because I was here that day. I was literally in this room. I was one of the last ones off the House floor. I sat in the Speaker's chair that day. I saw how close we came to disaster, and I don't need Tucker Carlson or anyone else to tell me what happened that day.

I am not just furious for me; I am furious for the people he lied to. I am furious for the memory of the officers he insulted. I am furious for the police officers who were beaten and injured that day. I am furious for the staff who thought that they were going to die.

January 6 was an attack on our democracy, and now Tucker Carlson has chosen to side with the enemies of democracy.

But what is most alarming about all of this, what is most dangerous, is that he was aided and abetted by Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy.

I have to say, this is a new low. Speaker McCarthy's treacherous decision to coordinate with Tucker Carlson to deliberately distort what happened that day is beyond the pale; and the worst part is the blatant lying.

On November 21, 2020, Carlson said in a private text that lies about voter fraud were shockingly reckless and called the very conspiracy theories he was promoting on the air as insane and absurd to his colleagues.

He called those propagating the big lie dangerous as hell. He knew that claims the election was stolen were dangerous lies.

But instead of owning up to the truth, he went on TV, and with zero respect for his viewers and for the people of this country, zero respect for the truth, zero respect for our democracy, he sold those dangerous lies to the American people. He should be ashamed.

Speaker McCarthy's disgraceful decision to help him spread these lies will forever be a stain on this institution.

So my question for the Speaker is: Was it worth it?

Was the backroom deal with the far right to help Tucker Carlson lie about what happened that day worth the damage done to our democracy?

Was it worth insulting the memory of the law enforcement officers who died defending this building and what it symbolizes?

The family of fallen Officer Brian Sicknick doesn't think so. I want to enter their full statement into the Record today, but our rules prevent me from doing that. So let me just read a part of it here:

``The Sicknick family is outraged at the ongoing attack on our family by the unscrupulous and outright sleazy so-called news network of FOX News who will do the bidding of Trump or any of his sycophant followers, no matter what damage is done to the families of the fallen, the officers who put their lives on the line, and all who suffered on January 6 due to the lies started by Trump and spread by sleaze- slinging outlets like FOX.''

They go on to say: ``Every time the pain of that day seems to have ebbed a bit, organizations like FOX rip our wounds wide open again and we are frankly sick of it.''

That is what Speaker McCarthy is doing here. It is sick. It is indefensible. Frankly, I find it disgusting.

So when the hell will House Republicans stand up here and say this is wrong?

At least some Senate Republicans, to their credit, have actually denounced Carlson's lies.

Senator John Kennedy said: ``I was here. It was not peaceful. It was an abomination.''

Senator Thom Tillis says: Tucker's depiction was B.S. He called it indefensible.

Senator Mitt Romney says: ``You can't hide the truth by selectively picking a few minutes out of tapes and saying this is what went on. It's so absurd. It's nonsense. It's a very dangerous thing to do. . . . `'

But all we get out of this side of the Capitol is deafening silence; and every moment House Republicans do not come out and condemn these evil lies, more damage is done to the fabric of our democracy because, mark my words, January 6 will happen again if we do not correct the record and tell the truth about what happened that day.

It was an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, based on lies spread by the former President of the United States. So for the sake of this institution, for the sake of the country, it is time to tell the truth.

For my Republican colleagues, it is time for you to condemn these lies.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record a USA Today piece titled: ``Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines primarily designed to prevent serious illness, death.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an AP News article titled: ``Ex-Twitter execs deny pressure to block Hunter Biden story.''

Madam Speaker, Twitter itself is saying the government isn't telling them to suppress anything. This is yet, unfortunately, just another Republican conspiracy theory.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from The Hill titled: ``Trump officials roll back Obama oil train safety rule.''

Madam Speaker, on February 3, 2023, a train with 38 cars derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, and the full devastating aftermath of that tragedy is ongoing. The affected community needs answers and change to make sure that something like this does not happen again.

The Trump administration rolled back train safety rules. Now, Republicans want to make it easier for polluters to pollute. They put a chemical industry lobbyist in charge of the EPA office in charge of chemical safety. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. They rolled back regulations on train brakes, and they reduced rail inspections.

I just want to say one thing to my colleague from Kentucky. I have no problem with releasing all the tapes, but that is not what happened. The Speaker of the House selectively and carefully released them to one person, to one news agency, who then deliberately cherrypicked things to advance a distortion of what happened that day, an insult to the people who work here, an insult to the Capitol Police officers who were injured that day. That is not transparency. That is propaganda. That is deliberately distorting a horrific event in which this Capitol was attacked, our democracy was attacked. So, please, give me a break.

Madam Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution that affirms the House's unwavering commitment to protect and

strengthen Social Security and Medicare and states that it is the position of the House to reject any cuts in the program.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are the bedrocks of our Nation's social safety net. Yet, as my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills, these programs are under threat.

Despite recent rhetoric to the contrary, Republicans claim that they won't cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. Well, Madam Speaker, today, Democrats are yet again giving Republicans another chance to back up that claim with action by providing them a chance to reassure the American people not just with their words, but with their votes. Today, they can vote unequivocally that they will not cut these vital programs. Anything short of that is an empty promise.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alaska (Mrs. Peltola), to discuss our proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I don't want to be lectured about farms and our farmers. I represent a district with thousands of farms in it.

The bottom line is my farmers care about things like clean water. They care about the environment because they know that contaminated water can contaminate the food supply, among other things. My farmers are worried about climate change and the impact it is having on their ability to grow crops.

I don't want to be lectured about farms or what farmers want. I don't know of any farmer who wants to create a situation where polluters are basically not held accountable for the pollution they cause.

Think about what happened in East Palestine, Ohio. Is it the position of the Republicans that the railroad should not be required to pay for the damage that they have done, that the community should assume those costs, or the Federal Government? I don't know who should pay for it. The farmers should pay for that? Come on.

We can hear a lot about, ``This does X, Y, and Z,'' when we know it is an exaggeration.

Putting that aside, I will say for the record that I represent a lot of farmers. I talk to my farmers all the time. I do farm tours every single year. What they talk to me about is making sure that we have a clean environment, that they have access to clean water, and that we actually start paying attention to climate change, which is destroying their ability to be profitable and to be able to thrive.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I don't think there is any controversy over the bill to make as much of the classified report unclassified that is possible. There is no controversy over that.

I want to make sure that people understand who is responsible for actually doing the investigation. It was Joe Biden, not the previous President.

I want people to remember what the previous President said. On January 24, 2020, Donald Trump said: ``China has been working very hard to contain the coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American people, I want to thank President Xi.'' Really?

On February 7, 2020, Trump said: ``I just spoke to President Xi last night, and, you know, we are working on the problem, the virus. It is a very tough situation, but I think he is going to handle it. I think he has handled it really well. We are helping wherever we can.''

On February 7, he said: ``Just had a long and very good conversation by phone with President Xi of China. He is strong, sharp, and powerfully focused on leading the counterattack on the coronavirus. He feels they are doing very well, even building hospitals in a matter of only days. . . . Great discipline is taking place in China, as President Xi strongly leads what will be a very successful operation. We are working closely with China to help.''

Then he also said: ``Late last night, I had a very good talk with President Xi, and we talked about--mostly about the coronavirus. They are working really hard, and I think they are doing a very professional job. They are in touch with the world organization--CDC also. We are working together, but World Health is working with them. CDC is working with them. I had a great conversation last night with President Xi. It is a tough situation. I think they are doing a very good job.''

Then he said on February 10: ``I think China is very, you know, professionally run, in the sense that they have everything under control,'' Trump said. ``I really believe they are going to have it under control fairly soon. You know, in April, supposedly, it dies with the hotter weather, and that is a beautiful date to look forward to. But China, I can tell you, is working very hard.''

On February 13: ``I think they have handled it professionally, and I think they are extremely capable. And I think President Xi is extremely capable, and I hope that it is going to be resolved.''

On February 23, President Trump said: ``I think President Xi is working very, very hard. I spoke to him. He is working very hard. I think he is doing a very good job. It is a big problem, but President Xi loves his country. He is working very hard to solve the problem, and he will solve the problem. Okay?''

Then, on February 29, he said: ``China seems to be making tremendous progress. Their numbers are way down. . . . I think our relationship with China is very good. We just did a big trade deal. We are starting on another trade deal with China, a very big one, and we have been working very closely. They have been talking to our people. We have been talking to their people, having to do with the virus.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Politico titled: ``15 times Trump praised China as coronavirus was spreading across the globe.''

Madam Speaker, I remind my Republican colleagues that the leader of their own party repeatedly applauded China during the peak of the pandemic.

The bottom line is that we should all be grateful that we have a President now that has actually launched an investigation to get to the bottom of this.

Today, hopefully, we will, in a bipartisan way, vote to make as much of that investigation declassified as possible.

Let's not forget the history here. Let's not forget who was praising China's reaction to the coronavirus because I think it is important that we keep that in mind, especially listening to some of the rhetoric coming from the other side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this is the second time the gentleman has said that all the tapes of what happened on January 6 were released. Maybe he can tell us where the general public can find them. How do they get access to them?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman said that all the tapes had been released. The only person who got the tapes was a political hack at FOX News who used them to distort the reality and the truth and to insult the service of the people who work up here, including our Capitol Police officers.

I am for releasing as much as can be released so long as it doesn't violate any security protocols. Let's listen to what the U.S. Capitol Police chief said in response to Tucker Carlson's coverage of January 6. He said: ``Last night, an opinion program aired commentary that was filled with offensive and misleading conclusions about the January 6 attack. The opinion program never reached out to the department to provide accurate context.

``One false allegation is that our officers helped the rioters and acted as

`tour guides.' This is outrageous and false. The department stands by the officers in the video that was shown last night. I don't have to remind you how outnumbered our officers were on January 6. Those officers did their best to use deescalation tactics to try to talk rioters into getting each other to leave the building.

``The program conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video. The commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments.

``Finally, the most disturbing accusation from last night was that our late friend and colleague Brian Sicknick's death had nothing to do with his heroic actions on January 6. The department maintains, as anyone with common sense would, that had Officer Sicknick not fought valiantly for hours on the day he was violently assaulted, Officer Sicknick would not have died the next day.

``As some people select from 41,000 hours of video clips that seemingly support the narrative they want to push, those of you who were here on January 6, those of you who were in the fight, those of you who ensured that no Member of Congress was hurt, those of you who contributed to the effort to allow this country's legislative process to continue know firsthand what actually happened.''

I would just simply say, Madam Speaker, if we want to make sure that we do not see another January 6 ever again occur in our country's future, then we all ought to speak with one voice, condemn what happened that day, and characterize it for what it was: an attack on our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, when the gentleman says that what Tucker Carlson aired somehow destroyed the narrative, I mean, give me a break, he is essentially basically saying what happened on January 6 conforms with what Tucker Carlson said. It is offensive to everybody who was here that day. It is offensive to the staff, and it is offensive to the Capitol Police officers. It is offensive to everybody.

Madam Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman that what I said before was that I favored releasing tapes so long as they did not--it is my personal opinion--so long as they do not at all compromise any security. That is what I said.

But it is so sad to be on this House floor after what happened on that day and to hear Members of Congress basically try to cover up the horrendous atrocity that occurred that day, the attack on our democracy. It is shameful.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, what is just as revealing as what we are debating this week is what we are not talking about.

We are now 3 months into the Republican majority. They haven't passed a single bill into law yet, and, in fact, rather than debating things that people care about, we are spending week after week passing bills that are designed to get Facebook likes and retweets instead of making an actual difference with the people back home.

Three out of four Americans say that the Republicans in Congress do not have the right agenda.

Madam Speaker, if you want proof that they are right, then look no further than what so much of today's debate was focused on.

Democrats passed bills to bring jobs back from China and take on Putin's war of aggression. Republicans are passing bills to make it easier for Russia and China to spread their propaganda here in the United States.

Democrats passed laws holding polluters accountable, took action to get rid of lead pipes and clean up our rivers and lakes. Republicans are passing bills to protect the polluters that dump toxic chemicals into our water.

The American people expect more. They expect us to pass bills that actually matter to our families. Democrats have been putting people over politics to do it. We get stuff done while Republicans are chasing down the approval of the hyper online far right that spends all their time on Twitter trying to own the libs.

So that is why I am asking my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question so we can get this House on record as saying that we are going to protect Social Security and Medicare.

Finally, Madam Speaker, again, the idea that the leadership on the Republican side was complicit with FOX News and with Tucker Carlson to spread lies and distortions about what happened on January 6 and to insult the service of the brave men and women who protect this building and all of us who are in it is unconscionable.

It would be so refreshing for Republicans to join us in condemning the distortions that were on FOX News. It is stunning to me that we can't get any of them to condemn. Some of them--their Senate counterparts--did, and I praise them for it. But the silence here is deafening, and it is offensive. It is offensive.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

On that, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 199 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the pending resolution with an amendment that I have placed at the desk.

Madam Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported House Resolution 199, providing for consideration of three measures: H.R. 140, H.J. Res. 27, and S. 619.

The rule provides for H.R. 140 to be considered under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 27 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of S. 619, under closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Finally, the rule postpones the vote on a potential veto message from the President on H.J. Res. 30 until the legislative day of March 23.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation, H.R. 140, which went through regular order, which was marked up in the Oversight and Reform Committee, where Democrats had copious opportunities to offer amendments and to change the bill, as did Republicans.

H.R. 140 is called the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act, and would prohibit Federal employees from using their official authority to censor a private entity, including outside of normal duty hours or away from an employee's normal duty post.

Under President Biden, administration officials and Federal bureaucrats have abused their positions, authority, and influence to encourage censorship and erode Americans' First Amendment rights.

Recently released reports have uncovered efforts by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Homeland Security, and other government agencies to pressure social media companies and internet providers to censor and remove speech posted on social media platforms.

Advocates for this censorship flag certain posts and users as spreading misinformation on various topics, including COVID-19, racial justice, and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Executives at Facebook and Twitter have admitted that prior to the 2020 Presidential election, after a warning from the FBI, they censored the sharing of news regarding Hunter Biden's laptop leak, which has since been proven true. It was not a Russian disinformation campaign.

Even former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, during a July 2021 press briefing, called on Facebook to ban specific accounts from its platform.

Congress should recognize that the biggest spreader of misinformation over the last several years, whether it has been about elections or about COVID, has been the Federal Government.

The censorship must stop. Congress must restore constitutional protections enshrined in the First Amendment.

H.R. 140, and the amendments that are pending votes here as well, are critical to ensure that government officials can never again promote censorship and pressure private entities to suppress Americans' First Amendment rights.

Additionally, the rule before us provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 27, a resolution ``providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the rules submitted by the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised definition of `Waters of the United States.' ''

It is Groundhog Day again in America. Every time the administration changes, this rule changes.

The Biden administration's new rule would radically redefine the term ``Waters of the United States'' to expand the Federal Government's authority in regulating bodies of water.

Specifically, Biden's EPA would expand the term to include impoundments of jurisdictional waters, tributaries, adjacent wetlands, and additional waters.

To be clear, what the Biden administration is pushing through here will heap serious burdens on farmers, small businesses, homebuilders, and rural communities across our country.

In 1972, Congress didn't tell the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers: Do whatever you think is necessary to protect water. That is not what the bill said. Yet, that is what they have taken as their directive.

The Clean Water Act was never intended to be applied as broadly as the

Biden administration is proposing. Every Member of Congress should be concerned about the EPA's attempt to expand its authority over individuals' private property and regulate farms and communities, even those which lie far away from any lakes, rivers, or streams and very far away from Washington, D.C.

Congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility to provide oversight and to review regulations issued by the executive branch. If the executive branch promulgates rules that could overstep their authority, as President Biden is doing here, it is vital that we exercise our oversight authority in Congress.

Finally, the rule before us provides for consideration of S. 619, the COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023, which would finally declassify any information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of COVID-19.

In 2020, at the height of the pandemic, anyone who spoke out questioning whether COVID-19 might have come from the Wuhan lab in China was denounced as a conspiracy theorist, and their words were labeled as ``dangerous misinformation.'' People were censored online, their accounts were suspended, and their reputations were damaged for questioning the origins of COVID-19.

What is the difference between COVID-19 conspiracy theory and the truth? About 2 years. We have seen them called natural immunity conspiracy theories. We have seen people who said masks don't work called conspiracy theorists. Now, we are finding out that all of those conspiracy theories, so-called, were accurate.

Fast-forward to today. Even the government admits it. The Department of Energy and the FBI have both publicly reported their conclusions that COVID-19 likely emerged as a result of a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research institute in Wuhan, China, controlled by the People's Republic of China and, ultimately, the Chinese Communist Party.

Was it funded in part by our government? Yes, it was.

This legislation is long overdue and is necessary to expose the truth about the origins of COVID-19. Americans deserve to see the information. President Biden could have released this information at any point. It could have been released a year ago. It could be released today without this resolution. But this resolution is important because the President has not released this information. The last Congress, led by Speaker Pelosi, could have voted to do what we are doing here today. But no, they wanted it to remain hidden from the American public. I fear the Federal Government has been involved in a coverup about the origins of COVID-19 because they are afraid of being exposed as culpable in the creation of the disease at the center of the pandemic.

To my colleague's point about the videos that were released on Monday, I think the other side of the aisle is out of touch and out of step with the American public on this.

A recent poll by Rasmussen showed that 81 percent of likely voters believe that all of the tapes should be released. The Democrats had 2 years to release these tapes. But 81 percent of voters believe that.

Is that just Republicans? No.

Madam Speaker, 86 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats--they are out of step with their own party--believe that these videotapes should be released because Americans deserve to know the truth and the defendants in these trials deserve to have the evidence they need to present their defense.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article in the New York Post titled: ``10 myths told by COVID experts-- and now debunked,'' by Marty Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Madam Speaker, in this article that I have just referenced, misinformation No. 7 was that ``COVID originating from the Wuhan lab is a conspiracy theory.'' It is not. I think we are going to find that out when this resolution passes, and I expect a lot of Democrat support for the resolution. It passed by unanimous consent in the Senate.

``Google admitted to suppressing searches of `lab leak' during the pandemic. Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, claimed, and still does, he didn't believe the virus came from a lab.

``Ultimately, overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to a lab leak origin, the same origin suggested to Dr. Anthony Fauci by two very prominent virologists in a January 2020 meeting he assembled at the beginning of the pandemic. According to documents obtained by Bret Baier of FOX News, they told Fauci and Collins that the virus may have been manipulated and originated in the lab, but then suddenly changed their tune in public comments days after meeting with the NIH officials. The virologists were later awarded nearly $9 million from Fauci's agency.''

Maybe this is why we are not getting the truth yet. We will get the truth if this rule passes and the subsequent S. 619 passes here in the House. I think it is very important.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, although it is not the subject of today's resolution or any of the bills covered by this resolution, the Democrats just can't avoid talking about the release of the January 6 videos. They keep going back to it during this debate.

Madam Speaker, I would remind them that 78 percent of Democrats out in America support the release of all of these videos.

The fact that they are apoplectic about the few minutes of video that Tucker Carlson released on Monday shows that Tucker Carlson is over the target. For 2 years, they have been selectively releasing information and videos to set a narrative. In just a few minutes, the entire narrative was challenged--might I say it collapsed under the scrutiny, under the review of just a few minutes of undoctored video that came from this body.

I applaud Tucker Carlson for releasing that. The American people are right. If the Democrats are so upset that only a few of these videos were released, I would remind them that they were able to release these at any point in the past.

Moving on to something that is the subject of this resolution, I want to talk about the repeal of Joe Biden's 2023 WOTUS ruling, the waters of the U.S. ruling. Like I said before, it is ``Groundhog Day'' again.

Under President Bush, we had one set of rules that farmers, homebuilders, and landowners came to understand. They were a little hard to comply with because every division of the Army Corps of Engineers might interpret them differently, or different States would interpret them differently, or different bureaucrats at the EPA would interpret them differently.

Then, Obama came along with a rule to expand the definition of waters of the U.S., and then Trump came into office and the rules changed again. Now, Biden is here trying, once again, to change the rules on what are the waters of the U.S.

The farmers and homebuilders I talk to don't say they don't want any regulations. Nobody in this body has said no regulation is what we want.

The question is, give us clear, precise, understandable regulations we can follow that do not change. Frankly, those should be written by Congress. They shouldn't be made up by every administration that comes into power. Yet, that is what we are doing, or that is what has happened.

Today, we are talking about repealing those onerous changes and unclear changes. For instance, Susan Bodine testified in front of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee this year on this topic, and she talked about the significant nexus test that they apply in WOTUS 2023, waters of the U.S. To support expanded jurisdiction under this rule, the agencies now claim that isolated water can affect the biological integrity of navigable water.

What does that mean? If you have a puddle of water that a bird lands in and drinks from and takes some seeds or some larvae, and when it drinks and flies to a river and deposits it in its bird droppings, or maybe as it flies over the river and it doesn't even visit the river, if there is any kind of biological connection--and as we have found, everything is biologically connected on this planet. If there is any biological connection that they can establish between a puddle of water on your property and a navigable water, then they say, this is now covered under waters of the U.S. This is ridiculous.

The only certainty that our farmers and our landowners are going to get from Biden's 2023 WOTUS rule is the certainty that if a raindrop has fallen on your property, a government agent will show up someday and tell you what you can and can't do with that property under this rule.

That is why it is important for us to repeal that, and that is why this resolution is so important.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I said that the other side could have released them.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I surely didn't expect this to turn into a debate on the January 6 videotapes or to hear the Democrats propose that it sounds like they are in favor of all of the tapes being released instead of just some of them.

I think if the gentleman would review the transcript, and I could be wrong, but I think he will find out that I said Tucker Carlson only released a few minutes of that, and those few minutes were able to destroy the narrative that had been constructed over 2 years.

But if the gentleman cares to answer a question, then maybe we have come to some bipartisan agreement that all of the tapes should be released.

Madam Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman when he speaks next if he would speak to that topic and if he would be in favor of releasing all of the tapes instead of releasing them partially.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat serendipitous, but in the context of this debate on a rule about other bills, it seems we have come to some agreement, it appears to me, with the American people, 81 percent of whom believe that all of the tapes should be released. It seems as if we have come to some agreement that we all would be better off if we get to the bottom of the truth and all of the truth comes out and all of the tapes come out so that no one side can distort what actually happened that day, and then let the American people decide.

So in the interest of transparency and in the interest of getting back to the subject matter at hand, which are three bills covered by this rule, I want to talk about S. 619, which is so important. It is transparency, and it is the transparency that the American people deserve. It passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. Even though it seems like there is some opposition on the other side, I suspect we are going to get a lot of votes from Democrats on S. 619.

I think it is important to go on the record for elected Representatives to say whether or not they believe their constituents are entitled to the truth which our government possesses or at least information that they possess that would help somebody come to a conclusion of what the origins of this virus were and did they come from Wuhan.

The President could do this at any time. He could have done it at any time in the past 2 years. He hasn't done it. It is time to put him on the spot and say: You either veto this or you release that information that you have withheld from the American public for 2 years, which is too long. I suspect we could overcome his veto.

Next, Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the Waters of the U.S. rule.

Why is this timely?

Because on March 20 this goes into effect. That is why it is so urgent to repeal the 2023 Waters of the U.S. rule.

These are laws.

Were they written by lawmakers?

No. Our Founding Fathers created three branches of government. We have the executive branch which enforces laws, we have the judicial branch which resolves disputes, and we have the legislative branch which is supposed to make the laws. Yet, here we sit abdicating that authority and that responsibility. You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility, Madam Speaker.

We have a responsibility to the American people to make sure that these laws are concise, that they don't change on the whim of an executive who gets in the White House, that they are not onerous, that they have their intended effect, and that they are applied uniformly across the country.

Yet we have abdicated that responsibility. But we will take that responsibility back by the passage of this rule and the subsequent legislation to repeal the WOTUS, Waters of the United States 2023, by Joe Biden. We, the American people, deserve that.

Finally, I will close by talking about H.R. 140. This is a bill that went through regular order. What a wonderful thing. We have talked about it so much. It is a bill that covers one topic only. We have talked about that so much. Here we are, and we even have a chance--even though it was amended in the committee--to amend it here on the floor to perfect it even more for Members and by Members who aren't members of that committee.

Are these amendments that are not germane?

Are these the kind of amendments that the American people hate where Members offer an amendment and then they stick something into a bill that is completely unrelated to it?

No. Every one of these amendments is germane to this bill. We have made sure of that in the Rules Committee. The gentleman serves on the Rules Committee, and he had plenty of time to voice his concerns there.

So we have a lot of amendments that are great. I think they will improve the bill. But what is most important is that people have a chance to have their point made and to get a vote on this.

Finally, I will talk about what H.R. 140 would fix. It would fix this loophole that they think they have constructed that allows the Federal Government to violate the Constitution.

Obviously, Federal agents can't take away our First Amendment rights, and, obviously, the Constitution wasn't meant to bind social media companies. It was meant to bind the administration.

What we have is a loophole where the administration leans on a social media company that they are paying money to. Millions of dollars have gone to these social media companies from the CDC and from the FBI.

So when they say:

Would you pretty please ban this user?

Or:

Would you pretty please take down these posts? There is a

whole series of these posts.

The government doesn't get in line. They have a back door that they can trot to every day and submit lists of people whom they think should be banned because they don't like what they have said.

This is dangerous to our Republic. If the other side wants to call it a democracy, then it is dangerous to the democracy. But this is a republic.

Our government has built an elaborate but constitutionally unsound framework for violating these natural rights.

As we have seen with the Twitter files, they boldly work in close cooperation with private-sector actors who aren't subject to constitutional restrictions imposed on government by our Founders.

But they also claim foreign influence and national security so they can target U.S. citizens with agencies in the government under the military chain of command whose missions are ostensibly directed at foreign actors who have no constitutional rights.

Elected lawmakers be damned, legions of government lawyers create shaky legal scaffolding and ad hoc doctrine to indemnify the actors within our government who eagerly exploit these loopholes.

In this way, government actors can claim everything they do is legal. They have a bunch of lawyers to back them:

Oh, we didn't do anything illegal, it is all legal. Here,

look at our doctrine. The lawyers have gone through it, it is

all legal.

Here is the problem, Madam Speaker: much of what they do is unconstitutional.

So whose job is it to resolve that difference?

It is actually not the Supreme Court's job. We are entrusted with oversight. We all here swore an oath to the Constitution, and if we know that authorizations that we have made or that funding that we have appropriated has been twisted in a way to get around the Constitution or to drive through a loophole that some lawyers in the administrative branch have created, then it is our obligation--we owe it to the American people, we swore an oath to the Constitution--to fix that--not to make them go to court to get some remedy--but to fix it, to stop it in its tracks.

H.R. 140 with its pending amendments is a good down payment on that promise to the American people.

Madam Speaker, I support this rule, I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 140.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 140, the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act. This legislation is clearly needed.

During the Oversight and Accountability Committee's February 8 hearing on protecting speech from government interference and social media bias, the Oversight and Accountability Committee learned just how easy it was for the Federal Government to influence a private company to accomplish what it constitutionally cannot, and that is 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 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, a former FBI official and former Twitter employee, 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 from coercing 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 an 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 arguments.

If the administration feels it is losing the policy argument and 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 Federal officials in the U.S. Government view it as their role to censor the speech of Americans.

I urge all my colleagues to support this very necessary legislation.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chair, the problem I face is that the Federal employees see it as part of their job to censor Americans' First Amendment protected speech on social media and internet platforms, especially if the speech is misaligned or inconvenient for the administration's political priorities.

This legislation fixes and addresses this problem head-on with a narrow prohibition on the activities of civil servants.

This bill expands the Hatch Act to prohibit Federal employees from using their official authority to censor lawful speech on third-party online platforms. This is the first step toward important work that should be done in this space of addressing the challenges of preserving free speech on the internet for all Americans.

I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers for their early support in crafting this very important legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this necessary bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

The Protecting Free Speech from Government Interference Act ensures that this new prohibition on government censorship is enforced in the same way as the Hatch Act.

My colleague, Mr. Clyde's, amendment provides much-needed oversight of the implementation and enforcement of this new prohibited Federal employee activity. The amendment's required annual reports by the Attorney General--to be generated in consultation with the Office of Special Counsel--will help Congress evaluate the governmentwide compliance with this new prohibition.

The Clyde amendment will help create transparency and provide Congress valuable insight into any violations of this prohibition of government censorship. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia working with the committee on his amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment makes minor enhancements to this important piece of

legislation that were brought to our attention after our markup.

First, this amendment makes a few technical drafting edits. Second, this amendment clarifies the enforcement section of this legislation with the conforming edit to ensure that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel has the specific authority necessary to carry out the enforcement provisions this legislation establishes for senior government officials.

With this technical change to the special counsel's enforcement capabilities, we are ensuring that the real penalties we have introduced for senior officials can be carried out. We must ensure that senior officials will not escape accountability when they engage in government censorship prohibited by H.R. 140. This will help deter government employees.

Further, this amendment clarifies that the OSC can enforce a civil monetary fine of up to $10,000 against senior officials, as clearly intended by the text we reported out of committee.

Mr. Chair, I ask for my colleagues' full support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I just want to reiterate this. This bill protects the First Amendment rights for American citizens. My colleagues would like us to believe that by protecting an Americans' right to say whatever lawful speech they want, we are empowering Russia and China. It is just not true.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

The Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act prohibits Federal employees from censoring lawful speech while ensuring that the government can still protect American citizens and enforce the law. It does this by narrowly exempting lawful actions to exercise legitimate law enforcement functions from the prohibition on censorship.

These are lawful actions to suppress unlawful speech, such as child pornography, the illegal transportation of controlled substances, or preventing the unlawful dissemination of properly classified national security information.

My colleague's amendment further clarifies the initial intent of this exemption while preserving the bill's reporting requirement to provide Congress timely reports on any lawful actions taken by agencies under this exemption.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his engagement on this important issue.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

The Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act ensures that the new prohibition on government censorship is enforced in the same manner as the Hatch Act is currently enforced.

My colleague's amendment further strengthens this enforcement. It enshrines Congress' intent to ensure that the Office of Special Counsel continues to treat employees exercising public-sector union-negotiated official time as official duty time.

Official time is taxpayer funded, and this amendment makes certain the Hatch Act's new censorship prohibition will continue to act to apply to Federal employees on official time.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Good amendment.

This bill clarifies that Federal agencies are not prohibited from taking lawful actions to enforce our Nation's laws and regulations. My colleague's amendment clarifies that Federal agencies may still enforce our Nation's laws that combat obscene matters which are not protected by the First Amendment.

This amendment clarifies congressional intent that our Federal agencies must continue working to keep our children safe from the lewd materials so often circulating on the Internet. Protecting our children should be a central focus of this legislative body, and this amendment cements that commitment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is timely and necessary. We have learned just how easy it is for the Federal Government to influence a private company to limit the exercise of First Amendment protected speech.

During a recent hearing on the Twitter files, the Oversight and Accountability Committee heard from a former FBI official and Twitter employee who called for Federal legislation that would reasonably and effectively limit government interactions with private-sector platforms.

Let me be clear: A former FBI official and former Twitter employee endorsed and called for legislation just like this.

This legislation should not be controversial, but the intention of this amendment is to gut this bill. The intention of this amendment is to risk the implementation of this necessary legislation.

The inclusion of the clause this amendment removes is standard legislative practice. All this clause does is make sure that if a court decides to strike down any part of this act, that the rest of the act stays intact. It is that simple.

These clauses have been used in legislation for decades. Including a clause like the one in this legislation is standard practice that ensures that this much-needed and noncontroversial legislation can be faithfully implemented.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act aims to prevent Federal employees from censoring the lawful speech of Americans.

My colleague's amendment further strengthens the enforcement of this new prohibition on Federal employee actions by increasing the potential debarment penalty from 5 to 10 years.

Increasing this debarment for up to 10 years serves as a strong deterrent to Federal employees and clearly underscores Congress' understanding of the significant harm these censorship activities have done to America's trust in their Federal Government.

We must rebuild this public trust that the Federal agencies Congress is charged with conducting oversight over are operating within the boundaries of their lawful authorities.

Civil servants that extend their duties beyond their legal authority to encroach on the speech rights of Americans do not deserve to serve in our Nation's government.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ogles amendment.

The Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act introduces newly created civil fines for the most senior officials.

My colleague's amendment further strengthens this enforcement penalty for senior officials by increasing the civil monetary fines up to $50,000.

This $50,000 will serve as a deterrent to the administration's most senior officials--Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees and the White House staff--to prevent them from censoring the lawful speech of ordinary Americans.

It is especially important that our Nation's most senior leaders are held to a higher level of accountability given their higher level of influence.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) for proposing this amendment which preserves the carefully negotiated structure of the bill.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

How grateful I am to be on the floor with the distinguished gentleman from New York and, of course, our distinguished ranking member, who has really laid out the parameters of this legislation. I certainly acknowledge the manager of this underlying legislation and offer my thoughts, with a little bit of consternation.

I cherish the Constitution and cherish the First Amendment. It is first for a reason: The Founding Fathers were wise enough, even with some of the failings of the Constitution, including the existence of slavery--but they were wise enough to understand that the core of democracy is, in fact, the freedom to express, the freedom to associate, the freedom to access, the freedom of religion. The First Amendment captures all of those elements.

I am somewhat lost to connect this legislation to the protection of free speech. I do know that this is part of the unending obsession that my friends on the other side of the aisle have with Mr. Biden, President Biden, and his son.

All investigations that are relevant and that are concerning the American people's integrity or national security are important, but how do you stretch this legislation to suggest that it is a question of free speech in the decisions being made to hold or not hold on purposes that may be business purposes, for all we know, Mr. Chair? It may not be free speech.

I would say that there are many other instances that free speech has been stifled. We cannot discuss the history of African Americans through the misrepresentation of critical race theory.

We are getting orders in our States like Texas to not engage in diversity, equity, and exclusiveness.

This bill does not deal with free speech. This bill is a gotcha bill, and I ask my friends if we can, in a coordinated manner, discuss some of the important issues of the day that really need addressing.

I know that we will do the debt ceiling in months to come, but I would argue that we should protect the First Amendment, give everybody a right to freedom of speech and freedom of what they hear.

If they would join me on that, I would welcome their support in what true free speech is. We can hear, and we can speak. That is important.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge the ranking member and the chairman of the important Oversight and Reform Committee and the work that they do to ensure that government agencies work well.

As they do so, I would expect that their efforts would meet all tests of credibility and, as well, the four corners of the Constitution.

I have tried to study this legislation. However, it concerns me, again, because it would make it more difficult for Government agencies to share pertinent information with important stakeholders to keep our country safe.

With no clear exceptions for national security, this legislation would add burdensome and unworkable reporting requirements and a 72- hour waiting period which could be detrimental to our democratic institutions during times when communication is necessary to protect our democracy.

This bill is seeking to limit the lawful activities of Federal law enforcement agencies, and it is a threat to our national security.

All of us stand on this floor and stand shoulder to shoulder with law enforcement. Our firefighters are here on the campus. We stand shoulder to shoulder with them. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, this legislation would not show our confidence in those who have to do the job.

So I offer an amendment that provides a response to the section on severability that keeps the remaining portions of the act in place should a portion of the act or amendment made by the act be held to be unconstitutional. The insertion of such a severability clause in this bill is telling of the complete lack of faith, I believe, in the constitutional viability and credibility this entire bill aims to put forth.

While the general purpose of the severability doctrine clause is used to direct courts on what to do with a statute or a part of it, if a provision is invalidated, Congress is actually discouraged from using express severability clauses given it is unnecessary due to the court's strong presumption in favor of any such need for severability.

Moreover, Congress assumes its laws are constitutional. This should be constitutional. As such, the primary application of a severability clause is for the functionality of the statute and whether the surviving provisions are capable of functioning independently.

This is not free speech. The majority is denying our Federal officers free speech to do their job to protect America.

So the included general severability clause in H.R. 140 is not intended to provide clarity to the court on particular specific sections of this bill, but rather, it is an ill attempt to save a poorly written bill and one that steps on the First Amendment rights of our hardworking patriots--our Federal employees--because it is anticipated that this bill may be held unconstitutional.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, let me thank the gentleman from New York for his clarification. He was in the hearing. He heard the witness ask for relief. But I would say that gentleman did not ask to have, at the core of the relief, a legislative initiative rooted in far-right conspiracy theories despite the clear lack of evidence that any Biden administration official violated the First Amendment or censored Americans or social media platforms.

We want to make sure that we are safe and have national security, but at the same time, how are we going to amend the Hatch Act and really shut down those who are involved in law enforcement and national security?

We saw what happened on January 6. We need all of the communications and intelligence that we need, not only to protect our law enforcement but to protect the United States of America.

My amendment is necessary, Mr. Chairman. It is necessary because the court's presumption is that the statute is constitutional. If there is a section that is found unconstitutional, the court will yield to this idea that they will look at it in a manner to discern what are the facts.

My amendment simply says that to put this in the legislation, you are then going to have a guardrail against this bill being found unconstitutional.

With that in mind, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which is a clear expression of the law.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 6 which would strike Section 2, Subsection (e), the severability provision in H.R. 140--the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act.

Subsection (e) of Section 2 in H.R. 140 ``provides a severability clause that keeps the remaining portions of the Act in place should a portion of the Act, or an amendment made by the Act, be held to be unconstitutional.''

The insertion of such a severability clause in this bill is telling of the complete lack of faith

in the constitutional viability and credibility this entire bill aims to put forth.

While the general purpose of the severability doctrine clause is used to direct courts on what to do with the statute or a part of it, if a provision is invalidated, Congress is actually discouraged from using express severability clauses given it is unnecessary due to the court's strong presumption in favor of any such need for severability.

Moreover, Congress assumes its laws are constitutional. As such, the primary application of a severability clause is for the functionality of the statute and whether the surviving provisions are capable of functioning independently.

To include a general severability clause in H.R. 140 is not intended to provide clarity to the courts on particular or specific sections of this bill, but rather it is an ill attempt to save a poorly written bill that is anticipated to be unconstitutional in part or in whole.

Such a provision does not belong in this legislation and does not comport with traditional intended uses for such a doctrine typically preserved and carefully applied by courts (not legislators) in reviewing statutes in question as to unanticipated functionality or constitutionality concerns.

The entire bill as written is problematic, and such a clause would not save it.

For these reasons, I ask that my colleagues vote yes to the Jackson Lee amendment No. 6 to strike the severability clause of H.R. 140.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.