Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you and this body as the only Member who was in Israel on October 7, hiding in a stairwell with my wife and three young kids to avoid rockets sent our way by a brutal terrorist regime. Twenty-seven days later, there are 240 hostages that remain in Gaza. My children are still traumatized, but their trauma does not compare to the trauma every single Israeli feels after the most barbaric and horrific terrorist attack targeting Jews since the Holocaust.

So to my Republican colleagues, please spare me the lectures about what is best for Israel.

Mr. Speaker, you will not find a Member of Congress who is more supportive of Israel than I am. That is why I am so personally disappointed that the House Republicans have chosen to divide us by playing political games with aid for Israel when what Israel needs desperately right now is our unified and unconditional support.

Mr. Speaker, 412 Members of this body voted last week to condemn Hamas and support Israel, but today for the first time ever, Republicans have put conditions on emergency aid to Israel in a purely political ploy designed to divide us. This is a terrible precedent for the future of Israel.

I look forward to supporting the full amount of Israel aid that is in this bill when it comes back from the Senate as soon as possible and without conditions.

Support for Israel may be a political game for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but this is personal for us Jews, and it is existential for the one Jewish nation in the world that is a safe haven against the rising tide of anti-Semitism across the globe.

This is a shameful effort to use Israel and the Jewish people as a political weapon.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution to expel George Santos from Congress, as I did in May when I cosponsored a similar expulsion resolution that the sponsors of today's resolution, my Republican colleagues from New York, did not support.

I agree with everything that my Republican colleagues have said here today, but everything they have said here today was also true in May when they voted to protect George Santos.

Has there been anything that has changed? Nothing about the numerous lies that Mr. Santos admitted himself to making in order to deceive his voters into electing him, nothing about his status as an indicted criminal defendant. Yes, there has been a superseding indictment with more allegations of criminal conduct, but he is still presumed innocent until proven guilty, as my New York friends relied upon in May when they voted to protect George Santos from expulsion.

Nothing has changed from the Ethics Committee, even though one of my colleagues from New York said that the Ethics Committee would expedite its investigation and release a report 60 days from the date of that May vote. Well, we are now 175 days since then and there is no ethics report that would prompt a change of heart.

One thing that has changed is that Mr. Santos' campaign treasurer pled guilty to fraud and admitted under oath that she conspired with Mr. Santos to fabricate a nonexistent $500,000 loan to his campaign, but the resolution drafted by my friends from New York does not even mention that new fact.

What really has changed since May? Is it because we are learning revelations of connections between Mr. Santos and our other Republican colleagues from New York serving in this body? Maybe. There is certainly one

thing we know that is motivating this change of heart: the 2024 election.

I know that the people of New York care about integrity. They care that one of their Republican Representatives is a liar and a fraud. They care about the fact that Mr. Santos has done nothing to serve his constituents yet still provides a loyal and vital vote to the Republican Party.

George Santos hangs like an albatross around the necks of every single Republican from New York. They don't care any more today about integrity or morality or the reputation of this institution than they did in May when they voted to protect Mr. Santos. They just care about their reelection in 1 year, when they know that their support for George Santos is going to be a problem.

Mr. Santos should be expelled from Congress today for the same reasons that he should have been expelled in May. He himself admitted to numerous lies that he made during the campaign to deceive the voters. He is only walking these Halls and voting on this floor because of those lies. Now, we have additional testimony that he conspired to commit fraud.

Democrats will once again vote to expel someone who should never have had the honor of walking these Halls and voting on legislation affecting the American people. The only question is whether Republicans care more about honor and integrity than they do about political power.

I hope the answer is yes, but I fear the answer is no.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Parent Child Relationship Association (PCR) on the occasion of its 5th anniversary. PCR is a volunteer run nonprofit organization that rose to the challenge to provide essential services to some of the most vulnerable residents of New York's Congressional District 10.

The South Brooklyn neighborhood of Sunset Park and its neighboring Dyker Height and Bensonhurst are home to New York's fastest growing Chinese immigrant community. The influx of the immigrant population invigorated local cultural and economic life, and it also brought great needs for social services. Nicole Huang established PCR in 2018, after having successfully organized local immigrant parents and youths to volunteer for community improvement projects and to provide mutual assistance.

In the 5 years since, PCR has expanded rapidly, becoming an essential service provider for Chinese-speaking community members that are in need of culturally competent services in Sunset Park. Every year, hundreds of volunteers contribute countless hours through PCR to provide services that benefit many thousands that are in need. In addition to promoting civic engagement and providing essential social services, PCR also organizes community mental health workshops and steadfastly champions mental health awareness for youths, mothers and the elderly.

When the COVID-19 pandemic devastated New York City in 2020, PCR stepped up to serve when the community fell into crisis. From collecting PPE donation and distributing them to hospitals and senior centers, to managing a weekly community food pantry, to assisting the victims of multiple devastating fires in Sunset Park who faced threat of homelessness in the middle of the pandemic, Nicole Huang and her volunteers were always on the frontline serving and uplifting the most vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating the ongoing work of PCR for the Chinese immigrant community of Brooklyn. It has made a significant contribution in making New York the vibrant city of immigrants and diverse cultures that exemplifies the promise of the United States and the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3941, which is an inhumane, xenophobic messaging bill that seeks to punish the local governments that are welcoming and supporting migrants arriving from collapsing authoritarian governments to pursue their American Dream.

I come from New York City, which has embraced, housed, fed, vaccinated, and supported more than 80,000 migrants in the past year in the finest traditions of the home of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, where my grandmother arrived in this country.

We in New York City are incredibly proud of being what my distinguished colleague from New York refers to as a sanctuary city. I wish all of America could be a sanctuary country in the finest traditions of welcoming immigrants to our shores.

In the past year, there has not been a single violent incident at any of the nearly 200 shelters housing newly arrived migrants in New York City--not one. You tell me another community of 80,000 people where there is not a single violent incident. I challenge everyone.

It is a remarkable feat, and it demonstrates these individuals' desires, basic desires, to come and settle in this country and escape regimes that are cratering in Central and Latin America.

Despite the excessive burdens on the city's infrastructure and budget, many of the counties represented by the Republican sponsors of this bill have refused to accept migrants, and now they are trying to make it even harder to temporarily house migrants around the State in places that are empty for the summer.

This is simply another attempt by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to demonize immigrants seeking a better life in this country, a continuation of the effort to sow fear, division, and hate around the country.

My colleague from New York is right. We are in desperate need of immigration reform so that we can streamline and modernize our immigration system, boost our economy, and secure our borders. However, instead of using their majority to address our broken immigration system, Republicans are putting forward a meaningless and useless bill designed to scapegoat immigrants instead of solving our problems.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly wanted to address the influx of migrants into our communities, they would work with us to alleviate the financial strain on cities all around the country. They would come together with us to allow these migrants to work legally, which would not only allow them to support their families but would help businesses in desperate need of labor from a workforce shortage, would boost our economy, and, of course, would have the benefit of helping our local governments.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about protecting schools or children. It is the summertime, and the schools are mostly empty. If Republicans truly wanted to protect our schools and our children, they would instead focus on cracking down on rampant gun violence in our schools.

Just this year, there have been 20 school shootings, and gun violence is now the leading cause of death of children in America. Parents are not worried about migrants in schools during the summer. Parents are worried that their children won't come home from school. Republicans, instead, do nothing to keep our children safe at school.

Mr. Speaker, you can put lipstick on a pig, but dressing up your anti-immigrant xenophobia by invoking our schools does not change the fact that this bill is, in fact, covered by mud. I urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the birthday of Ms. Jackie Rowe-Adams and her inspirational life and remarkable accomplishments.

Jackie suffered the devastating loss of not one but two sons to gun violence in her Harlem neighborhood. Rather than succumb to her sorrow, she turned her heartbreaking pain into a powerful purpose by founding Harlem Mothers S.A.V.E., an organization dedicated to ending the traumatic scourge of gun violence in this country.

Always dressed in brightly colored matching outfits, Jackie is a fixture in her community, having served on multiple community boards, as president of her school board, and on a number of other boards and commissions. However, it is her dedication to her neighborhood's youth and her activism in ending gun violence that has drawn the admiration and respect of everyone in New York City.

It is an honor to know Jackie and a privilege to consider her a friend, and it is an even greater honor to be able to share her inspiring story here on the House floor. I wish her the happiest of birthdays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for yielding.

Boy, is Adam Schiff powerful. He can, at once, be the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the special counsel investigating Donald Trump, manage and run the FBI, and be a judge ruling on FISA applications. It is remarkable that he from his perch in Congress can do all of that.

Of course, he didn't do any of that. All he did was properly impeach the President of the United States for his gross abuse of power.

Mr. Speaker, do you want to talk about collusion?

Let me ask my Republican colleagues: If a campaign manager for a campaign is giving internal information to a Russian intelligence agent, is that collusion?

Because that was the once-classified information that is now public and now constitutes collusion. There are so many other issues. There is nothing in this resolution that is true.

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues said that we will hold Members accountable.

The Republicans are the party of George Santos.

Whom are they holding accountable?

The guy is an alleged and acknowledged liar and indicted, and the Republicans protect him every day.

Mr. Speaker, don't lecture us with your projection and your defense of Donald Trump. It is pathetic, it is beneath you, and it is beneath this body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the month of May as Jewish American Heritage Month. As a proud American Jew and the Representative of one of the largest Jewish populations in a Congressional district in the country, Jewish American Heritage Month is particularly meaningful to me.

Jewish Americans have made countless contributions to our great Nation, and at a time when Jews continue to be the single most targeted religious minority in this country, I encourage all of us to take this month to recognize and appreciate the deep connections and rich history the Jewish people have to America.

I also rise today to recognize 3 prominent constituents of my district. They stand as exemplars of the achievements of American Jews and are befitting of this great honor.

Dolly Rabinowitz is a 94-year-old Holocaust survivor who has lived in New York since the end of WW2. She was born in Czechoslovakia to a rabbinical family and when she was 19, her family was told to pack up for an unknown village. From there she was forced to endure the barbaric cruelty of Auschwitz and the Death March to the Ravensbruck concentration camps. After experiencing unspeakable atrocities simply because of her faith, Dolly was liberated by the Allies in 1945. Following the war, Dolly emigrated to the United States and has lived in New York ever since, working as a bookkeeper and participating in Jewish life across the city. Dolly is one of a dwindling number of Holocaust survivors and we must pass along her story and others, so we never forget.

Yidel Perlstein is a local leader and the Chairman of Community Board 12 in Borough Park. He was the first Hasidic Jew to lead this impactful community organization and was just reelected after more than a decade in that position. With Yidel at the helm, CB12 has continued to lead many aspects of life in Borough Park--organizing voter outreach, community forums, and representing Borough Park's interests to elected officials across the country. On Jewish holidays you can find Yidel running food drives for needy people across Borough Park, demonstrating the spirit of giving that typifies the tight-knit bond of the Brooklyn Hasidic community.

Lieutenant Special Assignment Ira Jablonsky of the New York City Police Department has been on the force for over two decades. He grew up attending Brooklyn Yeshivas and was interning at the Office of Emergency Management on 9/11. After seeing the first tower hit, Lt. Jablonsky jumped into action, running into 7 World Trade and helping as many people as he could before they were ordered to evacuate. Lt. Jablonsky is a Brooklyn yeshiva graduate and has worked in the community his entire career to make it safer for New Yorkers and fellow Orthodox Jews alike. He demonstrates the importance of having Jews represented in law enforcement, working to catch several high-profile antisemitic vandals who threaten the safety and security of Jewish Brooklynites. His service to his community does not go unnoticed, and I am honored to give him this distinction today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing May as Jewish American Heritage Month as well as these 3 outstanding Jewish Americans who represent the best of what our community offers their communities, their city and state, and their country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Republican efforts to extort President Biden and the American people.

As a former prosecutor who prosecuted the Italian mob for extortion, I do not use that term lightly, but that is exactly what the Republicans are doing to hold America hostage to their extreme views.

Make no mistake about it: House Republicans would never pass the draconian spending cuts that they are pushing if they had to go through the regular budget and appropriations process with a Democratic- controlled Senate and a Democrat in the White House, and they know that. That is why they are using the threat of default on our debts, which would devastate our economy, to extract concessions that they would otherwise never get.

You don't have to take my word for it. One Republican Member said just yesterday, ``Why would we negotiate with our hostage?''

To understand how unreasonable and how twisted their rationale is, consider the Speaker's response when asked by a reporter what concessions he has offered Democrats.

He stated one thing in response: Raising the debt ceiling.

That is not a concession. That is their constitutional duty to maintain the full faith and credit of the United States.

Our deficit is where it is today largely because of the excessive spending and serious, severe tax cuts that the Trump administration implemented.

These same Republicans had no problem raising the debt limit three times without demanding any spending cuts.

Republicans have a responsibility to ensure that we pay our debts, created on their watch, so we don't default and so the global economy does not crater, which would cause millions of Americans to lose their jobs, their benefits, their healthcare, their food, and their education.

We could raise the debt ceiling today if any five Republicans had the courage to stand up to the most extreme voices in their party who view the default on our debts and the catastrophic effect it would have on the global economy as an objective in and of itself.

Our Constitution states that the validity of the public debt authorized by law shall not be questioned. Yet, Republicans insist that this constitutional obligation does not apply to them.

We must stop playing politics with our global economy, and we must stand strong because we cannot and will not negotiate with extortionists.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the motion to refer the resolution to expel George Santos to the House Ethics Committee.

This is already an ongoing investigation in the Ethics Committee based on a complaint that I filed in January. This resolution was already referred to the Ethics Committee on February 9, but as is customary and as my Republican colleagues know very well, that investigation is on hold until the Federal criminal investigation and prosecution is resolved. So despite my colleagues' statements to the contrary, there will be nothing quick about the Ethics Committee's process.

This motion today was, therefore, simply a way for Republicans to continue to cover for Mr. Santos.

Many have called for his removal, especially freshman Republican Members from New York, but when finally given an opportunity to walk the talk, they instead sat with Mr. Santos.

Make no mistake about it: A vote in support of this motion today is a vote in support of Mr. Santos.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was not able to be present to vote on H.R. 3089 and H. Res. 363. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 213 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 214.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today during Jewish American Heritage Month with a message of grave concern about the troubling rise in anti-Semitism around the country and the even more troubling normalization of that anti-Semitism.

Recent data shows that anti-Semitic incidents rose again last year by 36 percent, and New York continues to lead the country in such hateful incidents.

I am not immune from it myself, as you can see from just a small sampling of anti-Semitic attacks I personally have received on social media.

At a recent Judiciary Committee field hearing in my district, a man welcomed us with this sign about George Soros, which is unquestionably and flagrantly anti-Semitic.

As the Biden administration prepares to roll out its national strategy to counter anti-Semitism, I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop invoking George Soros' name and join together to combat the startling rise of anti-Semitism.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2, which is a cruel and draconian bill that demonizes asylum seekers, harms unaccompanied migrant children, and defunds programs that support nonprofit organizations and local governments that are essential to the humane processing of asylum seekers coming to our shores hoping for a better life.

Just a brief response to the gentleman from Florida. Our law says that anyone crossing the border anywhere can apply for asylum. There is no such thing as lawful asylum and unlawful asylum. In fact, this is an area that we should address in a bipartisan way. We are in desperate need for comprehensive immigration reform. We need thoughtful and effective border security. We need more immigration judges to process asylum applicants. We need more visas for those to enter this country legally, and we need a pathway to citizenship that all of our ancestors have benefited from.

But this bill is the opposite of that. It was unilaterally written by House Republicans as a partisan messaging bill with no chance of becoming law. With this bill, Republicans are putting politics over people.

In our committee, Democrats offered more than 30 amendments to try to amend and improve this bill. Every single Republican voted ``no'' on every single amendment. One even expressed shock that Democrats would dare to try to change their bill.

Sadly, the Republicans rejected one of my amendments that would do more to address border security and fentanyl trafficking than anything else in this bill: An amendment to stop the massive flood of American guns to drug cartels in Mexico, those same cartels that the chairman from Tennessee says are in control of the border. These guns give the cartels their power, it fuels the violence, and facilitates their illegal trade.

Mexico has one gun shop, and it takes months of background checks to purchase a gun. But the latest estimates that we have here are that more than 500,000 American-made guns are exported to Mexico, including assault weapons of war, and many land in the hands of cartels to fuel their human and drug trafficking operation. There isn't a single mention of guns in H.R. 2, not one.

This bill is supposed to be about border security. Our border is broken, as one of my colleagues just said. How can we fix the border when the cartels are ruling it with American guns? Any serious attempt to secure our borders has to address the exportation of more than 500,000 American guns per year to Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, just like the gun violence epidemic that is ravaging our country, Republicans refuse to address the source of the problem. We need comprehensive immigration reform, meaningful solutions to address our broken immigration system, and to live up to our American values. This bill is nothing of the sort. Instead, it turns a real crisis that needs serious solutions into a political messaging tool.

Mr. Speaker, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Last week, Speaker McCarthy came to my district to speak at the New York Stock Exchange to give a speech about this proposed default on America act.

He threatened the Nation with economic catastrophe if we do not bend to the draconian cuts to spending for services that are essential to lifting up working and middle-class Americans.

The DOA doesn't touch the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy. It doesn't touch defense spending. Instead, it solely targets domestic spending that hundreds of millions of Americans depend on, with an average cut of about 22 percent on those programs.

In my district alone, which is in New York City, there are more than 200,000 people who rely on Medicaid who will be at risk of losing their coverage.

In my district, there are 31 public housing NYCHA complexes that are crumbling that rely on funds from HUD just to maintain their poor condition, and those funds would be slashed.

This is not a theoretical discussion. This will do real and devastating harm to people in my district and around the country. We must not pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was not able to be present to vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 190, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 191, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 192.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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.