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…
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.
I reserve the balance of my time.
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, I yield back 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.