Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough that this bill is going to tell States how to run elections, bad enough this bill is going to require taxpayers to finance the elections of politicians who…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough that this bill is going to tell States how to run elections, bad enough this bill is going to require taxpayers to finance the elections of politicians who created the swamp so they can get back to the swamp, but what is most egregious about this legislation is the attack on free speech.
As the whip mentioned, the ACLU has said we should vote no on this bill because it unconstitutionally burdens free speech and association rights. Let me tell you how it does it. It uses our old friend the IRS.
Remember just a few years ago the IRS systematically targeted people for their political beliefs. They went after conservatives.
Now think about your First Amendment liberties, your right to practice your faith the way you want to, the right to assemble, the right to petition your government, freedom of the press.
What is the most fundamental liberty we have under the First Amendment? Your right to speak and particularly to speak in a political fashion, a political nature. That is what the IRS went after.
This bill does this. It gets rid of the schedule B protections that are currently in law. It says the reason the protection of schedule B information is important has nothing to do with vast conspiracies on the right or left related to so-called dark money. Rather, it dates back to the Supreme Court's 1958 decision NAACP v. Alabama. The Supreme Court formally recognized First Amendment protection of the freedom of association that prevented the NAACP from being compelled to turn over information about its members.
What this bill will do today is, when this information has been leaked, as it has already, everyday Americans will continue to receive death threats, mail containing white powder, all because someone disagrees with what they believe.
This bill should be defeated for one simple reason: It attacks our First Amendment liberties, our most sacred rights. This bill goes after it. That is why we should vote it down, and that is why I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 as currently drafted requires the Office of Government Ethics to make ethics waivers issued to executive branch employees publicly available. The bill goes even further to mandate ethics waivers issued prior to the enactment of this legislation must also be made publicly available.
This amendment requires OGE to submit a report to Congress within 45 days of enactment regarding the implications of the retroactive applications of the ethics waiver process.
H.R. 1 already gives the Office of Government Ethics vast new authorities and vast new responsibilities. This amendment would just place an additional burden on OGE, and I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that all Members oppose the amendment from the gentlewoman from Florida.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, this is duplicative of current rules. Political appointees are government employees who are held to specific travel and ethics standards already. Restrictions are there and have been there, but the Democrats seem to want more bureaucrats involved in the review.
Political appointees follow these fundamentals, among others, related to Federal travel: travel must be conducted in the most efficient and effective manner and only when necessary to accomplish the purposes of the government, and employees traveling on official business are expected to exercise the same care when incurring expenses as a prudent person would on personal business.
Current Federal travel guidelines for political appointees already limit travel flight expenses to common carrier commercial fares. The only time private company aircraft can be accepted is if no other travel arrangements are practically available or when they are offered to your spouse, but explicitly not because of the political appointee's position. Either way, all of this would be required to be run through the White House Counsel's office.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that we oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman said, this amendment would require the Office of Government Ethics to promulgate rules to apply ethics laws to unpaid employees of the Executive Office and President of the White House. As she also mentioned, this is clearly to go after Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. It seems to me that this is not the kind of thing that we should be focused on.
Miss Trump has been appointed as an executive branch employee and is now covered by the ethics laws and regulations that apply to all executive branch employees. It seems to me this is congressional overreach and redundant of current ethics rules and practices of other folks who have worked in the executive branch.
As I said, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, another bad amendment to a bad bill. This amendment suffers from the same defects as the underlying bill. It continues the same regrettable trend by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle of trying to silence speakers they don't like.
Portions of this bill are so radical that, as we have said several times already, even the ACLU came out today and asked Members of this body not to vote for it. The ACLU said H.R. 1 would unconstitutionally burden free speech and associational rights. This amendment is more of the same tactics that caused the ACLU to oppose the underlying legislation.
As I said, a bad amendment to a bad bill. Put that all together, it makes everything worse.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act, which this amendment would seek to change, is about disclosure and increasing public awareness, not preventing people from undertaking a lawful profession. The decision of whether to undertake representation of a client is a personal and professional matter, not one for central government planning.
What my friends on the other side of the aisle seem not to understand is the answer to speech that they view as undesirable is more speech. It is called the First Amendment. It is called debate. The Federal Government should not and cannot constitutionally prevent the people it does not like from speaking.
And we know it has tried. Just a few years ago, it did it. And I will continue to bring this up as long as the good folks in the Fourth District will have me in Congress.
A few years ago, the IRS systematically, for a sustained period of time, went after people for their political beliefs--it happened; they did it--for the most fundamental liberty we have, our right to speak.
Think about the First Amendment, freedom to practice your faith the way you want, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition your government, freedom of the press. All those are critically important.
But your right to speak is fundamental, and your right to speak in a political fashion is what the Founders had most in mind when they talked about your free speech, First Amendment rights.
This amendment goes to restrict it just like the bill does, and that is why the ACLU is against it. That is why I am against it.
This is a bad idea to a bad piece of legislation. I mean, think about what is going on, on college campuses today: safe spaces, free speech zones, bias response teams. If you say something politically incorrect today on a college campus, you get harassed.
In the last Congress, I asked a question in committee to a professor from one of these universities that are taxpayer subsidized. I said: Can a free speech zone and a safe space on a college campus be at the same location?
He kind of chuckled. That is sort of the joke, because where is the free speech zone supposed to be in this country? Everywhere. It is called the First Amendment.
I asked this one professor: Professor, in a safe space on a college campus, could I say this sentence: ``Donald Trump is President''?
Think about this. Think about this. The professor began his response with this: Well, Congressman, it depends.
I interrupted him, which I will do sometimes if I think the witness is saying something stupid.
I said: It is a fact. There is no ``it depends'' about it. He got elected on November 8, 2016. He is President of the United States. He lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is a fact.
The idea that on some college campuses you can't say that because you are in some safe space is crazy. This is the absurd level that some on the left want to take us to when we are talking about the First Amendment.
Thank goodness--thank goodness--the ACLU sees it for what it is and says vote ``no'' on this bill.
Heck, yes, I am opposed to this amendment, just like I am opposed to the underlying legislation.
Mr. Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, the Office of Government Ethics already consults with legal defense funds when prompted. OGE already published two legal advisories around legal defense funds that define gifts according to current U.S. Code and the ``Standard of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch.'' Any legal defense fund reviewed by OGE bars the trustee from accepting donations from already prohibited sources.
Mr. Chair, I urge that Members oppose this bad amendment to an already terrible underlying piece of legislation, and, respectfully, I yield back the balance of my time.