[House Report 118-5]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress }                                          { Report 
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session   }                                          { 118-5

======================================================================
 
          PROTECTING SPEECH FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE ACT

                                _______
                                

 March 2, 2023.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Comer, from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 140]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Oversight and Accountability, to whom was 
referred the bill (H.R. 140) to amend title 5, United States 
Code, to prohibit Federal employees from advocating for 
censorship of viewpoints in their official capacity, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as 
amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Summary and Purpose of Legislation...............................     4
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     4
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     7
Legislative History..............................................     8
Committee Consideration..........................................     9
Roll Call Votes..................................................     9
Explanation of Amendments........................................    18
List of Related Committee Hearings...............................    18
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................    19
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    19
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................    19
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    19
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................    19
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement.........................    19
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement...........................    20
Earmark Identification...........................................    20
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    20
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost 
  Estimate.......................................................    20
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    21
Minority Views...................................................    23

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Speech from Government 
Interference Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL EMPLOYEE CENSORSHIP.

  (a) In General.--Chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SUBCHAPTER VIII--PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL EMPLOYEE CENSORSHIP

``Sec. 7381. Policy regarding Federal employee censorship

  ``It is the policy of the Congress that employees acting in their 
official capacity should neither take action within their authority or 
influence to promote the censorship of any lawful speech, nor advocate 
that a third party, including a private entity, censor such speech.

``Sec. 7382. Prohibition on Federal employee censorship

  ``(a) In General.--An employee may not--
          ``(1) use the employee's official authority to censor any 
        private entity, including outside of normal duty hours and 
        while such employee is away from the employee's normal duty 
        post; or
          ``(2) engage in censorship of a private entity--
                  ``(A) while the employee is on duty;
                  ``(B) in any room or building occupied in the 
                discharge of official duties by an individual employed 
                or holding office in the Government of the United 
                States or any agency or instrumentality thereof;
                  ``(C) while wearing a uniform or official insignia 
                identifying the office or position of the employee;
                  ``(D) while using any vehicle owned or leased by the 
                Government of the United States or any agency or 
                instrumentality thereof; or
                  ``(E) while using any information system or 
                information technology (as defined under section 11101 
                of title 40).
  ``(b) Exceptions for Law Enforcement Functions and Reporting 
Requirements.--
          ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
        to prohibit an employee from engaging in lawful actions within 
        the official authority of such employee for the purpose of 
        exercising legitimate law enforcement functions, including 
        activities to--
                  ``(A) combat child pornography and exploitation, 
                human trafficking, or the illegal transporting of or 
                transacting in controlled substances; and
                  ``(B) safeguarding, or preventing, the unlawful 
                dissemination of properly classified national security 
                information.
          ``(2) Reporting.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Not later than 72 hours before an 
                employee exercises a legitimate law enforcement 
                function to take any action to censor any lawful speech 
                (in this paragraph referred to as a `censorship 
                action'), but not including any such action relating to 
                activities described under subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
                paragraph (1), the head of the agency that employs the 
                employee shall submit, to the Office of Special Counsel 
                and the chair and ranking member of the committees of 
                Congress described under subparagraph (B), a report 
                that includes--
                          ``(i) an overview of the action, or actions, 
                        to be taken, including a summary of the action 
                        being taken and the rationale for why a 
                        censorship action is necessary;
                          ``(ii) the name of the entity which the 
                        action is being requested of;
                          ``(iii) the person and entity targeted by the 
                        censorship action, including the associated 
                        name or number of any account used or 
                        maintained by the entity and a description of 
                        the specific speech content targeted;
                          ``(iv) the agency's legal authority for 
                        exercising the law enforcement function;
                          ``(v) the agency employee or employees 
                        involved in the censorship action, including 
                        their position and any direct supervisor;
                          ``(vi) a list of other agencies that have 
                        been involved, consulted, or communicated with 
                        in coordination with the censorship action; and
                          ``(vii) a classified annex, if the agency 
                        head deems it appropriate.
                  ``(B) Committees.--The committees of Congress 
                described under this subparagraph are the following:
                          ``(i) The Committee on Oversight and 
                        Accountability, the Committee on the Judiciary, 
                        and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
                        House of Representatives; and
                          ``(ii) The Committee on Homeland Security and 
                        Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the 
                        Judiciary, and the Committee on Commerce, 
                        Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
                  ``(C) Clarification of office of special counsel 
                reporting requirements.--The reporting requirements in 
                this paragraph do not apply to the Office of Special 
                Counsel's advisory and enforcement functions under 
                subchapter II of chapter 12.
  ``(c) Penalties.--
          ``(1) In general.--An employee who violates this section 
        shall be subject to--
                  ``(A) disciplinary action consisting of removal, 
                reduction in grade, debarment from Federal employment 
                for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, or 
                reprimand;
                  ``(B) an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed 
                $1,000; or
                  ``(C) any combination of the penalties described in 
                subparagraph (A) or (B).
          ``(2) Application to senior government officials.--Paragraph 
        (1)(B) shall be applied by substituting `$10,000' for `$1,000' 
        for any employee who is--
                  ``(A) paid from an appropriation for the White House 
                Office; or
                  ``(B) appointed by the President, by and with the 
                advice and consent of the Senate;
  ``(d) Enforcement.--This section shall be enforced in the same manner 
as subchapter III of this chapter.
  ``(e) Definitions.--In this subchapter--
          ``(1) the term `censor' or `censorship' means influencing or 
        coercing, or directing another to influence or coerce, for--
                  ``(A) the removal or suppression of lawful speech, in 
                whole or in part, from or on any interactive computer 
                service;
                  ``(B) the addition of any disclaimer, information, or 
                other alert to lawful speech being expressed on an 
                interactive computer service; or
                  ``(C) the removal or restriction of access of any 
                person or entity on an interactive computer service 
                generally available to the public, unless such person 
                or entity is engaged in unlawful speech or criminal 
                activities on such service;
          ``(2) the term `employee' has the meaning given that term in 
        section 7322;
          ``(3) the term `interactive computer service' has the meaning 
        given that term in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 
        1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)); and
          ``(4) the term `lawful speech' means speech protected by the 
        First Amendment of the Constitution.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 73 of 
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

      ``subchapter viii--prohibition on federal employee censorship

``7381. Policy regarding Federal employee censorship.
``7382. Prohibition on Federal employee censorship.''.

  (c) Including Censorship Activities Under Jurisdiction of Office of 
Special Counsel.--Strike paragraph (1) of section 1216(a) of title 5, 
United States Code, and insert the following:
          ``(1) political activity and censorship prohibited under 
        subchapter III and subchapter VIII of chapter 73, relating to 
        political and censorship activities, respectively, by Federal 
        employees;''.
  (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act or any amendment made 
by this Act should be interpreted as prohibiting a lawful action by a 
Federal agency to enforce a Federal law or regulation, to establish or 
enforce the terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance, or to 
prohibit a Federal employee from using an official Federal account on 
an interactive computer service to communicate an official policy 
position, and relevant information, to the public, or provide 
information through normal press and public affairs relations.
  (e) Severability.--If any provision of this Act or any amendment made 
by this Act, or the application of a provision of this Act or an 
amendment made by this Act to any person or circumstance, is held to be 
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, and the application of the 
provisions to any person or circumstance, shall not be affected by the 
holding.

                   SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION

    H.R. 140 expands the Hatch Act--the law prohibiting federal 
employees from engaging in political activities in their 
official capacity--to expressly prohibit those same federal 
employees from censoring lawful speech. Additionally, H.R. 140 
prohibits agency employees from using their authority to 
influence or coerce a private sector entity to censor--
including to remove, suppress, restrict, or add disclaimers or 
alerts to--any lawful speech posted on its service by a person 
or entity. H.R. 140 provides an exception for legitimate law 
enforcement activities reported to Congress for review.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    On July 15, 2021, Jen Psaki, then the White House Press 
Secretary, used a press briefing to call for Facebook to ban 
specific accounts from its platform. During this press 
briefing, Psaki stated ``We're flagging problematic posts for 
Facebook that spread disinformation.''\1\ The next day, July 
16, 2021, Jen Psaki clarified the administration's involvement 
further by stating that the Biden White House was in regular 
contact with social media companies to flag or raise concerns 
about certain types of information on their platforms.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Jen Psaki, Press Secretary, White House, and Dr. Vivek H. 
Murthy, Surgeon General, Press Briefing (July 15, 2021).
    \2\Jen Psaki, Press Secretary, White House, Press Briefing (July 
16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In August 2022, Mark Zuckerburg confirmed that Facebook's 
censorship of the New York Post story about Hunter Biden's 
laptop followed warnings from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) that Facebook should be cautious of 
misinformation and foreign interference ahead of the 2020 
election.\3\ Twitter's decision to censor the New York Post 
story about Hunter Biden's laptop followed the company's close 
relationship with state and federal officials--including the 
FBI.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Jared Gans, Zuckerberg Tells Rogan Facebook Suppressed Hunter 
Biden Laptop Story after FBI Warning, THE HILL (Aug. 26, 2022).
    \4\GOP Oversight, Full Committee Hearing--Part 1: Twitter's Role in 
Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story, YouTube (Feb. 8, 2023), https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fo_yD8r3w4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is the view of the Committee that federal government 
employees should not have a role in enforcing, designing, or 
altering a private-sector social media platform's content 
moderation and community guideline policies. Government 
censorship requests--that private companies remove or restrict 
lawful speech--represent a serious threat to rights guaranteed 
by the First Amendment.
    A Cato Institute article titled ``Jawboning Against 
Speech,'' outlines how the Biden administration's demands of 
social media companies can be classified as jawboning because 
these requests call for the removal of specific accounts from a 
private speech platform and because these requests frequently 
have been accompanied by threatening action (such as the repeal 
of Section 230).\5\ The same article further articulates that 
government interference generally, even without specific 
regulatory threats, ``influence a platforms'' behavior'' 
regarding the implementation of community guidelines and 
content moderation policies.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Will Duffield, Jawboning Against Speech: How Government Bullying 
Shapes the Rules of Social Media, CATO Institute (Sept. 12, 2022).
    \6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In August 2022, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (a 
nonprofit that defends digital privacy and free speech) filed a 
comment with the Meta Oversight Board asking the group to 
consider the human rights concerns that arise from government 
involvement in content moderation.\7\ As part of this comment, 
the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote that government 
entities receive ``outsized influence to manipulate content 
moderation systems for their own political goals--to control 
public dialogue, suppress dissent, silence political opponents, 
or blunt social movements.''\8\ Further still, the group asked 
Meta to consider standards addressing misinformation: ``it is 
far too easy for a government to flag all criticism of it as 
`fake news.'''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Elec. Frontier Found., Comment of Electronic Frontier Foundation 
to Oversight Board case 2022-007-IG-MR (2022).
    \8\Id.
    \9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 8, 2023, the House Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability held a hearing titled ``Protecting Speech from 
Government Interference and Social Media Bias, Part 1: 
Twitter's Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story.''\10\ 
This hearing was held to investigate how and why Twitter 
suppressed the New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop 
even though the story was lawful speech and did not violate any 
Twitter policy that had been regularly enforced.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\GOP Oversight, Full Committee Hearing--Part 1: Twitter's Role 
in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story, YouTube (Feb. 8, 2023), https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fo_yD8r3w4.
    \11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During this hearing Vijaya Gadde confirmed government 
interference in Twitter's enforcement of its content moderation 
policies, stating ``we receive legal demands to remove content 
from the platform from the U.S. government and governments all 
around the world.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Press Release, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, The 
Cover Up: Big Tech, The Swamp, and Mainstream Media Coordinated to 
Censor Americans' Free Speech (Feb. 8, 2023) (on file with author).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his written testimony, former Twitter Deputy General 
Counsel, James Baker, called for federal legislation that would 
``focus first on reasonable and effective limitations on 
governmental actors.''\13\ Baker further specified that this 
legislation should limit that nature and scope of government 
interactions with private sector platforms and require 
transparency and reporting when these interactions occur.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Protecting Speech from Government Interference and Social Media 
Bias, Part 1: Hearing Before H. Comm. On Oversight & Accountability, 
118th Cong. _ (Feb. 8, 2023) (statement of James A. Baker, former 
Deputy Gen. Counsel, Twitter).
    \14\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The witness testimony and hearing findings have helped 
inform H.R. 140 which, as reported by the Committee, creates 
these reasonable limitations for federal government employees. 
This legislation prohibits federal executive branch employees 
from using their official authority--whether during normal 
working hours and at their official duty stations, or not--to 
influence or coerce a private-sector entity (e.g., a social 
media internet platform which is defined as an `interactive 
computer service' in the Act) to take an action to censor any 
lawful speech (defined under the bill as First Amendment 
protected speech).
    Under the Act, `censorship' would constitute the following: 
removing or suppressing speech on an internet platform; adding 
any disclaimers, information, or alerts to speech expressed on 
the internet platform; or removing or restricting personal or 
organizational accounts on a publicly available internet 
platform. It also prohibits federal employees from engaging in 
censorship while on duty or while using federal resources such 
as information systems (e.g., federal email accounts), 
information technology (e.g., federal mobile devices), 
insignia, vehicles, or government facilities.
    Functionally, H.R. 140 adds a new subchapter to Chapter 73 
of title 5 (``Suitability, Security, and Conduct'' of federal 
employees) and utilizes the same existing advisory and 
enforcement functions currently carried out by the U.S. Office 
of Special Counsel (OSC) for Hatch Act oversight and 
compliance. Employees with concerns about being directed or 
ordered to take a censorship action prohibited by this Act have 
two avenues to pursue. First, the established advisory opinion 
function of the OSC would allow employees to reach out directly 
and request guidance on their specific situation. For instance, 
in Fiscal Year 2021, OSC responded to 1,043 advisory 
requests.\15\ Furthermore, OSC is the same agency handling 
whistleblower disclosures and filings of prohibited personnel 
practices--such as whistleblower retaliation--which means they 
have established practices for handling sensitive inquiries. 
Second, coercion and context matter and likely would be 
included in any investigation conducted by the OSC. 
Additionally, the Act's definition of `censorship'--which makes 
clear that ``directing another'' carry out a prohibited 
censorship action is also prohibited (see new 
Sec. 7382(e)(1))--should clarify the Congressional intent that 
a covered employee have access to all existing means of 
recourse, including OSC, if directed to take a prohibited 
censorship action. With these safeguards in place, covered 
employees should know that there is an outlet if presented with 
a difficult decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Annual Report to Congress for 
Fiscal Year 2021 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Act also recognizes that many of the most senior 
federal officials--such as the White House Press Secretary--
hold a position with far greater influence than a standard 
career civil servant. Therefore, the Act incorporates an 
increased civil penalty of $10,000 for the most senior 
officials--defined as White House Office employees or Senate-
confirmed Presidential appointees--in order further deter 
censorship actions.
    Furthermore, H.R. 140 includes necessary and reasonable 
exceptions including an explicit exception for lawful actions 
to carryout legitimate law enforcement functions--with specific 
enumerated functions listed in the Act. For law enforcement 
actions that are not explicitly named under the exception, a 
notification report to relevant congressional committees and 
the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) is required at least 72 
hours before taking the censorship action. These reports will 
provide timely transparency over the use of this necessary 
exemption and include specifics about the action being taken, 
including a summary justification, the specific entity and 
speech targeted, and the agency's legal authority for taking 
the action.
    Finally, H.R. 140 incorporates a Rule of Construction to 
clarify that this Act does not: prohibit a federal agency from 
enforcing a federal law or regulation, which would put the 
federal employee in conflict between their official duties and 
the prohibition established by this Act; prohibit a federal 
agency from establishing or enforcing the terms and conditions 
of Federal financial assistance, which clarifies that federal 
funding recipients still have to abide by the contractual 
obligations stipulated in a federal award; prohibit a federal 
employee from using a federal account to communicate relevant 
information (i.e., engage in the public square through 
official, federal communications channels); or prohibit 
standard press and public affairs relations with journalists, 
which may often involve direct communications with publishing 
entities and journalists for the purposes of clarifying 
information or correcting official quotations.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 1. Short title

    The short title is the ``Protecting Speech from Government 
Interference Act''.

Sec. 2. Prohibition on federal employee censorship

    Subsection (a) amends Chapter 73 of title 5 of the United 
States Code to add a new prohibition on federal employee 
censorship.
          Sec. 7381 specifies that it is the policy of Congress 
        that federal employees should not use their official 
        authority to censor lawful speech.
          Sec. 7381(a) prohibits a federal employee from using 
        their official authority to censor a private entity. 
        This subsection also prohibits federal employees from 
        engaging in censorship while on duty or while using 
        government resources, including information systems, 
        information technology, insignia, vehicles, rooms, or 
        buildings.
          Sec. 7381(b) establishes an exception for federal 
        employees exercising legitimate law enforcement 
        functions, including activities to combat child 
        pornography and exploitation, human trafficking, the 
        illegal transportation of and transaction in controlled 
        substances, and the dissemination of properly 
        classified national security information. This 
        subsection establishes a preemptive reporting 
        requirement to Congress for all federal employees that 
        exercise this exception.
          This reporting requirement stipulates that a federal 
        employee must submit a report to Congress and the 
        Office of Special Counsel (OSC) no later than 72 hours 
        before they take a censorship action related to 
        activities other than those listed above. The 
        congressional committees that will be sent this report 
        are the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, the 
        Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Energy 
        and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs 
        and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
        Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
          This report must include an overview of the 
        censorship action and the name of the service that was 
        requested to take the action. The report must also 
        include the name of the person or entity targeted and 
        the name, position and supervisor of the agency 
        employee requesting the censorship action. Further, the 
        report must include the agency's legal authority to 
        take the action and a list of other agencies involved. 
        The agency may choose to include a classified annex.
          The Office of the Special Counsel is exempted from 
        this reporting requirement in order to allow them to 
        continue to issue advisory opinions and take corrective 
        action--as they do in enforcing the Hatch Act--without 
        having to report each of those instances to Congress.
          Sec. 7381(c) establishes penalties for violation of 
        this section. The established penalties are in-line 
        with the existing penalties ascribed to violations of 
        the Hatch Act. However, this subsection segments 
        penalties for federal employees and senior officials. 
        For federal employees, this subsection imposes a civil 
        penalty not to exceed $1,000 for an employee found to 
        be in violation--as currently stipulated for Hatch Act 
        violations under Title 5. For senior officials--an 
        employee paid from an appropriation for the White House 
        Office or an employee appointed by the President and 
        confirmed by the Senate--this subsection imposes a 
        civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for those found in 
        violation.
          Sec. 7381(d) provides that this section shall be 
        enforced in the same manner as subchapter III of 
        Chapter 73 of title 5 of the United States Code which 
        is meant to utilize existing advisory and enforcement 
        functions carried out by the Office of Special Counsel 
        for the Hatch Act.
          Sec. 7381(e) this subsection provides definitions for 
        the term `censor' or `censorship,' `employee,' and 
        `interactive computer service.'
    Subsection (b) offers a clerical amendment to the table of 
sections for chapter 73 title 5 of the United States Code.
    Subsection (c) expands the jurisdiction of the Office of 
Special Counsel to authorize it to conduct an investigation of 
any allegation concerning censorship prohibited by this Act.
    Subsection (d) clarifies that this Act does not prevent the 
federal government from enforcing federal laws or regulations 
or establishing the terms and conditions of Federal financial 
assistance. This subsection also clarifies that the Act does 
not prohibit federal employees from using an official federal 
account to communicate an official policy position, and does 
not impede upon normal press and public affairs relations.
    Subsection (e) 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.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    H.R. 140, the Protecting Speech from Government 
Interference (PSGIA) Act, was introduced on January 9, 2023, by 
Chairman James Comer, Jim Jordan, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers. 
The bill was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability. The Committee held a legislative hearing on 
February 8, 2023. The Committee considered H.R. 140 at a 
business meeting on February 28, 2023, and ordered the bill as 
amended favorably reported by a recorded vote.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    On February 28, 2023, the Committee met in open session 
and, with a quorum being present, began consideration of H.R. 
140 the Protecting Speech from Government Interference (PSGIA) 
Act. The bill was ordered reported, as amended, on February 28, 
2023.

                            ROLL CALL VOTES

    There were eight roll call votes during consideration of 
H.R. 140.
    The first roll call vote was on Amendment #1 to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 140 offered by 
Mr. Raskin. The amendment was not agreed to in a recorded vote 
of 19-22.
    The second roll call vote was on an Amendment to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 140 offered by 
Mr. Lynch. The amendment was not agreed to in a recorded vote 
of 19-22.
    The third roll call vote was on an Amendment to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 140 offered by 
Ms. Balint. The amendment was not agreed to in a recorded vote 
of 19-22.
    The fourth roll call vote was on an Amendment to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 140 offered by 
Ms. Porter. The amendment was not agreed to in a recorded vote 
of 20-21.
    The fifth roll call vote was on an Amendment to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 140 offered by 
Mr. Moskowitz. The amendment was not agreed to in a recorded 
vote of 20-21.
    The sixth roll call vote was on Amendment #2 to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 140 offered by 
Mr. Goldman. The amendment was not agreed to in a recorded vote 
of 20-22.
    The seventh roll call vote was on Amendment #2 to the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 140 offered by 
Mr. Raskin. The amendment was not agreed to in a recorded vote 
of 20-22.
    The eighth roll call vote was on final passage of H.R. 140. 
The bill was agreed to in a recorded vote of 24-20.


                       EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

    During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative 
James Comer (R-KY), Chairman of the Committee, offered an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute that would make certain 
technical changes to the bill, would establish a reporting 
requirement for federal employees that utilize the exception 
for legitimate law enforcement functions, would expand the 
jurisdiction of the Office of Special Counsel, and would 
establish a rule of construction. The amendment in the nature 
of a substitute passed by voice vote.
    Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) offered an amendment to 
H.R. 140 that would expand the definition of `entity' within 
the definition of `censorship' to include `media organizations' 
(including newspapers, magazines, radio, television). The 
amendment failed by recorded vote.
    Representative Stephen Lynch (D-MA) offered an amendment to 
H.R. 140 that would add the phrase `national security' to the 
exception for legitimate law enforcement functions. The 
amendment failed by recorded vote.
    Representative Becca Balint (D-VT) offered an amendment to 
H.R. 140 that would add an additional rule of construction that 
would state that the Act would not prohibit federal employees 
from addressing harassment, enforcing nondiscrimination laws, 
and censoring speech that they classify as misinformation 
intended to incite violence. The amendment failed by recorded 
vote.
    Representative Katie Porter (D-CA) offered an amendment to 
H.R. 140 that would add the facilitation and distribution of 
scientific information to the exception for legitimate law 
enforcement functions. The amendment failed by recorded vote.
    Representative Dan Goldman (D-NY) offered an amendment to 
H.R. 140 that would expand the U.S. Office of Special Counsel's 
enforcement capabilities of the Hatch Act to include criminal 
penalties. The amendment failed by voice vote.
    Representative Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) offered an amendment 
to H.R. 140 that would add actions to prevent the incitement of 
violence related to neo nazi groups to the exception for 
legitimate law enforcement functions. The amendment failed by 
recorded vote.
    Representative Dan Goldman (D-NY) offered an amendment to 
H.R. 140 that would add defending elections from interference 
from malign actors to the exception for legitimate law 
enforcement functions. The amendment failed by recorded vote.
    Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) offered an amendment to 
H.R. 140 that would add an additional rule of construction that 
would state that the Act would not restrict or amend the right 
of a private entity to create policies that dictate an 
individual's use of its service. The amendment failed by 
recorded vote.

                   LIST OF RELATED COMMITTEE HEARINGS

    In accordance with House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(6), (1) The 
following hearing was used to develop or consider H.R. 140:
    On February 8, 2023, the Committee held a hearing titled 
``Protecting Speech from Government Interference and Social 
Media Bias, Part 1: Twitter's Role in Suppressing the Biden 
Laptop Story'' with Vijaya Gadde, former Chief Legal Officer, 
Twitter and James Baker, former Deputy General Counsel, 
Twitter, and Yoel Roth, former Global Head of Trust and Safety, 
Twitter, and Annika Collier Navaroli, former senior expert on 
Twitter's U.S. safety policy team.
    (2) The following related hearing was held:
    On February 8, 2023, the Committee held a hearing titled 
``Protecting Speech from Government Interference and Social 
Media Bias, Part 1: Twitter's Role in Suppressing the Biden 
Laptop Story'' with Vijaya Gadde, former Chief Legal Officer, 
Twitter and James Baker, former Deputy General Counsel, 
Twitter, and Yoel Roth, former Global Head of Trust and Safety, 
Twitter, and Annika Collier Navaroli, former senior expert on 
Twitter's U.S. safety policy team.

  STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the Background and Need for 
Legislation section above.

         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance 
goals or objectives of this bill are to amend title 5, U.S.C., 
to prohibit Federal employees from advocating for censorship of 
viewpoints in their official capacity, and for other purposes.

              APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services and accommodations. 
This bill does not relate to employment or access to public 
services and accommodations in the legislative branch.

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII no provision 
of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal 
program, a program that was included in any report from the 
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a 
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal 
Domestic Assistance.

                  DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

    This bill does not direct the completion of any specific 
rule makings within the meaning of section 551 of title 5, 
U.S.C.

                FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT STATEMENT

    The Committee finds that this legislation does not direct 
the establishment of advisory committees within the definition 
of Section 5(b) of the appendix to title 5, U.S.C.

                 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT

    Pursuant to section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 the Committee has included a letter received from the 
Congressional Budget Office below.

                         EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

    This bill does not include any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee includes below a cost 
estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

   NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of 
Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the 
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:




    H.R. 140 would bar federal employees from using their 
official authority or influence to promote censorship or to 
advocate for that action by a third party. Employees found to 
violate the prohibition would be subject to civil penalties.
    Censorship, as defined in H.R. 140, means using influence 
or coercion to:
           Remove or suppress lawful speech from an 
        interactive computer service,
           Add a disclaimer or other alert to lawful 
        speech expressed on an interactive computer service, or
           Remove or restrict a person's access to a 
        publicly available interactive computer service under 
        certain conditions.
    Activities related to law enforcement would be excluded 
from the bill's prohibition but agencies undertaking activities 
under that exclusion would be required to report to the 
Congress before taking any action.
    Enacting H.R. 140 could result in additional civil penalty 
collections, which are treated as revenues in the budget. 
However, CBO estimates that any such collections would be 
insignificant over the 2023-2033 period because the penalty 
amounts are relatively small and we expect few violations of 
the bill's new prohibitions.
    CBO does not have enough information to determine the 
number of instances of censorship exercised by federal 
employees in the past or to project such behavior in the 
future. As a result, CBO cannot estimate the costs related to 
implementing the bill or the savings related to employees not 
engaging in that behavior. However, we expect that those 
amounts would be insignificant over the 2023-2028 period; any 
changes in spending would be subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds.
    In addition, the bill could affect direct spending by some 
agencies that are allowed to use fees, receipts from the sale 
of goods, and other collections to cover operating costs. CBO 
estimates that any net changes in direct spending by those 
agencies would be negligible because most of them can adjust 
amounts collected to reflect changes in operating costs.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew 
Pickford. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, 
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(e) of rule XIII 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in 
existing law made by the bill, as reported, this section was 
not made available to the Committee in time for the filing of 
this report. The Chair of the Committee shall have this printed 
upon its receipt by the Committee.

                             MINORITY VIEWS

    H.R. 140, the Protecting Speech from Government 
Interference Act, is rooted in the far-right conspiracy 
theories that drove the Republicans' February 8, 2023, hearing, 
``Protecting Speech from Government Interference and Social 
Media Bias, Part 1: Twitter's Role in Suppressing the Biden 
Laptop Story.'' As was made very clear in that hearing, there 
is no evidence of any Biden Administration official violating 
the First Amendment and censoring Americans or social media 
platforms, so now Republicans are simply trying to rewrite the 
law to restrict the flow of factual information from the U.S. 
government while protecting the flow of disinformation from the 
Russian government and other foreign malign actors.
    The bill amends title 5, U.S.C., to prohibit federal 
employees from taking any action in their official capacities 
that may influence a social media platform's content moderation 
decisions. In doing so, it would bar federal employees from 
alerting social media platforms to nefarious foreign influence 
strategies, inviting autocratic regimes and actors to increase 
their long-running attacks on American democracy. This bill 
would protect the interests of Vladimir Putin and the Chinese 
government--not the American people.
    H.R. 140 would deliberately create a chilling effect on 
public-private cooperation on law enforcement and national 
security matters, hindering our ability to protect democratic 
freedoms against both domestic and foreign criminals determined 
to subvert our elections and political institutions.
    All employees would be prohibited from using their official 
authority to influence a private entity for the removal or 
suppression of speech, as well as from influencing a private 
entity for the removal or suppression of speech while on duty. 
Civil penalties for violating the prohibition could include 
fines of up to $1,000, or up to $10,000 for the highest-ranking 
federal employees. There are no prohibitions or punishments for 
seeking to force a private entity to include particular 
speakers on their platforms even if those speakers were removed 
for inciting race hate, civil war or violent insurrection.
    The bill would except law enforcement functions within an 
employee's authority, but would add a lengthy report required 
at least 72 hours before any action is conducted, unless such 
action is related to child pornography and exploitation, human 
trafficking, controlled substances, or safeguarding classified 
national security information.
    Having failed to identify any government censorship, the 
Committee Majority conveniently moves to redefine 
``censorship'' from meaning government suppression of private 
speech to meaning private entities regulating their own speech 
content and speech platforms.
    That is a radical change. When newspapers and TV networks 
choose to run one program or opinion piece instead of another, 
it is not censorship. It is wrong not to apply that basic First 
Amendment standard to social media platforms, and it is a 
fallacy to treat a private entity's decision not to publish 
something as ``censorship'' under our system of government.
    Social media companies have a First Amendment right to 
establish their own rules governing speech, including false 
speech and speech inciting violence and race hate. Social media 
companies also have a right to use threat information shared by 
the government to enforce those rules and make private business 
decisions. Unfortunately, Republicans voted down an amendment 
in Committee to ensure that this bill would protect this 
fundamental First Amendment principle, calling into question 
their true intent in pursuing this legislation.
    H.R. 140 threatens the ability of law enforcement and other 
government agencies to provide timely, critical information 
these companies need, such as to warn them of speech on their 
platforms that might include violence-inciting and violence-
planning speech that not only violates their terms of service 
but poses a serious threat to public safety and the integrity 
of democratic institutions.
    Similarly, H.R. 140 as written would interfere with the 
ability of national security and law enforcement agencies to 
alert online platform providers of interference campaigns by 
Russia, China, or other malign foreign state or non-state 
actors working to undermine the integrity of our election 
process--including voting rights and fair balloting on Election 
Day--with propaganda techniques, disinformation, or direct 
tampering.
    This bill purports to protect the First Amendment but 
actually undermines it, creating far more serious problems for 
American democracy than the debunked conspiracy theory it 
claims to address. In the days leading up to the January 6 
attack on the U.S. Capitol, Twitter chose to allow Donald Trump 
and ultra-MAGA extremists to use its platform to spread the Big 
Lie and election disinformation, fueling a wildfire of 
incitement to civil war, race war, insurrection, revolution, 
and violence that raged out of control and shook the very 
foundations of American democracy.
    At the Twitter Files hearing, it was made evident that, 
unless social media companies and policymakers work to address 
the factors that led to this eruption of deadly violence, more 
violence will come. My Democratic colleagues and I urge our 
Republican colleagues to dedicate the Committee's time to 
proposing constructive solutions to real problems, and oppose 
H.R. 140, the Putin Protection Act--not only for its blatant 
failure to address any actual problem but for proposing serious 
new threats to our democracy and freedoms.
                                              Jamie Raskin,
                                                    Ranking Member.

                             [all]