Dan Goldman

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

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

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. 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 H.R. 140. Why on Earth would anyone take a chance if they are going to lose a third of their salary for an entire year on actually executing their job if they run the risk that someone somewhere is going to say that they stepped over the line and that in retrospect speech that they thought might be in furtherance of a crime wasn't actually in furtherance of a crime, and therefore, they lose their job and they lose a third of their salary? It has an incredible trickle-down detrimental effect on any Federal official trying to do his or her job. Whether or not you realize that, that is how it is going to be perceived by every hardworking, patriotic American who has decided to go to work for their government. You may think, my friends on the other side of the aisle, that the real problem here are Federal Government officials. You would be sorely mistaken, because I spent 10 years as a Federal career government official, working alongside every single law enforcement agent we had, and they are all trying to do their best. What this law will do is it will prevent them from doing their best, and it will jeopardize every American in this country because of it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, we often say the words ``never forget.'' Never forget the worst genocide in history, we say. Today, on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we must acknowledge the uncomfortable reality that we as a country are not adequately passing the critical lessons from the Holocaust on to the next generations. As the Representative of Borough Park in Brooklyn, with the largest population of Holocaust survivors and their families in the country, and as a proud American Jew from New York State, this is deeply personal to me and my constituents. We must continue to educate the next generations of Americans to understand the importance of the Holocaust so that it is not lost and that we never forget. I would like to stand here and read the names of my neighbors, those in my community who lost family and other loved ones in the Holocaust, but that list is just far too long. Instead, I ask that each of us take a moment to reflect today, to confront our past, and to acknowledge the work that must be done in the future to make sure that we truly never forget.