[Pages H8410-H8442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STOPPING HARMFUL INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS FOR A LASTING DEMOCRACY ACT

General Leave

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 4617.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 650 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4617.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1432

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4617) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
clarify the obligation to report acts of foreign election influence and
require implementation of compliance and reporting systems by Federal
campaigns to detect and report such acts, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Cuellar in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4617 is comprehensive legislation to strengthen
the resilience of our democracy and protect against foreign
interference in our elections, including by foreign governments.
These concerns go back to the earliest days of our country. In his
farewell address to the people of the United States, our first
President, George Washington, warned that ``Against the insidious wiles
of foreign influence . . . the jealousy of a free people ought to be
constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign
influence is one of the most baneful foes of the republican
government.''
Mr. Chair, the 2020 Federal elections are fast-approaching. Public
confidence and trust in our elections is of the utmost importance. We
know that foreign adversaries are working to undermine that trust
today. To quote former Special Counsel Mueller in July, ``They are
doing it as we sit here.''
Our adversaries have a variety of tools to interfere in our
democracy. These tools sow disinformation to provoke discord. Their
goal is to divide us and attack our values of equality and freedom.
Their tactics are calculated to undermine confidence in our democratic
institutions so that they will collapse under the pressure of the
division and distrust. The need to act is urgent.
We have been warned repeatedly about this. The former Director of
National Intelligence, Dan Coats, wrote earlier this year in his
Worldwide Threat Assessment, that as the 2020 elections advance, our
``adversaries and strategic competitors almost certainly will use
online influence operations to try to weaken democratic institutions,
undermine U.S. alliances and partnerships, and shape policy outcomes in
the United States and elsewhere.''
He also wrote that their tactics will include spreading
disinformation, conducting hack-and-leak operations, or manipulating
data in a more targeted

[[Page H8411]]

fashion to influence U.S. policy, actions, and elections.
Earlier this month, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
released a report showing how the Kremlin's ``information warfare
campaign was broad in scope and entailed objectives beyond the result
of the 2016 presidential election.'' This included using content to
``push Americans further away from one another and to foment distrust
in government institutions.'' The Senate report also found that ``no
single group of Americans was targeted by IRA''--that is the Russian
group--``information operatives more than African Americans.''
Among the bipartisan Senate report's recommendations, are for
Congress to ``examine legislative approaches to ensuring Americans know
the sources of online political advertisements,'' and to harmonize the
rules that apply online with television, radio, and satellite
communications.
H.R. 4617 does just that. It builds on two other bills that
strengthen the integrity of our democracy. In March, the House passed
H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which included strong standards for
ballot box election security, as well as provisions to shut down
loopholes that allow foreign money, including from foreign governments,
to influence elections here.
In June, the House passed H.R. 2722, the SAFE Act, which sets strong
cybersecurity standards for election infrastructure and provides
resources to States to replace paperless and other outdated systems
with voter-verified paper ballot systems.

Now we are turning to another element of election security. H.R. 4617
closes gaps in the law that allow foreign nationals and foreign
governments to launder money into our elections. It promotes full
transparency of the sources behind online campaign advertising, and it
codifies a basic norm that political committees should report offers of
illicit campaign assistance from foreign governments, both to the FBI
and the FEC, rather than welcome interference from foreign governments.
Title I of the bill enhances reporting requirements and advances
transparency and accountability. It establishes a duty upon political
committees to report to the FBI and the FEC illicit offers of campaign
assistance from foreign governments, foreign political parties, and
their agents. This provision of the bill was informed by various
proposals that were introduced in the House, including by
Representative Jackson Lee, Representative Swalwell, Representative
Malinowski, and Representative Slotkin. The bill also includes the
Honest Ads Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that takes an
important step to provide more transparency to digital political
advertising, including the ads that the Russians targeted to Americans
to build followers and the engagement of unwitting American citizens.
Title II closes loopholes and gaps in the law that permit foreign
nationals and foreign governments to influence elections. It codifies
existing FEC regulations prohibiting foreign nationals from influencing
decisions about campaign spending. It requires the FEC to conduct an
audit of illicit money in elections and report its recommendations to
Congress after every election cycle. It prohibits foreign spending in
connection with ballot initiatives and referenda; and it prohibits
foreign spending and political advertising that promotes, attacks,
supports, or opposes the election of candidates--or in the case of
foreign governments, political advertising during an election year
about national legislative issues of public importance.
I will note that some of these elements received bipartisan support
when similar provisions were included in H.R. 1.
Title III deters foreign interference in elections. For example, it
restricts campaigns from sharing nonpublic campaign materials, like
internal opposition research and internal polling data with foreign
governments and their agents, or those on the sanctions list, which can
include oligarchs.
It also includes the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation
Prevention Act--this was also part of H.R. 1--and prohibits knowingly
false statements about voting and elections that are made with the
intent to impede someone from exercising their franchise. It also
provides mechanisms to ensure that state and local officials and the
attorney general, as necessary, disseminate correct information in the
wake of false information that might spread.
Mr. Chair, free and fair elections are the core of what it means to
live in a democracy like ours. Free and fair elections are at the heart
of what it means to be a citizen of the United States. It is our solemn
duty to defend them.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I said many times since becoming the ranking member of
the Committee on House Administration, the committee with leading
jurisdiction over election legislation in the House, that the greatest
threat to our Nation's election system is partisanship.
Why is partisanship the greatest threat?
Because when you have one side drafting partisan legislation to
further their own political agenda, it causes inaction. When it comes
to securing our Nation's elections, we cannot afford inaction. That is
why it is imperative that our colleagues across the aisle work with us
to find a bipartisan solution to preventing foreign interference in
elections.
Unfortunately, that is not the route that the majority party chose to
take this Congress. We saw this pattern first begin with the majority's
H.R. 1. Over 700 pages of political initiatives to help them Federalize
elections, then again, for the SAVE Act, a partisan election security
bill, again attempting to Federalize elections and take power away from
States. Both bills were drafted without bipartisan input and rushed
through the House.
Back then, I told my colleagues if they were serious about reforming
elections and making them more secure, we needed to work together. But
here we are again with another partisan election bill that has no
chance--zero chance--of becoming law. This time it is the SHIELD Act, a
bill aimed at preventing foreign interference in our elections, like
what we saw with Russia's misinformation campaign through social media
in the 2016 Presidential election.

Look, it is safe to say that no one on either side of the aisle wants
foreign meddling in our elections. Let me repeat that: I don't believe
a single Republican or Democrat in this House wants foreign meddling in
our elections.
And I want to be clear that there is bipartisan agreement on some of
the intended goals of SHIELD. We should have increased transparency and
political digital advertising, and we should close the loopholes that
allow for foreign nationals to meddle in our elections.
But this bill isn't a serious attempt to address the type of
interference that we saw in 2016, Mr. Chairman. It is jammed full of
poison pills that the Democrats knew would make SHIELD a nonstarter.
The SHIELD Act contains provisions that would Federalize elections,
which as I have already pointed out, is the favorite solution of our
majority for any issue.
This bill expands the powers of the Department of Justice to allow
the Attorney General to insert himself or herself into individual races
at the Federal, State, and local level. That is a complete Federal
overreach of States' constitutional rights to maintain their own
elections.
Think about it: The AG can come in to your race, every State and
local race if they--he or she--wants to ``correct the record.'' There
are also provisions of this bill that I believe are unconstitutional
and will have a chilling effect on our freedom of speech. For instance,
we should not be proposing broad, vague regulations for disclosing
online political ads that create unworkable standards for the American
public.
Out of the $1.4 billion spent on political digital ads in 2016,
Russia spent $100,000 over 2 years on Facebook ads. The majority of
those were not even election ads, so it wouldn't have even been
regulated by the Honest Ads Act.
Why would we then overreach and threaten American's free speech with
this bill when it doesn't even address

[[Page H8412]]

what Russia did? We need serious election security legislation that
will protect Americans' First Amendment rights. That is why I
introduced the Honest Elections Act, which, if passed, would actually
address the type of foreign meddling we saw in 2016 and highlighted in
the Senate intel report.

{time} 1445

The Honest Elections Act would strengthen existing laws, such as the
Foreign Agents Registration Act, FARA; the Federal Election Campaign
Act; and the Help America Vote Act. And it would modernize online
political ad disclosure without infringing on free speech or requiring
unworkable standards for Americans.
Our bill also increases monitoring of spending by foreign nationals
in elections and addresses domestic interference in our elections,
something the SHIELD Act fails to accomplish.
We may never be able to prevent criminal activity, whether that is in
our elections or in our day-to-day lives, but we can provide our law
enforcement with the best tools and resources available.
The Honest Elections Act is simply a better solution to preventing
foreign interference in our elections than the SHIELD Act and its
unintended consequences on Americans.
Again, I will say the greatest threat to our Nation's election system
is partisanship because it is the partisanship we are seeing from the
majority today that is keeping the American people from having
bipartisan legislation right now that will prevent any potential
foreign interference in our elections.
I keep hearing my Democratic colleagues talk about urgency, but this
is the third time we have been here with a partisan election bill in
the House that has yet to become law or make any real change
whatsoever. If Democrats are serious about this urgency in protecting
our Nation's elections in the 2020 cycle, prove it. Stop with the
political games. Come back to the table and work with us on something
that actually stands a chance at becoming law and protecting our
Nation's elections.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would note that it was Justice Kavanaugh,
in the Bluman v. Federal Election Commission case, who wrote the
opinion that ``it is fundamental to the definition of our national
political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional
right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of
democratic self-government.''
The idea that we are going to infringe on foreign governments' rights
to participate is simply not legally supported.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Davis), a valued member of our committee.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we know that there have been
foreign attacks on our election infrastructure. That is a fact.
Knowing there are those out there who seek to rob us of our
democracy, why would we leave our door wide open? Why would we not
create a shield when our democracy is under attack?
The SHIELD Act, carefully drafted by my colleague and chair, Ms.
Lofgren, requires that political campaigns report any information they
receive from foreign agents to the FBI so we can centralize information
and stop attacks. Why would we not want to do that?
The SHIELD Act establishes strong penalties for online voter
intimidation by foreign actors. Why would we not want to do that?
The SHIELD Act closes loopholes that allow foreigners to spend their
money in our elections. Why would we not want to do that?
There are enemies out there every day trying to cast doubt on our
elections. We have no excuse--no excuse--for not doing all we can to
make ourselves less vulnerable.
This should be a bipartisan no-brainer, Mr. Chairman. I urge my
colleagues to support the SHIELD Act to protect our democracy.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), my good friend and a very
well-respected member of the House Administration Committee.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend, colleague, and the
ranking member for yielding this time.
I also want to say how thankful I am that we are in this body, in
public, in front of the American people debating something that is very
important to this Nation, that at least this process isn't held in the
basement of this building, behind closed doors, away from the American
people like some other issues are being held right now. I am at least
still thankful for that.
But here we go again. It is another attempt by our friends on the
other side to bring a bad idea to fix a bad situation. This is the
third attempt for a Federal takeover of our election system.
It kind of reminds me of a popular commercial that is on television
right now about these young people in a horror show. There is something
evil after them, and they are outside of this spooky, old house and are
like: ``We have to go somewhere to hide.''
One of the young people says: ``Why don't we get in the running
car?''
The others say: ``That is a dumb idea. Let's go hide in the spooky
shed behind the chainsaws.''
Here we go, running to chainsaws again, running to chainsaws, getting
ourselves in a worse situation. This would have done nothing to
prohibit the Russian meddling in the 2016 election--nothing.
What would have made a difference is the Obama administration, which
was advised that the Russians were attempting to hack into our system,
that they were meddling. The Obama cybersecurity czar, he brought it to
their attention and proposed countermeasures, and he was told to stand
down.
We did nothing within the power that we already have to try to stop
foreign influence in our elections. That is where we need to be
focused.
This goes further than needs to happen by giving the Federal
Government more power, more authority to take away the authority that
has been given to the States to oversee their elections.
If these weren't enough concerns, this thing has been rushed to the
floor with zero hearings. Let me repeat that: There have been no
hearings, no fact-findings to get to the bottom of what would be
the best solution to this problem. None.

It was a quickly scheduled markup that was rushed to the floor. And
here we are again, working on a piece of legislation that would do
nothing to fix the problem and has no chance of going anywhere in the
Senate.
I suggest that we work together on a bipartisan basis to actually
come up with a solution that works for the American people.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would note that I think this bill would
have done a lot to save us from the Russian attacks in 2016.
I will tell you one thing. The chairman of the Trump campaign, Mr.
Manafort, gave internal polling and target data to a Russian agent
multiple times while the Russians were buying ads. That would be
prohibited under this act.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin), a much-valued member of the House Administration Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I thank Madam Chair for her exceptional work
on the SHIELD Act, which is long overdue.
For 2 years, our colleagues across the aisle had control over the
Judiciary Committee, the Rules Committee, and the House Administration
Committee. They had no hearings about the sweeping and systematic
campaign by the Russians to subvert and undermine our election.
The Democrats have brought forth the SHIELD Act. There is not a
single partisan word in this act. We hear our colleagues declaring it
is partisan. Name me one provision in this act that is partisan. There
is nothing partisan about it, except that their response to it is
partisan.
Now, some of our colleagues said that this is unconstitutional. A
takeover, a Federal takeover, I think we just heard the words uttered
by our distinguished colleague from Georgia.
Do you know who engineered the Federal takeover of the American
elections? The Founders of America did, the Framers of our
Constitution. In Article IV, they were the ones who said

[[Page H8413]]

that Congress may make or alter regulations governing the time, place,
and manner of elections for the House of Representatives and the U.S.
Senate.
It was the Framers of the Constitution who put in Article IV that
Congress must guarantee to the people of every State a republican form
of government.
So, this is in the Constitution. We are doing our job to protect our
elections, the sovereignty of our country, and the integrity of the
democracy against foreign attack.
We should all be together on it, and I deplore the partisan response
to this excellent legislation.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy), my good and new friend, our
newest Member of this institution.
Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to serve
beside Mr. Davis.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my adamant opposition to H.R. 4617,
otherwise known as the SHIELD Act.
I think my Republican colleagues would agree that this bill is
misleading at best and should be more effectively monikered as the
First Amendment suppression act.
Simply put, this bill is an extension of House Democrats' efforts to
federalize the election process away from the States by substantially
restricting free speech through governmental overreach. Furthermore, it
does not actually do anything further to secure our elections from
foreign interference.
In the buildup to the 2016 election, Russian operatives broke many
existing U.S. laws in their attempt to spread misinformation. Nothing
in SHIELD would provide additional resources to law enforcement
officials to pursue these foreign actors.
Additionally, this bill will create a chilling effect on free speech
by punishing organizations that have nothing to do with politics, and
it mandates Federal overreach on a substantial scale.
The SHIELD Act even gives the Federal Government the duty of
determining what qualifies as a legitimate news source.
To combat this recklessness, I actually offered a commonsense
amendment that Democratic leadership would not consider for debate. It,
simply enough, would have struck the word ``legitimate'' from the
section because it is vague, overbroad, and open to subjective
interpretation. Do we really want the Federal Government deciding on
what is or is not a legitimate news outlet?
Two minutes is not enough time to fully detail the unintended
consequences of the SHIELD Act, which I intend to vote against later on
today on the floor.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would note that the legitimate press
function referred to is part of the FEC analysis that has been
longstanding. It is nothing new in this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Butterfield), a respected and valued member of the committee.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
rise today in strong support of H.R. 4617, the SHIELD Act.
Mr. Chairman, the world knows that our democracy was attacked in 2016
by foreign actors. We have a responsibility as a Congress to fight back
against foreign cyber intrusions into our democracy and protect the
sanctity of our elections. The SHIELD Act does just that.
Mr. Chair, right now, our country is facing an existential crisis.
The question for each of us is: What are we going to do? What are we
going to do to defend the principles and the Constitution upon which
this country was founded?
The vote today on the SHIELD Act will be one of those moments that,
some years from now, we will all look back on, and each of us will have
to give an account for what we did. We must take a vote to defend our
democracy from foreign interference and ensure that every American vote
counts.

The words of my good friend and our dear colleague, Congressman
Cummings, are swirling around this Chamber today. He said the
following: ``When we are dancing with the angels, the question will be
asked: In 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy
intact? Did we stand on the sidelines and say nothing? Did we play
games?''
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, before I yield to my good
friend from California, I do want to respond.
My great friend and colleague from the great State of Maryland
mentioned that Republicans said that this bill is unconstitutional.
Well, it wasn't just us.
Americans for Prosperity says this bill is unconstitutional. Heritage
Action says the bill is unconstitutional. Even the ACLU said this bill
is unconstitutional.
It is not every day, Mr. Chair, that you get those three
organizations together on the same issue, but it is here. The
unconstitutionality of this bill is from them and their remarks, adding
to what we are saying here and debating on the floor.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock), my good friend.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I fervently agree with the premise of
this bill. American political campaigns should remain among Americans.
In California, it is now common for admitted noncitizens, some of
them here illegally, to inject themselves into campaigns and attempt to
influence voters.
Perhaps we can all agree: You are either a citizen or you are not. If
you are not a citizen, you are a guest. If you are a guest, you are not
entitled to participate in our elections or in the debate that
influences them.

{time} 1500

That is especially important in a nation where sovereignty is vested
not with the government, but with the people. In most countries, the
government is the sovereign. Here in America, the people are sovereign.
But in America, our sovereign doesn't govern. It hires help. That is
what all of us are. We are hired help.
And once we are hired, the sovereign people then discuss among
themselves the job we are doing, and every 2 years this discussion
informs their decision over whether to keep us or to hire somebody
else. That is a unique exercise of American sovereignty, and it ought
to be off limits to all others.
But where I fervently disagree is with this bill's use of
governmental power to interfere with freedom of speech and association
that is absolutely essential to the preservation of our liberty. Except
for incitement to commit crimes, every person must be free to speak
their minds.
If a foreign national inserts himself into an American political
discussion, the remedy is to call him out, tell him to butt out, and
denounce such conduct for the meddling that it is. The remedy is not to
insert the government into the discussion over how the government is
doing.
Once government seizes the power to tell the people what they can say
or who they can talk to, we will have cracked the touchstone of our
Bill of Rights, and that crack will grow until it shatters the bedrock
of our freedom.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time remains.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 19 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Illinois has 18 minutes remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to note that it was eight Justices who said, in the
Citizens United case, that, while the First Amendment protects
political speech, disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react
to the speech. They were the ones, in the Citizens United case, who
urged transparency. And it was Justice Kavanaugh himself who pointed
out that foreign citizens don't have a First Amendment right to meddle
in our elections.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Sarbanes), who has done so much on our ethics and election reform
effort.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Lofgren for her
incredible work. Nobody has done more in this Congress to protect our
democracy and lift up the voices of everyday Americans than Zoe
Lofgren, so I thank her for yielding.
The measure of partisanship here is not whether the Republicans have
refused to get on this and it is a Democratic bill. That is not how you
measure partisanship, because that is an

[[Page H8414]]

easy maneuver. You decide: None of us will get on the bill. It will be
all Democrats that are supporting it or voting for it, and then we can
say it is a partisan bill.
The measure of whether something is partisan or not is to go out and
talk to the people in the country. And this is one of the most
bipartisan bills you could possibly put together, judged by what people
out in the country want to see.
Republicans, Independents, Democrats coming off of the 2016 election
said to this Congress: ``Protect our house.'' Not this House, the
United States of America. ``Protect our elections from foreign
interference.''
That wasn't just coming from Democrats. That wasn't a partisan voice
out in the wilderness. That was everybody saying it, including
Republicans and Independents.
So the fact that the Republicans don't want to get on a bill that
Americans want to see doesn't make the bill partisan. It means that
Republicans are not listening carefully enough to what the American
people want to see.
We have tried now, three times--three times--to get our Republican
colleagues to support these basic measures that would safeguard the
integrity of our elections. H.R. 1, the For the People Act, contained
many of the same provisions.
I get it. I heard what you said: Oh, the bill is too big. It does
these other things. We love the election security stuff--we can go get
those quotes from the H.R. 1 debate--oh, if you would just do the
election security or the ballot box security measures to protect our
elections, we would be on that in a minute.
Well, you got a second chance, a second bite at the apple with the
SAFE Act. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for
shepherding that through the committee, the SAFE Act, that would
protect the ballot box.
But did Republicans vote for that to protect our democracy? No, they
missed the second. Strike two.
So now we have the SHIELD Act to protect us against foreign
interference, foreign money coming into our elections and trying to
influence the outcome, misinformation campaigns coming from overseas,
all this interference that we have to push back on, that the American
people are concerned about.
So here you get a third chance to show that you want to protect our
elections and safeguard our elections. This is the opportunity to stand
up, support what the American people want to see, which is us
protecting our democracy.
The CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, there are too many comments
I would like to make, so I will reserve them until we have a few less
speakers. I am sure we will have a chance to debate some of the issues
that my good friend and colleague from Maryland brought up.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the
great State of Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman so much for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would say that, if I were in a court of law, I would
tell you in advance that I am about to make an argument that is
conditionally relevant, meaning: Bear with me. It will make sense when
I get to the point.
So this morning, in committee--and I serve on the Energy and Commerce
Committee--we were having a hearing and ObamaCare came up. About five
or six times, people said, on the Democrat side of the aisle, ObamaCare
is being sabotaged by the Trump administration.
Well, I started thinking about that, and I realized that that wasn't
really fair, that the problem was that this Congress and the Democrats
in this House voted for a bill that mentioned the Secretary, HHS
Secretary, 3,033 times; 974 times it said the ``Secretary shall'' and
then went on to say something else.
According to Dr. Burgess, he estimated that there were actually 262
different action items in ObamaCare voted on by the Democrats. None of
the Republicans in the House at the time--I was not here, but none of
the Republicans voted for it. 262 action items were given over to the
Secretary.
So now we have the SHIELD Act, and you are saying: All right, Morgan,
what does this have to do with the SHIELD Act?
I direct you to page 49, lines 10 to 25, Corrective Action: ``If the
Attorney General receives a credible report that materially false
information has been or is being communicated in violation'' of this
bill, ``and if the Attorney General determines that the State and local
officials have not taken adequate steps to promptly communicate
accurate information to correct the materially false information, the
Attorney General shall, pursuant to the written procedures and
standards under subsection (b)''--which, by the way, the Attorney
General determines--``communicate to the public, by any means''--any
means--``including by means of written, electronic, or telephonic
communications, accurate information designed to correct the materially
false information.''
What we are about to do in this bill, Mr. Chairman, is we are about
to give the Attorney General the power to come into our congressional
elections and to come into any election and start running ads, to run
robocalls, to get involved in the election process, because I wouldn't
want Attorney General Holder making decisions on my ads, and I don't
think my friends, Mr. Chairman, on the other side of the aisle would
want Attorney General Barr making decisions on their ads.
But that is what this bill does. It creates a situation where the
Attorney General is going to come into our districts if they think that
one of us has issued a materially false ad and, instead of letting the
voters make a decision as to whether or not I have done something wrong
or my opponent has done something wrong or you have done something
wrong or your opponent has done something wrong, the Attorney General
is going to make that decision all by himself.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from
Virginia an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chair, when you don't like it, you are going to
come back and say: Oh, my gosh, they are sabotaging the intent of the
bill.
Well, forget the intent. Read the bill. Read the bill.
This bill has significant problems. It needs to go back to committee
and be worked on some more. I appreciate it, but until this is
corrected, I must vote ``no'' to try to protect our election system
from having it being taken over by whomever the Attorney General might
be.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just note that the provision referred to relates only to the
time, place, or manner of holding an election. So if you have a digital
ad that says Democrats vote Tuesday, Republicans vote Wednesday, you
can send out an ad saying everybody votes on Tuesday.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank the gentlewoman for her
leadership.
Maybe my friends have gotten a little bit of absentmindedness. This
is volume I and II of the Mueller report, a distinguished veteran of
the Vietnam war.
Page 174, volume I, it says specifically, well-documented: ``On
February 16, 2018, a Federal grand jury in the District of Columbia
returned an indictment against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian
entities--including the Internet Research Agency, IRA, and Concord
Management and Consulting LLC, Concord--with violating U.S. criminal
laws in order to interfere with U.S. elections and political processes.
The indictment charges all of the defendants with conspiracy to defraud
the United States . . . three defendants with conspiracy to commit wire
fraud and bank fraud . . . and five defendants with aggravated identity
theft, Counts Three through Eight. Internet Research Agency Indictment.
Concord, which is one of the entities charged in the Count One
conspiracy, entered an appearance through U.S. counsel and moved to
dismiss. . . . `'
They were indicted on the basis of their interference in the 2016
election.
Let me be very clear. I rise to support this legislation, grateful
that in

[[Page H8415]]

this bill is H.R. 2353. Duty to refuse or report foreign interference
was language that I had that said that you cannot accept information
from a foreign operative.
With that in mind, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her
leadership.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4617, the ``Stopping
Harmful Interference in Elections for A Lasting Democracy Act,'' or
SHIELD Act and the underlying legislation.
I support this legislation introduced by my colleague, the Chairwoman
of the Committee on House Administration, the gentlelady from
California, Chairwoman Lofgren, because it:
1. Creates a duty to report illicit offers of campaign assistance
from foreign governments and their agents;
2. Helps prevent foreign interference in future elections by
improving transparency of online political advertisements;
3. Closes loopholes that allow foreign nationals and foreign
governments to spend in U.S. elections;
4. Restricts exchange of campaign information between candidates and
foreign governments and their agents; and
5. Prohibits deceptive practices about voting procedures.
Mr. Chair, earlier this year FBI Director Christopher Wray testified
before the Congress that foreign interference in on our democracy is
``a 365-day-a-year threat.''
This is outrageous; American elections are to be decided by
Americans.
That is why I am particularly pleased that H.R. 4617 incorporates the
key provisions of H.R. 2353, the ``Duty To Refuse And Report Foreign
Interference In Elections Act'' that I introduced in April of this
year.
Mr. Chair, our friends across the aisle voted against Republicans
voted against H.R. 1, the ``For The People Act of 2019,'' which, inter
alia, would secure our elections, and then against H.R. 2722, the
``Securing America's Federal Elections Act'' or SAFE Act, which closes
dangerous gaps in our voting security into the 21st Century.
Today our Republican colleagues have another chance to demonstrate
that they take seriously their oath to defend the Constitution against
all enemies, foreign or domestic.
Mr. Chair, on January 6, 2017, representatives of the Intelligence
Community advised the President-Elect that the Russian Federation
conducted a sophisticated campaign to subvert our democracy with the
goal of electing Donald Trump and defeating Hillary Clinton.
The Report issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on March 22, 2019
revealed that the Russians effectuated their goals by selectively
disseminating stolen emails, with the end of maximizing the adverse
impact this would have on Secretary Clinton's electoral prospects.
The Mueller Report further indicated that Russia's misinformation
efforts also included the proliferation of fake online profiles on
social media platforms, with the goal of echoing and amplifying
politically divisive messages, so as to sow discord within the
electorate and suppress the vote for Secretary Clinton.
As the Mueller Report lays bare, the Trump Campaign knew what Russia
was doing and welcomed that assistance, did nothing to discourage it,
did not report it, denied its existence and knowingly and happily
accepted the benefits of the hostile foreign interference.
While some may tolerate this as awful but lawful conduct, none of the
bill's sponsors or supporters do because it is deeply corrosive of our
democracy.
In April of this year I introduced H.R. 2353, the ``Duty to Refuse
and Report Foreign Interference in American Elections Act of 2019,'' to
impose an affirmative duty to refuse any offer of election campaign
assistance from any agent or entity acting on behalf or in the interest
of a foreign government and to report to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation any such offer of assistance from an agent or entity
acting on behalf or in the interest of a foreign government.
This duty to refuse and report applies to candidates and any person
working for, or volunteering with, a candidate for election to federal
office.
The legislation also requires the Federal Election Commission to
require that a candidate for election to federal office must certify
quarterly that he or she is compliance with the above requirements on
penalty of not more than 5 years in prison and a fine of not more than
$250,000.
Mr. Chair, the threat to our country is real, as documented in detail
in the report issued by Special Counsel Mueller, confirmed by the
unanimous assessment of our nation's Intelligence Community, and
affirmed most recently by FBI Director Wray who testified in Congress
that foreign interference in on our democracy is ``a 365-day-a-year
threat.''
It is past time to write into the books of law the sensible and self-
protective principle that American elections are to be decided only by
American citizens, and not influenced by foreign adversaries.
I encourage all members to join me in voting to keep Americans in
control of our electoral process and elections by voting to pass H.R.
4716, the SHIELD Act.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I have some folks who are on their way here to offer some more
remarks, so, while we are waiting, I will offer my remarks on some of
the comments that were made by my colleagues.
One of my colleagues talked about bipartisanship, that this is a
bipartisan bill. It is not a bipartisan bill.
Mr. Chairman, the majority party clearly had an opportunity to put
through our committee and onto the floor a bill that had Republican and
Democrat cosponsors. Instead of doing that, they chose to follow the
exact same path that they followed in the past through other committees
and other pieces of legislation: They don't want to put real solutions
forward; they want to put political talking points forward.
They decided to combine what my colleague from Virginia just talked
about, allowing an Attorney General to participate, possibly, in
Federal campaigns. That should scare every American, regardless of
whether you are Republican or Democrat. Let's keep our elections run in
the most safe and effective way possible: at the State and local level.
So it is not bipartisan. This bill is not bipartisan. There are 187
cosponsors of the SHIELD Act, and not a single Republican.
And that is a ploy? That is how we run away from bipartisanship? No,
bipartisanship was taken away from us.
Now, how do you get bipartisanship? Well, you have hearings.
Not a single hearing was held in the House Administration Committee
where we could ask questions to the social media platforms that are
going to be affected by this piece of legislation if it becomes law. I
certainly would have loved to have asked Mark Zuckerberg.
I tried to go over, today, to the Committee on Financial Services to
ask Mr. Zuckerberg why in the world did Facebook or anybody at Facebook
take a payment from Russia for overtly political ads. They took
$100,000 in payment out of $1.4 billion in digital ads that were bought
during the 2016 cycle. That check was cashed.
I don't know if they wrote a check; I don't know if they paid cash; I
don't know if they paid rubles; but we ought to be able to get to the
bottom of it.
I didn't even have a chance to ask before this bill was rushed to the
floor. Too many questions.

{time} 1515

If you want bipartisanship, you have got to earn bipartisanship by
allowing us to have a seat at the table.
Now, it is not too hard to have discussions. It is not too hard to
sit down and work out bipartisan solutions. There are only nine members
of the House Administration Committee. We didn't have a chance to do
that, to sit down and talk about our priorities. It was great H.R. 1
was brought up. That is the bill that was written in secret by special
interests before we were all even sworn in. H.R. 1 had every single
Member of the majority party signed on as a cosponsor before they even
had a chance to read it. It wasn't even introduced yet.
And let's talk about what H.R. 1 did, what my colleague called strike
one. H.R. 1. Every single Member of this institution who voted for that
bill voted to put either your taxpayer dollars or corporate money for
the first time ever in our Nation's history into their own political
campaign coffers. That is not a strike to vote against that bill. That
is a freaking home run. That is terrible. Nobody thinks getting more
money out of politics would be solved by those provisions.
The SAFE Act, well, when the majority decided to write their bill
after we had one hearing, they didn't even listen to their own witness
about the efficacy of certain types of voting machines and the safety
capabilities. They didn't listen to their own witness. They still tried
to create a process that would have made safe election machines with a
voter verified paper backup mechanism which would have made them
essentially illegal after the year 2021 or 2022.

[[Page H8416]]

We know counties upon counties and election authorities in this
Nation that have purchased these machines that their own witness said
was safe, but that would be a waste of their own taxpayer dollars now
because somebody in Washington that didn't consult with us, didn't
allow us a chance to work in a bipartisan way, they would have wasted
hundreds of thousands of dollars on voting machines.
My local Democratic election official in my home county of Christian
County, Illinois, they worked with their local Republican county board
to purchase almost $300,000 in election machines that if the SAFE Act
was signed into law, that expense would have lit 300 grand up with a
match. That is wrong. Let's talk to our local election officials. I do.
That is certainly not strike two. I think that is another home run,
too.
Now the SHIELD Act. Again, I said it is not bipartisan. 137
cosponsors, all Democrats. We want to talk about bipartisanship, Mr.
Chair, we can talk all we want. I want to see some action. I haven't
seen some action. We talked in the Rules Committee last night about no
hearings, no ability to question witnesses. We can come together.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, in this institution, no one wants foreign
interference. You want a bipartisan bill? Our next colleague who is
going to talk was a cosponsor of a bipartisan bill that could have come
to the floor, but we weren't given the chance.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Kilmer), who is a leader in the Honest Ads Act.
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congresswoman Lofgren for yielding
and for her leadership on this critical election security package.
Mr. Chairman, foreign interests shouldn't be able to influence
American elections, period. That is not a Democratic notion. It is not
a Republican notion. That is an American notion. We know that there is
an election just a year away, and we know that just this week one of
the world's most prominent social media companies acknowledged that
Russia, Iran, China, and other adversaries are actively working to
interfere in our next elections.
This is a no-brainer. It is time to take real action to fix loopholes
and protect our elections from foreign interference. That is why the
SHIELD Act is so important. There is a ton in this bill, and I am proud
that many of the components of the SHIELD Act are based on bills the
New Democratic Coalition endorsed, among them the Honest Ads Act.
Right now if a candidate or a group runs political ads on television
that is publicly available information. The public and the press are
able to access that information on who is buying the ad, how much they
are paying. Same thing on radio. But that is not true on social media.
If an entity buys ads on social media, there are no disclosure
requirements under the law, even though we know foreign adversaries are
seeking to buy online ads.
The Honest Ads Act would change that, and that is why it is a
bipartisan bill; 18 Democratic sponsors, 18 Republican sponsors, the
chair of Senate Judiciary, the vice chair of the Intelligence
Committee.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Washington.
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, they see this as a way to strengthen our
democracy and our national security. To enable law enforcement and the
press and others to better detect and investigate foreign involvement
in our elections.
The House has a choice to make, a choice to keep loopholes open and
continue to see threats against our democracy or a choice to take
action and pass the SHIELD Act. I am proud to be a sponsor of this
bill.
I thank Chair Lofgren and her team for their hard work on this, and I
am confident the House will make the right choice and pass this bill.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, my
colleague from the great State of Washington, you can't get much more
bipartisan than Mr. Kilmer. I certainly wish we would have been able to
have the bill on the floor that my colleague spoke about that had an
even number of Republican and Democratic cosponsors, but unfortunately,
we don't have the opportunity to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Unfortunately, we are watching poison pills like the one that my
colleague from Virginia spoke about where an attorney general can come
in and decide to correct the record on Federal elections. I think that
is scary for any American. That is not a solution.
I do believe that we will see this bill passed. I am not proud that
this bill is going to pass, because this bill is not going to be signed
into law.
And I know my good friend and colleague, the chairperson of the House
Administration Committee, have discussed a couple of times about
Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. I think her and I agree with Justice
Kavanaugh, that foreign bad actors, they don't have freedom of speech
protections in the United States of America. But the sad fact, Mr.
Chairman, is that if this bill were to pass into law, it would do
nothing to affect the bad actors who interfered in our 2016 elections.
Nothing.
Our bill, the Honest Elections Act would. We will positively affect
those bad actors, and we will make sure they are held accountable.
If this bill passes, I believe the majority party would give more
free speech protections to those foreign bad actors.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), my good friend.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The bill under consideration is an attempt to protect our elections
from foreign interference. That is a goal that I certainly share, and I
think all of us share.
In fact, I tried to offer an amendment to the bill that would have
closed a gaping hole in the security of our election system. It is a
weakness that basically rolls out the red carpet to foreign
interference. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle blocked my amendment.
My proposal would have prohibited the practice known as ballot
harvesting, which is something that is only legal in a few states,
where literally anyone can collect absentee ballots. In California
where ballot harvesting is legal, anyone, including paid campaign
workers and foreign nationals, are allowed to collect an unlimited
number of ballots.
California Democrats have refused to put any guard rails on ballot
collection, leaving it wide open to fraud and abuse by both foreign and
domestic bad actors.
Every time I voice my concern about ballot harvesting, my friends on
the other side of the aisle and the media keep asking for evidence of
abuse.
Mr. Chairman, the reason there is no evidence of ballot harvesting
fraud is because California Democrats have designed a system that
doesn't collect evidence. If you collect ballots in California, you
aren't required to give your name to the voter whose ballot you are
collecting, and when you turn in that ballot to election officials, you
are not required to give your name at that point either. There is no
requirement to document the chain of custody of ballots. And there is
nothing in the State law prohibiting foreign nationals from collecting
and handling ballots. Let me repeat that. There is nothing in
California law prohibiting foreign nationals from collecting and
handling ballots.
You know, in reality, the only rule is there are no rules. Mr.
Chairman, this isn't the Wild West. We shouldn't wait for fraud and
abuse to occur before we act. By rejecting my amendment, Democrats have
not only left a door open to foreign involvement in our elections, they
have laid out the welcome mat.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb), a star in our caucus.
Mr. LAMB. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I am proud to stand up in support of the SHIELD Act, which
incorporates my bill, H.R. 4703, The DEFEND Act. The DEFEND Act, as
incorporated here, would forbid paid internet activity by foreign
actors, foreign political parties, foreign intelligence services and
the like.
This is a problem because in 2016 across Pennsylvania users of social

[[Page H8417]]

media saw this image over and over again. It is the real image of a
coal miner suggesting that miners were supporting the Republican
nominee and getting together in huge rallies in places like Pittsburgh
and Philadelphia.
But the problem is, there were no rallies. And the truth is, the
actual opinions of coal miners were much more mixed. They know, in
fact, that they have been let down on issues like healthcare and
pensions, by both Republicans and Democrats, and they have been
supported and protected on those same issues by Members of both
parties.
In fact, just today, the House Natural Resources Committee passed the
Miners Pension Protection Act, and I was proud to stand with members of
both parties in support of that.

Mr. Chair, the man in this image died in 1987 at the age of 57--too
young--like most miners, of black lung. These miners have given a lot.
We cannot allow the Russians or anyone else to take anything else from
them and affect our elections.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), a new Member of Congress from Michigan, who had
a distinguished career in the intelligence community.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and
thank her for all the work she has done on the SHIELD Act.
As a former CIA officer and Pentagon official, as the wife of a 30-
year Army officer and the stepmom of a current Army officer, I know
that when our country sees a threat, we have the responsibility to act
and to consider ways to protect our country.
I think we have all said it many times here today, no matter who you
are, what political party you are from, we can all agree that
foreigners have no role in our political process.
I am incredibly proud to be supporting the SHIELD Act. Certain
portions of it are modeled off legislation I have been working on since
I first started in Congress in January, the PAID AD Act, in particular.
It is the very basic idea that foreigners should not be able to buy an
ad for or against a candidate in an American political election. That
should be illegal, plain and simple.
Michigan was particularly targeted by these ads. They are divisive.
They are hateful. They are meant to split us apart and stoke fears in
our community. It is a classic in the playbook the Russians have used
in Eastern Europe, and now they are using it here in the United States.
The SHIELD Act closes these loopholes that currently allow foreign
entities to purchase campaign ads. I am thrilled to support it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Phillips), a valued new Member of Congress.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, people in small towns and cities in my home State of
Minnesota and in neighborhoods all across the Nation are being targeted
for manipulation.

{time} 1530

Foreign governments have found a weakness in our national security.
They are exploiting it by using social media platforms to influence
Americans, with the hope that they will vote for foreign interests, not
American interests.
Democrats and Republicans need to come together now--today--to do
something about it. It is what our Founders--Washington, Adams,
Jefferson, Madison, and others--would have demanded.
That is why I am proud to support the SHIELD Act, an important
legislative package that includes my bill, the Firewall Act, that
simply prevents foreign nationals from paying for online political
advertisements, something to which my distinguished colleague from
Illinois referred to just moments ago.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this historic and
necessary package and help us build a wall, a digital wall, to protect
Americans from foreign interference in our elections.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their comments today.
Look, there is a lot of activity and the opportunity to come to this
floor and debate very important issues, and there are no more important
issues than protecting the validity and safety of our election system
here in this institution in the great United States of America.
You know what? We heard a lot about this process not being
bipartisan, Mr. Chairman. Well, let's talk about what we have done in a
bipartisan manner to protect our elections.
When Republicans were in charge of this institution, we worked in a
bipartisan fashion to actually appropriate over $300 million to go to
our States, to work with our local officials, to partner with the
Department of Homeland Security to ensure that our election
infrastructure is safer than it was in 2016.
We all learned the lessons of 2016, and we worked together to put
solutions on the table.
That is exactly what we should be doing here. But on the SHIELD Act,
unfortunately, the Democratic majority did not allow us a seat at the
table.
You know, you go to my home State of Illinois, where they have been
raving about their partnership with this administration's Department of
Homeland Security, and look at the 2018 election cycle. We had record
turnout in a midterm election, and not one instance of foreign
interference has been brought forth, So it looks like we have done
something good together in a bipartisan fashion in the past.
I certainly hope, Mr. Chair, we could do that in the future.
Many of the provisions that my colleagues talked about and that I
spoke about are just simply too egregious for us to support. We want to
support a bill that has proper hearings, goes through regular order,
and provides an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to work
together, just like we did to protect America's election systems for
the 2018 election cycle.
I want to see results, Mr. Chair. I am not seeing results with the
SHIELD Act.
Let's come together. Let's take another swing, take another crack at
the bat. Let's hit another home run together. Because according to my
count right now, that bipartisan investment of $300-plus million that
we worked together on, that is a grand slam. Let's start working on
some more grand slams together.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I am disappointed that, apparently, we are not going to
get support for this important bill from at least the ranking member
and some of the Members who have spoken today on the other side of the
aisle.
There are no poison pills in this bill, and much of the bill is made
up of bills that had bipartisan support.
It is interesting to hear that somehow this is partisan because the
Republican leadership refuses to step forward to confront the danger
that we face from Russian interference in our elections and the
possible interference from other nations. We have been told by the FBI
that might include Iran as well as Turkey.
I listened carefully to my friend, the ranking member, about the
money that was appropriated--and that was bipartisan; we supported
that--in the last Congress for election security. Democrats included
$600 million this year for election security. We sent it to the Senate,
and unlike last year, they now are refusing to act.
I remember back in law school that I was told by one of my
professors, who I liked so much, that if you can't argue the law and
you can't argue the facts, argue a lot. I think that is some of what we
heard today.
We have had some hearings on these issues, three in the House
Administration Committee. Although the Elections Subcommittee, which
has been so active, did not focus entirely on these issues, it did
touch also on these issues, in fact, just earlier this week. In the
House Administration Committee, there have been 11 of these hearings.
To say that this bill threatens First Amendment rights is certainly
incorrect. Now, I value the ACLU. We work with them very closely on a
variety of issues, including the role of due process in immigration,
and they have an important role in American society. But when it comes
to campaign finance reform, they have a long history of opposing laws
that regulate the raising

[[Page H8418]]

and spending of money to influence elections.
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the Citizens United
case. They opposed the effort by the Congress to get rid of the dark
money in our elections. They, I think, misunderstand the issue of free
speech when it comes to foreign governments.
I will quote the entire thing again that Justice Kavanaugh wrote:
``The United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First
Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in
activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby
preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.''

We don't have to worry about whether the Russian trolls' rights to
free speech are being violated when we keep them from interfering in
our elections because we have a compelling interest to keep the
Russians and others from trying to subvert our elections, to hurt our
country. We have a right to defend ourselves from them, and the SHIELD
Act does that.
I would like to note also that elements in this bill would have
prevented some of the misconduct or problems that occurred in the 2016
election.
I was interested that my colleague expressed concern that we didn't
hear from some of the platforms, that we didn't hear from Mark
Zuckerberg. He is correct. We did not call Facebook into the House
Administration Committee. Frankly, if they had said, ``We don't want to
do this,'' I would have said, ``Too bad.''
We need to set some rules that prevent the lack of responsibility on
the part of some of these platforms. They accepted money from Russian
influencers to place ads to harm our democracy. This bill requires them
to make a reasonable effort to find out that the ads that are being
placed are not actually coming from our foreign adversaries.
We, as I mentioned earlier, in this bill directly prohibit the
sharing of sensitive campaign information by American campaigns with
foreign actors. That happened in the 2016 election. We had the chairman
of the Trump campaign, Mr. Manafort, sharing internal polling data with
a Russian agent, sharing the playbook for the States at play with a
Russian agent.
I have wondered a lot about what was going on there. I didn't get an
answer to that, but this bill makes that impermissible. This bill makes
that a crime.
It also requires campaigns to report to the FBI when they have been
contacted by a foreign campaign. We all know now that the Russians
contacted the Trump campaign, and the President's son said: ``If it is
what you say, I love it.'' They supposedly had dirt on the Democratic
opponent. They were going to funnel information into the campaign. Did
the campaign tell the FBI? No, they did not.
Well, if this bill had passed, there would have been a requirement to
notify the FEC and the FBI that the Russians were trying to interfere
in the campaign.
Now, I would think that would be something that most people would
think you would do anyway, that we shouldn't need a law to require it.
But, apparently, we do, and this bill would include that.
I want to mention the Honest Ads Act because the Honest Ads Act has
been introduced with a broad bipartisan group to make sure that there
is disclosure.
We have had a disclosure regime when it comes to broadcast TV and
radio for a long time, but it did not extend to the digital advertising
environment. That is a mistake because as information migrates to the
digital world, we need to have disclosure there, too. The Honest Ads
Act does that. It is incorporated in the SHIELD Act.
It is important. It requires the platforms to maintain copies of the
ads for 4 years. It requires that there be a disclosure of who is
paying for it. The American people have a right to know who is trying
to influence them online, just as they do in TV broadcasting.
Does it make a difference? Yes, it does. I remember in my State of
California, a number of years ago, there was an initiative to control
smoking in restaurants. It was polling at, like, 80 percent, something
of that nature. Then it came out that the backers of the initiative
were the tobacco companies. They were doing it to undercut local
ordinances that were stricter than what they were trying to put into
place at the State level.
Support for the initiative dropped like a stone because people aren't
stupid. They know that they have to consider the source of the
information when information is sent to them.
The American voters have a right to know who is spending money to
influence them.
I would like to say that this measure deserves the support of every
Member of this body. To say that the Senate will take it up--I would
hate to think that the Senate cares so little about protecting our
country from foreign influence that they would simply say no.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this bill. I think it is important for
our country. I think it is essential for our democracy.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on House Administration, printed in the bill, it shall be
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-35, modified by the
amendment printed in part A of House Report 116-253. That amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 4617

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Stopping
Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy
Act'' or the ``SHIELD Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--ENHANCED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Subtitle A--Establishing Duty to Report Foreign Election Interference

Sec. 101. Federal campaign reporting of foreign contacts.
Sec. 102. Federal campaign foreign contact reporting compliance system.
Sec. 103. Criminal penalties.
Sec. 104. Rule of construction.

Subtitle B--Strengthening Oversight of Online Political Advertising

Sec. 111. Short title.
Sec. 112. Purpose.
Sec. 113. Expansion of definition of public communication.
Sec. 114. Expansion of definition of electioneering communication.
Sec. 115. Application of disclaimer statements to online
communications.
Sec. 116. Political record requirements for online platforms.
Sec. 117. Preventing contributions, expenditures, independent
expenditures, and disbursements for electioneering
communications by foreign nationals in the form of online
advertising.

TITLE II--CLOSING LOOPHOLES ALLOWING SPENDING BY FOREIGN NATIONALS IN
ELECTIONS

Sec. 201. Clarification of prohibition on participation by foreign
nationals in election-related activities.
Sec. 202. Clarification of application of foreign money ban to certain
disbursements and activities.
Sec. 203. Audit and report on illicit foreign money in Federal
elections.
Sec. 204. Prohibition on contributions and donations by foreign
nationals in connections with ballot initiatives and
referenda.
Sec. 205. Expansion of limitations on foreign nationals participating
in political advertising.

TITLE III--DETERRING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS

Subtitle A--Deterrence Under Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

Sec. 301. Restrictions on exchange of campaign information between
candidates and foreign powers.
Sec. 302. Clarification of standard for determining existence of
coordination between campaigns and outside interests.

Subtitle B--Prohibiting Deceptive Practices and Preventing Voter
Intimidation

Sec. 311. Short title.
Sec. 312. Prohibition on deceptive practices in Federal elections.

[[Page H8419]]

Sec. 313. Corrective action.
Sec. 314. Reports to Congress.

TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Effective dates of provisions.
Sec. 402. Severability.

TITLE I--ENHANCED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Subtitle A--Establishing Duty to Report Foreign Election Interference

SEC. 101. FEDERAL CAMPAIGN REPORTING OF FOREIGN CONTACTS.

(a) Initial Notice.--
(1) In general.--Section 304 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30104) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Disclosure of Reportable Foreign Contacts.--
``(1) Committee obligation to notify.--Not later than 1
week after a reportable foreign contact, each political
committee shall notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and the Commission of the reportable foreign contact and
provide a summary of the circumstances with respect to such
reportable foreign contact.
``(2) Individual obligation to notify.--Not later than 3
days after a reportable foreign contact--
``(A) each candidate shall notify the treasurer or other
designated official of the principal campaign committee of
such candidate of the reportable foreign contact and provide
a summary of the circumstances with respect to such
reportable foreign contact; and
``(B) each official, employee, or agent of a political
committee shall notify the treasurer or other designated
official of the committee of the reportable foreign contact
and provide a summary of the circumstances with respect to
such reportable foreign contact.
``(3) Reportable foreign contact.--In this subsection:
``(A) In general.--The term `reportable foreign contact'
means any direct or indirect contact or communication that--
``(i) is between--

``(I) a candidate, a political committee, or any official,
employee, or agent of such committee; and
``(II) an individual that the person described in subclause
(I) knows, has reason to know, or reasonably believes is a
covered foreign national; and

``(ii) the person described in clause (i)(I) knows, has
reason to know, or reasonably believes involves--

``(I) an offer or other proposal for a contribution,
donation, expenditure, disbursement, or solicitation
described in section 319; or
``(II) coordination or collaboration with, an offer or
provision of information or services to or from, or
persistent and repeated contact with, a covered foreign
national in connection with an election.

``(B) Exceptions.--
``(i) Contacts in official capacity as elected official.--
The term `reportable foreign contact' shall not include any
contact or communication with a covered foreign national by
an elected official or an employee of an elected official
solely in an official capacity as such an official or
employee.
(ii) Contacts for purposes of enabling observation of
elections by international observers.--The term `reportable
foreign contact' shall not include any contact or
communication with a covered foreign national by any person
which is made for purposes of enabling the observation of
elections in the United States by a foreign national or
observation of elections outside of the United States by a
candidate, political committee, or any official, employee, or
agent of such committee.
(iii) Exceptions not applicable if contacts or
communications involve prohibited disbursements.--A contact
or communication by an elected official or an employee of an
elected official shall not be considered to be made solely in
an official capacity for purposes of clause (i), and a
contact or communication shall not be considered to be made
for purposes of enabling the observation of elections for
purposes of clause (ii), if the contact or communication
involves a contribution, donation, expenditure, disbursement,
or solicitation described in section 319.
``(C) Covered foreign national defined.--
``(i) In general.--In this paragraph, the term `covered
foreign national' means--

``(I) a foreign principal (as defined in section 1(b) of
the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C.
611(b)) that is a government of a foreign country or a
foreign political party;
``(II) any person who acts as an agent, representative,
employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other
capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or
control, of a foreign principal described in subclause (I) or
of a person any of whose activities are directly or
indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or
subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal
described in subclause (I); or
``(III) any person included in the list of specially
designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the
Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the
Treasury pursuant to authorities relating to the imposition
of sanctions relating to the conduct of a foreign principal
described in subclause (I).

``(ii) Clarification regarding application to citizens of
the united states.--In the case of a citizen of the United
States, subclause (II) of clause (i) applies only to the
extent that the person involved acts within the scope of that
person's status as the agent of a foreign principal described
in subclause (I) of clause (i).''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to reportable foreign contacts which
occur on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Information Included on Report.--
(1) In general.--Section 304(b) of such Act (52 U.S.C.
30104(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) for any reportable foreign contact (as defined in
subsection (j)(3))--
``(A) the date, time, and location of the contact;
``(B) the date and time of when a designated official of
the committee was notified of the contact;
``(C) the identity of individuals involved; and
``(D) a description of the contact, including the nature of
any contribution, donation, expenditure, disbursement, or
solicitation involved and the nature of any activity
described in subsection (j)(3)(A)(ii)(II) involved.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to reports filed on or after the
expiration of the 60-day period which begins on the date of
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 102. FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FOREIGN CONTACT REPORTING
COMPLIANCE SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--Section 302 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30102) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Reportable Foreign Contacts Compliance Policy.--
``(1) Reporting.--Each political committee shall establish
a policy that requires all officials, employees, and agents
of such committee to notify the treasurer or other
appropriate designated official of the committee of any
reportable foreign contact (as defined in section 304(j)) not
later than 3 days after such contact was made.
``(2) Retention and preservation of records.--Each
political committee shall establish a policy that provides
for the retention and preservation of records and information
related to reportable foreign contacts (as so defined) for a
period of not less than 3 years.
``(3) Certification.--
``(A) In general.--Upon filing its statement of
organization under section 303(a), and with each report filed
under section 304(a), the treasurer of each political
committee (other than an authorized committee) shall certify
that--
``(i) the committee has in place policies that meet the
requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2);
``(ii) the committee has designated an official to monitor
compliance with such policies; and
``(iii) not later than 1 week after the beginning of any
formal or informal affiliation with the committee, all
officials, employees, and agents of such committee will--

``(I) receive notice of such policies;
``(II) be informed of the prohibitions under section 319;
and
``(III) sign a certification affirming their understanding
of such policies and prohibitions.

``(B) Authorized committees.--With respect to an authorized
committee, the candidate shall make the certification
required under subparagraph (A).''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply with respect to political committees which file a
statement of organization under section 303(a) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30103(a)) on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Transition rule for existing committees.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
each political committee under the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 shall file a certification with the Federal
Election Commission that the committee is in compliance with
the requirements of section 302(j) of such Act (as added by
subsection (a)).

SEC. 103. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

Section 309(d)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (52 U.S.C. 30109(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraphs:
``(E) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a
violation of subsection (j) or (b)(9) of section 304 or
section 302(j) shall be fined not more than $500,000,
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
``(F) Any person who knowingly and willfully conceals or
destroys any materials relating to a reportable foreign
contact (as defined in section 304(j)) shall be fined not
more than $1,000,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both.''.

SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this subtitle or the amendments made by this
subtitle shall be construed--
(1) to impede legitimate journalistic activities; or
(2) to impose any additional limitation on the right to
express political views or to participate in public discourse
of any individual who--
(A) resides in the United States;
(B) is not a citizen of the United States or a national of
the United States, as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)); and
(C) is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as
defined by section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)).

Subtitle B--Strengthening Oversight of Online Political Advertising

SEC. 111. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Honest Ads Act''.

SEC. 112. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this subtitle is to enhance the integrity of
American democracy and national security by improving
disclosure requirements for online political advertisements
in order to

[[Page H8420]]

uphold the Supreme Court's well-established standard that the
electorate bears the right to be fully informed.

SEC. 113. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101(22))
is amended by striking ``or satellite communication'' and
inserting ``satellite, paid internet, or paid digital
communication''.
(b) Treatment of Contributions and Expenditures.--Section
301 of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30101) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8)(B)(v), by striking ``on broadcasting
stations, or in newspapers, magazines, or similar types of
general public political advertising'' and inserting ``in any
public communication''; and
(2) in paragraph (9)(B)--
(A) by amending clause (i) to read as follows:
``(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed
through the facilities of any broadcasting station or any
print, online, or digital newspaper, magazine, blog,
publication, or periodical, unless such broadcasting, print,
online, or digital facilities are owned or controlled by any
political party, political committee, or candidate;''; and
(B) in clause (iv), by striking ``on broadcasting stations,
or in newspapers, magazines, or similar types of general
public political advertising'' and inserting ``in any public
communication''.
(c) Disclosure and Disclaimer Statements.--Subsection (a)
of section 318 of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30120) is amended--
(1) by striking ``financing any communication through any
broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor
advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general
public political advertising'' and inserting ``financing any
public communication''; and
(2) by striking ``solicits any contribution through any
broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor
advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general
public political advertising'' and inserting ``solicits any
contribution through any public communication''.

SEC. 114. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ELECTIONEERING
COMMUNICATION.

(a) Expansion to Online Communications.--
(1) Application to qualified internet and digital
communications.--
(A) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 304(f)(3) of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C.
30104(f)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``or satellite
communication'' each place it appears in clauses (i) and (ii)
and inserting ``satellite, or qualified internet or digital
communication''.
(B) Qualified internet or digital communication.--Paragraph
(3) of section 304(f) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30104(f)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Qualified internet or digital communication.--The
term `qualified internet or digital communication' means any
communication which is placed or promoted for a fee on an
online platform (as defined in subsection (k)(3)).''.
(2) Nonapplication of relevant electorate to online
communications.--Section 304(f)(3)(A)(i)(III) of such Act (52
U.S.C. 30104(f)(3)(A)(i)(III)) is amended by inserting ``any
broadcast, cable, or satellite'' before ``communication''.
(3) News exemption.--Section 304(f)(3)(B)(i) of such Act
(52 U.S.C. 30104(f)(3)(B)(i)) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) a communication appearing in a news story,
commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities
of any broadcasting station or any online or digital
newspaper, magazine, blog, publication, or periodical, unless
such broadcasting, online, or digital facilities are owned or
controlled by any political party, political committee, or
candidate;''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to communications made on or after
January 1, 2020.

SEC. 115. APPLICATION OF DISCLAIMER STATEMENTS TO ONLINE
COMMUNICATIONS.

(a) Clear and Conspicuous Manner Requirement.--Subsection
(a) of section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (52 U.S.C. 30120(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``shall clearly state'' each place it
appears in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and inserting ``shall
state in a clear and conspicuous manner''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
``For purposes of this section, a communication does not make
a statement in a clear and conspicuous manner if it is
difficult to read or hear or if the placement is easily
overlooked.''.
(b) Special Rules for Qualified Internet or Digital
Communications.--
(1) In general.--Section 318 of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30120)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Special Rules for Qualified Internet or Digital
Communications.--
``(1) Special rules with respect to statements.--In the
case of any communication to which this section applies which
is a qualified internet or digital communication (as defined
in section 304(f)(3)(D)) which is disseminated through a
medium in which the provision of all of the information
specified in this section is not possible, the communication
shall, in a clear and conspicuous manner--
``(A) state the name of the person who paid for the
communication; and
``(B) provide a means for the recipient of the
communication to obtain the remainder of the information
required under this section with minimal effort and without
receiving or viewing any additional material other than such
required information.
``(2) Safe harbor for determining clear and conspicuous
manner.--A statement in a qualified internet or digital
communication (as defined in section 304(f)(3)(D)) shall be
considered to be made in a clear and conspicuous manner as
provided in subsection (a) if the communication meets the
following requirements:
``(A) Text or graphic communications.--In the case of a
text or graphic communication, the statement--
``(i) appears in letters at least as large as the majority
of the text in the communication; and
``(ii) meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of
subsection (c).
``(B) Audio communications.--In the case of an audio
communication, the statement is spoken in a clearly audible
and intelligible manner at the beginning or end of the
communication and lasts at least 3 seconds.
``(C) Video communications.--In the case of a video
communication which also includes audio, the statement--
``(i) is included at either the beginning or the end of the
communication; and
``(ii) is made both in--

``(I) a written format that meets the requirements of
subparagraph (A) and appears for at least 4 seconds; and
``(II) an audible format that meets the requirements of
subparagraph (B).

``(D) Other communications.--In the case of any other type
of communication, the statement is at least as clear and
conspicuous as the statement specified in subparagraph (A),
(B), or (C).''.
(2) Nonapplication of certain exceptions.--The exceptions
provided in section 110.11(f)(1)(i) and (ii) of title 11,
Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor to such rules,
shall have no application to qualified internet or digital
communications (as defined in section 304(f)(3)(D) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as added by this Act).
(c) Modification of Additional Requirements for Certain
Communications.--Section 318(d) of such Act (52 U.S.C.
30120(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by striking ``which is transmitted through radio'' and
inserting ``which is in an audio format''; and
(B) by striking ``By radio'' in the heading and inserting
``Audio format'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(A) by striking ``which is transmitted through television''
and inserting ``which is in video format''; and
(B) by striking ``By television'' in the heading and
inserting ``Video format''; and
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``transmitted through radio or television''
and inserting ``made in audio or video format''; and
(B) by striking ``through television'' in the second
sentence and inserting ``in video format''.

SEC. 116. POLITICAL RECORD REQUIREMENTS FOR ONLINE PLATFORMS.

(a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30104), as amended by section
101(a), is further amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(k) Disclosure of Certain Online Advertisements.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Requirements for online platforms.--An online
platform shall maintain, and make available for online public
inspection in machine readable format, a complete record of
any request to purchase on such online platform a qualified
political advertisement which is made by a person whose
aggregate requests to purchase qualified political
advertisements on such online platform during the calendar
year exceeds $500.
``(B) Requirements for advertisers.--Any person who
requests to purchase a qualified political advertisement on
an online platform shall provide the online platform with
such information as is necessary for the online platform to
comply with the requirements of subparagraph (A).
``(2) Contents of record.--A record maintained under
paragraph (1)(A) shall contain--
``(A) a digital copy of the qualified political
advertisement;
``(B) a description of the audience targeted by the
advertisement, the number of views generated from the
advertisement, and the date and time that the advertisement
is first displayed and last displayed; and
``(C) information regarding--
``(i) the average rate charged for the advertisement;
``(ii) the name of the candidate to which the advertisement
refers and the office to which the candidate is seeking
election, the election to which the advertisement refers, or
the national legislative issue to which the advertisement
refers (as applicable);
``(iii) in the case of a request made by, or on behalf of,
a candidate, the name of the candidate, the authorized
committee of the candidate, and the treasurer of such
committee; and
``(iv) in the case of any request not described in clause
(iii), the name of the person purchasing the advertisement,
the name and address of a contact person for such person, and
a list of the chief executive officers or members of the
executive committee or of the board of directors of such
person.
``(3) Online platform.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `online platform' means any public-facing website,
web application, or digital application (including a social
network, ad network, or search engine) which--
``(A) sells qualified political advertisements; and
``(B) has 50,000,000 or more unique monthly United States
visitors or users for a majority of months during the
preceding 12 months.

[[Page H8421]]

``(4) Qualified political advertisement.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term `qualified political advertisement'
means any advertisement (including search engine marketing,
display advertisements, video advertisements, native
advertisements, and sponsorships) that--
``(A) is made by or on behalf of a candidate; or
``(B) communicates a message relating to any political
matter of national importance, including--
``(i) a candidate;
``(ii) any election to Federal office; or
``(iii) a national legislative issue of public importance.
``(5) Time to maintain file.--The information required
under this subsection shall be made available as soon as
possible and shall be retained by the online platform for a
period of not less than 4 years.
``(6) Safe harbor for platforms making best efforts to
identify requests which are subject to record maintenance
requirements.--In accordance with rules established by the
Commission, if an online platform shows that the platform
used best efforts to determine whether or not a request to
purchase a qualified political advertisement was subject to
the requirements of this subsection, the online platform
shall not be considered to be in violation of such
requirements.
``(7) Penalties.--For penalties for failure by online
platforms, and persons requesting to purchase a qualified
political advertisement on online platforms, to comply with
the requirements of this subsection, see section 309.''.
(b) Rulemaking.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Federal Election Commission
shall establish rules--
(1) requiring common data formats for the record required
to be maintained under section 304(k) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by subsection (a)) so that all
online platforms submit and maintain data online in a common,
machine-readable and publicly accessible format;
(2) establishing search interface requirements relating to
such record, including searches by candidate name, issue,
purchaser, and date; and
(3) establishing the criteria for the safe harbor exception
provided under paragraph (6) of section 304(k) of such Act
(as added by subsection (a)).
(c) Reporting.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and biannually thereafter, the
Chairman of the Federal Election Commission shall submit a
report to Congress on--
(1) matters relating to compliance with and the enforcement
of the requirements of section 304(k) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, as added by subsection (a);
(2) recommendations for any modifications to such section
to assist in carrying out its purposes; and
(3) identifying ways to bring transparency and
accountability to political advertisements distributed online
for free.

SEC. 117. PREVENTING CONTRIBUTIONS, EXPENDITURES, INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURES, AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR
ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS BY FOREIGN
NATIONALS IN THE FORM OF ONLINE ADVERTISING.

Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(52 U.S.C. 30121) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c) Responsibilities of Broadcast Stations, Providers of
Cable and Satellite Television, and Online Platforms.--
``(1) Responsibilities described.--Each television or radio
broadcast station, provider of cable or satellite television,
or online platform (as defined in section 304(k)(3)) shall
make reasonable efforts to ensure that communications
described in section 318(a) and made available by such
station, provider, or platform are not purchased by a foreign
national, directly or indirectly. For purposes of the
previous sentence, a station, provider, or online platform
shall not be considered to have made reasonable efforts under
this paragraph in the case of the availability of a
communication unless the station, provider, or online
platform directly inquires from the individual or entity
making such purchase whether the purchase is to be made by a
foreign national, directly or indirectly.
``(2) Special rules for disbursement paid with credit
card.--For purposes of paragraph (1), a television or radio
broadcast station, provider of cable or satellite television,
or online platform shall be considered to have made
reasonable efforts under such paragraph in the case of a
purchase of the availability of a communication which is made
with a credit card if--
``(A) the individual or entity making such purchase is
required, at the time of making such purchase, to disclose
the credit verification value of such credit card; and
``(B) the billing address associated with such credit card
is located in the United States or, in the case of a purchase
made by an individual who is a United States citizen living
outside of the United States, the individual provides the
television or radio broadcast station, provider of cable or
satellite television, or online platform with the United
States mailing address the individual uses for voter
registration purposes.''.

TITLE II--CLOSING LOOPHOLES ALLOWING SPENDING BY FOREIGN NATIONALS IN
ELECTIONS

SEC. 201. CLARIFICATION OF PROHIBITION ON PARTICIPATION BY
FOREIGN NATIONALS IN ELECTION-RELATED
ACTIVITIES.

(a) Clarification of Prohibition.--Section 319(a) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) a foreign national to direct, dictate, control, or
directly or indirectly participate in the decision making
process of any person (including a corporation, labor
organization, political committee, or political organization)
with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-
related activity, including any decision concerning the
making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or
disbursements in connection with an election for any Federal,
State, or local office or any decision concerning the
administration of a political committee.''.
(b) Certification of Compliance.--Section 319 of such Act
(52 U.S.C. 30121), as amended by section 117, is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Certification of Compliance Required Prior to
Carrying Out Activity.--Prior to the making in connection
with an election for Federal office of any contribution,
donation, expenditure, independent expenditure, or
disbursement for an electioneering communication by a
corporation, labor organization (as defined in section
316(b)), limited liability corporation, or partnership during
a year, the chief executive officer of the corporation, labor
organization, limited liability corporation, or partnership
(or, if the corporation, labor organization, limited
liability corporation, or partnership does not have a chief
executive officer, the highest ranking official of the
corporation, labor organization, limited liability
corporation, or partnership), shall file a certification with
the Commission, under penalty of perjury, that a foreign
national did not direct, dictate, control, or directly or
indirectly participate in the decision making process
relating to such activity in violation of subsection (a)(3),
unless the chief executive officer has previously filed such
a certification during that calendar year.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect upon the expiration of the 180-day period
which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 202. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF FOREIGN MONEY BAN
TO CERTAIN DISBURSEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES.

(a) Application to Disbursements to Super PACs.--Section
319(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52
U.S.C. 30121(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking the semicolon
and inserting the following: ``, including any disbursement
to a political committee which accepts donations or
contributions that do not comply with the limitations,
prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act (or any
disbursement to or on behalf of any account of a political
committee which is established for the purpose of accepting
such donations or contributions);''.
(b) Conditions Under Which Corporate PACs May Make
Contributions and Expenditures.--Section 316(b) of such Act
(52 U.S.C. 30118(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(8) A separate segregated fund established by a
corporation may not make a contribution or expenditure during
a year unless the fund has certified to the Commission the
following during the year:
``(A) Each individual who manages the fund, and who is
responsible for exercising decisionmaking authority for the
fund, is a citizen of the United States or is lawfully
admitted for permanent residence in the United States.
``(B) No foreign national under section 319 participates in
any way in the decisionmaking processes of the fund with
regard to contributions or expenditures under this Act.
``(C) The fund does not solicit or accept recommendations
from any foreign national under section 319 with respect to
the contributions or expenditures made by the fund.
``(D) Any member of the board of directors of the
corporation who is a foreign national under section 319
abstains from voting on matters concerning the fund or its
activities.''.

SEC. 203. AUDIT AND REPORT ON ILLICIT FOREIGN MONEY IN
FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

(a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 319 the following new section:

``SEC. 319A. AUDIT AND REPORT ON DISBURSEMENTS BY FOREIGN
NATIONALS.

``(a) Audit.--
``(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct an audit
after each Federal election cycle to determine the incidence
of illicit foreign money in such Federal election cycle.
``(2) Procedures.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Commission shall conduct random audits of any disbursements
required to be reported under this Act, in accordance with
procedures established by the Commission.
``(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the end of
each Federal election cycle, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report containing--
``(1) results of the audit required by subsection (a)(1);
and
``(2) recommendations to address the presence of illicit
foreign money in elections, as appropriate.
``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) The term `Federal election cycle' means the period
which begins on the day after the date of a regularly
scheduled general election for Federal office and which ends
on the date of the first regularly scheduled general election
for Federal office held after such date.
``(2) The term `illicit foreign money' means any
disbursement by a foreign national (as defined in section
319(b)) prohibited under such section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to the

[[Page H8422]]

Federal election cycle that began during November 2018, and
each succeeding Federal election cycle.

SEC. 204. PROHIBITION ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS BY
FOREIGN NATIONALS IN CONNECTIONS WITH BALLOT
INITIATIVES AND REFERENDA.

(a) In General.--Section 319(a)(1)(A) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(1)(A)) is
amended by striking ``election'' and inserting the following:
``election, including a State or local ballot initiative or
referendum''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to elections held in 2020 or any
succeeding year.

SEC. 205. EXPANSION OF LIMITATIONS ON FOREIGN NATIONALS
PARTICIPATING IN POLITICAL ADVERTISING.

(a) Disbursements Described.--Section 319(a)(1) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(1))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
(2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) an expenditure;
``(D) an independent expenditure;
``(E) a disbursement for an electioneering communication
(within the meaning of section 304(f)(3));
``(F) a disbursement for a communication which is placed or
promoted for a fee on a website, web application, or digital
application that refers to a clearly identified candidate for
election for Federal office and is disseminated within 60
days before a general, special or runoff election for the
office sought by the candidate or 30 days before a primary or
preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political
party that has authority to nominate a candidate for the
office sought by the candidate;
``(G) a disbursement for a broadcast, cable or satellite
communication, or for a communication which is placed or
promoted for a fee on a website, web application, or digital
application, that promotes, supports, attacks or opposes the
election of a clearly identified candidate for Federal,
State, or local office (regardless of whether the
communication contains express advocacy or the functional
equivalent of express advocacy);
``(H) a disbursement for a broadcast, cable, or satellite
communication, or for any communication which is placed or
promoted for a fee on an online platform (as defined in
section 304(k)(3)), that discusses a national legislative
issue of public importance in a year in which a regularly
scheduled general election for Federal office is held, but
only if the disbursement is made by a covered foreign
national described in section 304(j)(3)(C); or
``(I) a disbursement by a covered foreign national
described in section 304(j)(3)(C) to compensate any person
for internet activity that promotes, supports, attacks or
opposes the election of a clearly identified candidate for
Federal, State, or local office (regardless of whether the
activity communication contains express advocacy or the
functional equivalent of express advocacy);''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to disbursements made on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.

TITLE III--DETERRING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS

Subtitle A--Deterrence Under Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

SEC. 301. RESTRICTIONS ON EXCHANGE OF CAMPAIGN INFORMATION
BETWEEN CANDIDATES AND FOREIGN POWERS.

Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(52 U.S.C. 30121), as amended by section 117 and section
201(b), is further amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(e) Restrictions on Exchange of Information Between
Candidates and Foreign Powers.--
``(1) Treatment of offer to share nonpublic campaign
material as solicitation of contribution from foreign
national.--If a candidate or an individual affiliated with
the campaign of a candidate, or if a political committee or
an individual affiliated with a political committee, provides
or offers to provide nonpublic campaign material to a covered
foreign national or to another person whom the candidate,
committee, or individual knows or has reason to know will
provide the material to a covered foreign national, the
candidate, committee, or individual (as the case may be)
shall be considered for purposes of this section to have
solicited a contribution or donation described in subsection
(a)(1)(A) from a foreign national.
``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
``(A) The term `candidate' means an individual who seeks
nomination for, or election to, any Federal, State, or local
public office.
``(B) The term `covered foreign national' has the meaning
given such term in section 304(j)(3)(C).
``(C) The term `individual affiliated with a campaign'
means, with respect to a candidate, an employee of any
organization legally authorized under Federal, State, or
local law to support the candidate's campaign for nomination
for, or election to, any Federal, State, or local public
office, as well as any independent contractor of such an
organization and any individual who performs services on
behalf of the organization, whether paid or unpaid.
``(D) The term `individual affiliated with a political
committee' means, with respect to a political committee, an
employee of the committee as well as any independent
contractor of the committee and any individual who performs
services on behalf of the committee, whether paid or unpaid.
``(E) The term `nonpublic campaign material' means, with
respect to a candidate or a political committee, campaign
material that is produced by the candidate or the committee
or produced at the candidate or committee's expense or
request which is not distributed or made available to the
general public or otherwise in the public domain, including
polling and focus group data and opposition research, except
that such term does not include material produced for
purposes of consultations relating solely to the candidate's
or committee's position on a legislative or policy matter.''.

SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION OF STANDARD FOR DETERMINING EXISTENCE
OF COORDINATION BETWEEN CAMPAIGNS AND OUTSIDE
INTERESTS.

Section 315(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(52 U.S.C. 30116(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(10) For purposes of paragraph (7), an expenditure or
disbursement may be considered to have been made in
cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or coordinated
with, a person without regard to whether or not the
cooperation, consultation, or coordination is carried out
pursuant to agreement or formal collaboration.''.

Subtitle B--Prohibiting Deceptive Practices and Preventing Voter
Intimidation

SEC. 311. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Deceptive Practices and
Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2019''.

SEC. 312. PROHIBITION ON DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN FEDERAL
ELECTIONS.

(a) Prohibition.--Subsection (b) of section 2004 of the
Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10101(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``No person'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--No person''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) False statements regarding federal elections.--
``(A) Prohibition.--No person, whether acting under color
of law or otherwise, shall, within 60 days before an election
described in paragraph (5), by any means, including by means
of written, electronic, or telephonic communications,
communicate or cause to be communicated information described
in subparagraph (B), or produce information described in
subparagraph (B) with the intent that such information be
communicated, if such person--
``(i) knows such information to be materially false; and
``(ii) has the intent to impede or prevent another person
from exercising the right to vote in an election described in
paragraph (5).
``(B) Information described.--Information is described in
this subparagraph if such information is regarding--
``(i) the time, place, or manner of holding any election
described in paragraph (5); or
``(ii) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter
eligibility for any such election, including--

``(I) any criminal penalties associated with voting in any
such election; or
``(II) information regarding a voter's registration status
or eligibility.

``(3) False statements regarding public endorsements.--
``(A) Prohibition.--No person, whether acting under color
of law or otherwise, shall, within 60 days before an election
described in paragraph (5), by any means, including by means
of written, electronic, or telephonic communications,
communicate, or cause to be communicated, a materially false
statement about an endorsement, if such person--
``(i) knows such statement to be false; and
``(ii) has the intent to impede or prevent another person
from exercising the right to vote in an election described in
paragraph (5).
``(B) Definition of `materially false'.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), a statement about an endorsement is
`materially false' if, with respect to an upcoming election
described in paragraph (5)--
``(i) the statement states that a specifically named
person, political party, or organization has endorsed the
election of a specific candidate for a Federal office
described in such paragraph; and
``(ii) such person, political party, or organization has
not endorsed the election of such candidate.
``(4) Hindering, interfering with, or preventing voting or
registering to vote.--No person, whether acting under color
of law or otherwise, shall intentionally hinder, interfere
with, or prevent another person from voting, registering to
vote, or aiding another person to vote or register to vote in
an election described in paragraph (5).
``(5) Election described.--An election described in this
paragraph is any general, primary, run-off, or special
election held solely or in part for the purpose of nominating
or electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice
President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member
of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner
from a Territory or possession.''.
(b) Private Right of Action.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 2004 of the
Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10101(c)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Whenever any person'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Whenever any person''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection
(b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) may institute a civil action for
preventive relief, including an

[[Page H8423]]

application in a United States district court for a permanent
or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order.
In any such action, the court, in its discretion, may allow
the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of
the costs.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subsection (e) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes
(52 U.S.C. 10101(e)) is amended by striking ``subsection
(c)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(1)''.
(B) Subsection (g) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes
(52 U.S.C. 10101(g)) is amended by striking ``subsection
(c)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(1)''.
(c) Criminal Penalties.--
(1) Deceptive acts.--Section 594 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Intimidation.--Whoever'';
(B) in subsection (a), as inserted by subparagraph (A), by
striking ``at any election'' and inserting ``at any general,
primary, run-off, or special election''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(b) Deceptive Acts.--
``(1) False statements regarding federal elections.--
``(A) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person,
whether acting under color of law or otherwise, within 60
days before an election described in subsection (e), by any
means, including by means of written, electronic, or
telephonic communications, to communicate or cause to be
communicated information described in subparagraph (B), or
produce information described in subparagraph (B) with the
intent that such information be communicated, if such
person--
``(i) knows such information to be materially false; and
``(ii) has the intent to mislead voters, or the intent to
impede or prevent another person from exercising the right to
vote in an election described in subsection (e).
``(B) Information described.--Information is described in
this subparagraph if such information is regarding--
``(i) the time or place of holding any election described
in subsection (e); or
``(ii) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter
eligibility for any such election, including--

``(I) any criminal penalties associated with voting in any
such election; or
``(II) information regarding a voter's registration status
or eligibility.

``(2) Penalty.--Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall
be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than
5 years, or both.
``(c) Hindering, Interfering With, or Preventing Voting or
Registering To Vote.--
``(1) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person,
whether acting under color of law or otherwise, to
intentionally hinder, interfere with, or prevent another
person from voting, registering to vote, or aiding another
person to vote or register to vote in an election described
in subsection (e).
``(2) Penalty.--Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall
be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than
5 years, or both.
``(d) Attempt.--Any person who attempts to commit any
offense described in subsection (a), (b)(1), or (c)(1) shall
be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the
offense that the person attempted to commit.
``(e) Election Described.--An election described in this
subsection is any general, primary, run-off, or special
election held solely or in part for the purpose of nominating
or electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice
President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member
of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner
from a Territory or possession.''.
(2) Modification of penalty for voter intimidation.--
Section 594(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
paragraph (1), is amended by striking ``fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year'' and inserting
``fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than
5 years''.
(3) Sentencing guidelines.--
(A) Review and amendment.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the United States
Sentencing Commission, pursuant to its authority under
section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in
accordance with this section, shall review and, if
appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and
policy statements applicable to persons convicted of any
offense under section 594 of title 18, United States Code, as
amended by this section.
(B) Authorization.--The United States Sentencing Commission
may amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in accordance
with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of the
Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 U.S.C. 994 note) as though the
authority under that section had not expired.
(4) Payments for refraining from voting.--Subsection (c) of
section 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10307)
is amended by striking ``either for registration to vote or
for voting'' and inserting ``for registration to vote, for
voting, or for not voting''.

SEC. 313. CORRECTIVE ACTION.

(a) Corrective Action.--
(1) In general.--If the Attorney General receives a
credible report that materially false information has been or
is being communicated in violation of paragraphs (2) and (3)
of section 2004(b) of the Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C.
10101(b)), as added by section 312(a), and if the Attorney
General determines that State and local election officials
have not taken adequate steps to promptly communicate
accurate information to correct the materially false
information, the Attorney General shall, pursuant to the
written procedures and standards under subsection (b),
communicate to the public, by any means, including by means
of written, electronic, or telephonic communications,
accurate information designed to correct the materially false
information.
(2) Communication of corrective information.--Any
information communicated by the Attorney General under
paragraph (1)--
(A) shall--
(i) be accurate and objective;
(ii) consist of only the information necessary to correct
the materially false information that has been or is being
communicated; and
(iii) to the extent practicable, be by a means that the
Attorney General determines will reach the persons to whom
the materially false information has been or is being
communicated; and
(B) shall not be designed to favor or disfavor any
particular candidate, organization, or political party.
(b) Written Procedures and Standards for Taking Corrective
Action.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall publish
written procedures and standards for determining when and how
corrective action will be taken under this section.
(2) Inclusion of appropriate deadlines.--The procedures and
standards under paragraph (1) shall include appropriate
deadlines, based in part on the number of days remaining
before the upcoming election.
(3) Consultation.--In developing the procedures and
standards under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall
consult with the Election Assistance Commission, State and
local election officials, civil rights organizations, voting
rights groups, voter protection groups, and other interested
community organizations.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Attorney General such sums as may
be necessary to carry out this subtitle.

SEC. 314. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after each general
election for Federal office, the Attorney General shall
submit to Congress a report compiling all allegations
received by the Attorney General of deceptive practices
described in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of section 2004(b)
of the Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10101(b)), as added by
section 312(a), relating to the general election for Federal
office and any primary, run-off, or a special election for
Federal office held in the 2 years preceding the general
election.
(b) Contents.--
(1) In general.--Each report submitted under subsection (a)
shall include--
(A) a description of each allegation of a deceptive
practice described in subsection (a), including the
geographic location, racial and ethnic composition, and
language minority-group membership of the persons toward whom
the alleged deceptive practice was directed;
(B) the status of the investigation of each allegation
described in subparagraph (A);
(C) a description of each corrective action taken by the
Attorney General under section 4(a) in response to an
allegation described in subparagraph (A);
(D) a description of each referral of an allegation
described in subparagraph (A) to other Federal, State, or
local agencies;
(E) to the extent information is available, a description
of any civil action instituted under section 2004(c)(2) of
the Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10101(c)(2)), as added by
section 312(b), in connection with an allegation described in
subparagraph (A); and
(F) a description of any criminal prosecution instituted
under section 594 of title 18, United States Code, as amended
by section 3(c), in connection with the receipt of an
allegation described in subparagraph (A) by the Attorney
General.
(2) Exclusion of certain information.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall not include in
a report submitted under subsection (a) any information
protected from disclosure by rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure or any Federal criminal statute.
(B) Exclusion of certain other information.--The Attorney
General may determine that the following information shall
not be included in a report submitted under subsection (a):
(i) Any information that is privileged.
(ii) Any information concerning an ongoing investigation.
(iii) Any information concerning a criminal or civil
proceeding conducted under seal.
(iv) Any other nonpublic information that the Attorney
General determines the disclosure of which could reasonably
be expected to infringe on the rights of any individual or
adversely affect the integrity of a pending or future
criminal investigation.
(c) Report Made Public.--On the date that the Attorney
General submits the report under subsection (a), the Attorney
General shall also make the report publicly available through
the Internet and other appropriate means.

Subtitle C--Inadmissibility and Deportability of Aliens Engaging in
Improper Election Interference

SEC. 321. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS
ENGAGING IN IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN UNITED
STATES ELECTIONS.

[[Page H8424]]

officer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of
State, or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable
grounds to believe, is seeking admission to the United States
to engage in improper interference in a United States
election, or has engaged in improper interference in a United
States election, is inadmissible.''.
(b) Deportability.--Section 237(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1227(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Improper interference in a united states election.--
Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after
admission engages in improper interference in a United States
election is deportable.''.
(c) Definition.--Section 101(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(53) The term `improper interference in a United States
election' means conduct by an alien that--
``(A)(i) violates Federal criminal, voting rights, or
campaign finance law, or
``(ii) is performed by any person acting as an agent of or
on behalf of a foreign government or criminal enterprise; and
``(B) includes any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or
unlawful act or attempted act, undertaken with the purpose or
effect of undermining public confidence in election processes
or institutions, or influencing, undermining confidence in,
or altering the result or reported result of, a general or
primary Federal, State, or local election or caucus,
including--

``(i) the campaign of a candidate; or
``(ii) a ballot measure, including an amendment, a bond
issue, an initiative, a recall, a referral or a
referendum.'',

TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROVISIONS.

Each provision of this Act and each amendment made by a
provision of this Act shall take effect on the effective date
provided under this Act for such provision or such amendment
without regard to whether or not the Federal Election
Commission, the Attorney General, or any other person has
promulgated regulations to carry out such provision or such
amendment.

SEC. 402. 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.

The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House
Report 116-253. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 116-253.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 54, insert after line 14 the following:

Subtitle C -- Notifying States of Disinformation Campaigns by Foreign
Nationals

SEC. 321. NOTIFYING STATES OF DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS BY
FOREIGN NATIONALS.

(a) Requiring Disclosure.--If the Federal Election
Commission makes a determination that a foreign national has
initiated or has attempted to initiate a disinformation
campaign targeted at an election for public office held in a
State, the Commission shall notify the State involved of the
determination not later than 30 days after making the
determination.
(b) Definitions.--In this section the term ``foreign
national'' has the meaning given such term in section 319(b)
of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C.
30121(b)).

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman from
California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

{time} 1545

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, as the first amendment, I don't want to
belabor many of the points that have been brought up in the general
debate by my friend from Illinois and my very good friend from the Bay
Area. I do want to say, as someone who has been in elected office in
the San Francisco Bay Area for a long time, where so many of the
innovations around social platforms and communications have taken
place--much of it in Ms. Lofgren's district--how proud I have been of
them. But how now--appropriately I think--skeptical I am of their
ability to unilaterally, or merely by themselves, enforce the proper
protections for American democracy. That is why I think this bill and
this discussion are so very important.
We know from the Mueller report that 126 million Americans were
contacted, either directly or indirectly, just on Facebook by the
Russians. We also know the outcome of the Presidential election was
based on less than 80,000 votes in three key States in the electoral
college. We know that Mr. Mueller said that this was a systematic
attempt by the Russians. And we know also that the President's
appointed FBI director has said recently, ``Russia attempted to
interfere with the last election and continues to engage in malign
influence operations to this day. This is a threat we need to take
extremely seriously and to tackle and respond to with fierce
determination and focus.''
Mr. Chairman, we also have talked a lot, in the last few years, about
the role of the Federal Government, State governments, and local
communities, and I agree with how diffused our historic relationships
are. But here is an instance in my amendment. It is a simple one. It is
to give the States and local jurisdictions the information they need to
be aware of some of these influences that are afforded by this bill.
My amendment is very simple. It requires that when the FEC is made
aware of credible targeted disinformation campaigns, that affected
States must be notified within 30 days. I think that is a fairly simple
amendment. I would hope, in the spirit of bipartisanship, my colleagues
would agree with that.
Thomas Jefferson famously said that, ``We in America do not have
government by the majority. We have government by the majority who
participate.''
We know that disinformation hurts participation when done
effectively, as it was just a short time ago in the recent Presidential
election. And we also know that effective oversight and this
government's engagement of both parties at the Federal level, the State
level, and the local level, when we are open, honest, and afford
transparency to American voters, they will participate at a higher rate
and also at a more knowledgeable rate.
It is our responsibility to recognize that disinformation is a threat
to the participation that is vital to our continued success as a
democracy, and it is our responsibility to act.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the core function of the
Federal Election Commission is to be the independent regulatory agency
charged with administering and enforcing Federal campaign finance law.
The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S.
House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Vice Presidency.
We do think States should be notified of disinformation by foreign
actors. The FEC is not equipped to investigate, much less make a final
determination, that foreign nationals have meddled in an election. This
is better left to law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
In one way that they are not equipped is that FEC commissioners do
not have the authority to obtain clearances to access certain
classified information, which would make it impossible for any
commissioner or the FEC to make such a notification to States, not to
mention the fact that the FEC chair is too busy attacking the President
to spend time on additional notification requirements.
It is also worth noting that the majority of the committee's position
has been that the FEC is dysfunctional, even to the point that they
voted to make it a five-member partisan commission in H.R. 1.
The Department of Justice, FBI, DHS, and other national security
agencies are better suited to address the problem of foreign meddling
in our elections, which is exactly what we allow them to do in the
Honest Elections Act--my bill--that I would certainly hope some on the
other side of the aisle would cosponsor.

[[Page H8425]]

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from Illinois'
baseball metaphor earlier, and I would say that for this metaphor, I
disagree. I think his call is wrong.
I think this amendment is a simple strike. As he knows, the bill
requires other agencies to give the information to the FEC. They are
merely a collector, in many instances, of the information, so they are
the appropriate body to disseminate that information.
That is what my amendment does. I don't disagree or think that it is
appropriate to debate the gentleman's other aspects, which may be true
or not, based on his perspective. The amendment is basically consistent
with the bill that the information goes here, and it should be
disseminated to the States.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague
from California offering an amendment and participating in this
process. It is not every time that we have disagreements on not only
legislation, but amendments like this.
I believe that this amendment needs to be clarified before it should
be put into law. And just as with the SHIELD Act, I believe it should
go back to the drawing board and we ought to be able to have more
hearings to find out the effect on free speech in the United States of
America, but also give us a chance in a bipartisan way to question the
social media platforms that we want to work with us to protect this
Nation from foreign meddling.
For the reasons I mentioned above and for the reasons that I stated
just now, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Lesko

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 116-253.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike section 313 (and redesignate the succeeding sections
accordingly).

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
4617, which would strike from the bill a section that gives the U.S.
Attorney General unprecedented power to involve him or herself in State
and local elections. This should be a concern for all Americans as it
says Washington knows best when it comes to our local elections.
Not only does this section represent a massive Federal overreach, it
is also vague.
For example, the section requires the Attorney General to determine
whether State and local election officials have taken ``adequate
steps'' to communicate information to address misinformation.
What are adequate steps? It doesn't say.
What is misinformation? This bill turns the United States Attorney
General into a fact-checker.
This section also requires the Attorney General to communicate to the
public ``by any means'' to address misinformation.
Taken together, this language would grant the United States Attorney
General power without guardrails and we, as Congress, should find this
concerning.
In addition to the troublesome substance of this section, it also
arrived on the floor through a deficient process.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have an interest in
ensuring legislation under my committee's jurisdiction is considered in
the Judiciary Committee. This did not happen here.
Despite the request from Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Collins,
this section of the legislation was not afforded the opportunity of a
markup by the Judiciary Committee, despite it having jurisdiction. In
fact, this is at least the fourth piece of legislation this year that
Ranking Member Collins requested to markup but was denied an
opportunity by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Because this section is a Federal intrusion into State and local
elections and came to the floor through a deficient process, I urge my
colleagues to support my amendment to strike this section, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I think the
amendment strikes what is really a commonsense section of the
underlying bill.
Section 313, beginning on page 49, line 11, comes from the Deceptive
Practices and Voter Intimidation Act. It first gives deference to State
and local officials to combat deceptive practices in their localities
if there is a credible report made that materially false information
has been communicated to the public regarding Federal elections such as
the time, place, or manner of holding an election.
Section 313 provides that the responsibility first falls on State and
local officials to correct the materially false information. It is only
if State and local election officials fall short of making a correction
that the Attorney General would ensure that voters do not fall victim
to deceptive practices.
I don't believe this is an example of Federal interference or
overreach. It is an example of putting to use all levels of government
to protect voters in our democracy.
Let's be clear, section 313 is, at its core, about enhancing
transparency and disclosure. The sort of activity we are talking about
here is merely providing factual information to voters to ensure they
are not deceived, that they are adequately informed, and that they have
a fair chance of participating in their democracy.
Section 313, page 51, directs the U.S. Attorney General to work in
partnership with the Election Assistance Commission, State and local
officials, and others to come up with procedures and standards for how
to take corrective action if there is an instance of materially false
information regarding voting. It is not just whatever he or she thinks
at the time. This is going to be said in advance.
The procedures in the partnership determines exactly how the AG could
step in when there is materially false information being spread. The
information communicated by the AG also should be designed not to favor
or disfavor any particular candidate, organization, or political party.
I think this is an example of how local, State, and Federal levels of
government could work together to protect voters in our democracy. This
is not an academic issue. We have seen situations where online, or
elsewhere, information has been spread to people that certain people--
for example, one party or the other--would be allowed to vote on a day
that wasn't election day. Well, that needs to be corrected or people
will be disenfranchised if they believe it because they saw it on the
internet.
Mr. Chairman, I think, though I am sure well-intended, this amendment
is a mistake. I urge its defeat, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my good friend.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend
from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very well-intended amendment. I
agree with my colleague from California that it is a very well-intended
amendment that is going to actually correct, I believe, what would be
an unintended consequence if this bill were to ever become law.

{time} 1600

This section that is being amended today provides unprecedented power
to the Attorney General to intercede in Federal races when he or she
believes State and local officials have not taken

[[Page H8426]]

``adequate steps'' to correct ``misinformation.''
Madam Chair, the Attorney General is a partisan official. They are
not a nonpartisan official. Imagine if Attorney General Barr was given
broad authority to take ``adequate steps.'' This is the language in the
bill.
These are the facts, Madam Chair. If Attorney General Barr was given
broad authority to take adequate steps in correcting the record in any
Democratic districts, imagine that. Imagine the uproar. There would be
a public uproar. The same could be said for a Democratic Attorney
General.
The section not only gives broad authority to the AG, but it is
extremely vague and will also leave State and local election officials
struggling to comply with this section.
To make matters worse, we have not heard from a single State or local
election official about how this might impact their ability to conduct
elections. This is the reason why we have hearings. This is the reason
why we call people into Congress to listen to them about the impact of
legislation that we are debating in this House.
And we did not have a single hearing before this bill was rushed to
the floor. This is not regular order. This is not what the Democratic
majority promised when they were given the majority by the American
people to run this institution. This is a broken promise that they made
to the American people, and I think we need to pass this amendment.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I would note that this bill is supported by
a broad spectrum of civil rights groups, including the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, as well as the Brennan
Center for Justice. And there is a reason for that.
A lot of the mischief that goes on to try and prevent people from
voting has a racial impact. We have seen the suppression of the vote,
the efforts that have been undertaken to suppress the vote through
confusion and through lies, where a piece of information would go into
a minority community--``the vote is now on Wednesday, not on
Tuesday''--so that people will be confused and not show up to vote.
That is simply wrong. We need to take steps that are reasonable, as
this is, to confront that.
This bill will help. That is why so many groups support it.
I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Chair, I agree that it is wrong if somebody pulls
out false information about an election, like the date or time, but I
certainly don't agree that the United States Attorney General should
get involved in local elections.
On this bill and other bills, I think there is a fundamental
difference between the way some of my Democratic colleagues believe and
what fellow Republicans and I believe. They believe the U.S. Government
should know everything and should do everything. I think local control
is better, that they know better what is going on.
Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. DeGette). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Lynch

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 54, insert after line 14 the following:

Subtitle C--Prohibiting Use of Deepfakes in Election Campaigns

SEC. 321. PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALLY DECEPTIVE
AUDIO OR VISUAL MEDIA PRIOR TO ELECTION.

(a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), as amended by section
203, is further amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

``SEC. 325. PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALLY
DECEPTIVE MEDIA PRIOR TO ELECTION.

``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b)
and (c), a person, political committee, or other entity shall
not, within 60 days of a election for Federal office at which
a candidate for elective office will appear on the ballot,
distribute, with actual malice, materially deceptive audio or
visual media of the candidate with the intent to injure the
candidate's reputation or to deceive a voter into voting for
or against the candidate.
``(b) Exception.--
``(1) Required language.--The prohibition in subsection (a)
does not apply if the audio or visual media includes--
``(A) a disclosure stating: ``This _____ has been
manipulated.''; and
``(B) filled in the blank in the disclosure under
subparagraph (A), the term `image', `video', or `audio', as
most accurately describes the media.
``(2) Visual media.--For visual media, the text of the
disclosure shall appear in a size that is easily readable by
the average viewer and no smaller than the largest font size
of other text appearing in the visual media. If the visual
media does not include any other text, the disclosure shall
appear in a size that is easily readable by the average
viewer. For visual media that is video, the disclosure shall
appear for the duration of the video.
``(3) Audio-only media.--If the media consists of audio
only, the disclosure shall be read in a clearly spoken manner
and in a pitch that can be easily heard by the average
listener, at the beginning of the audio, at the end of the
audio, and, if the audio is greater than two minutes in
length, interspersed within the audio at intervals of not
greater than two minutes each.
``(c) Inapplicability to Certain Entities.--This section
does not apply to the following:
``(1) A radio or television broadcasting station, including
a cable or satellite television operator, programmer, or
producer, that broadcasts materially deceptive audio or
visual media prohibited by this section as part of a bona
fide newscast, news interview, news documentary, or on-the-
spot coverage of bona fide news events, if the broadcast
clearly acknowledges through content or a disclosure, in a
manner that can be easily heard or read by the average
listener or viewer, that there are questions about the
authenticity of the materially deceptive audio or visual
media.
``(2) A radio or television broadcasting station, including
a cable or satellite television operator, programmer, or
producer, when it is paid to broadcast materially deceptive
audio or visual media.
``(3) An internet website, or a regularly published
newspaper, magazine, or other periodical of general
circulation, including an internet or electronic publication,
that routinely carries news and commentary of general
interest, and that publishes materially deceptive audio or
visual media prohibited by this section, if the publication
clearly states that the materially deceptive audio or visual
media does not accurately represent the speech or conduct of
the candidate.
``(4) Materially deceptive audio or visual media that
constitutes satire or parody.
``(d) Civil Action.--
``(1) Injunctive or other equitable relief.--A candidate
for elective office whose voice or likeness appears in a
materially deceptive audio or visual media distributed in
violation of this section may seek injunctive or other
equitable relief prohibiting the distribution of audio or
visual media in violation of this section. An action under
this paragraph shall be entitled to precedence in accordance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
``(2) Damages.--A candidate for elective office whose voice
or likeness appears in a materially deceptive audio or visual
media distributed in violation of this section may bring an
action for general or special damages against the person,
committee, or other entity that distributed the materially
deceptive audio or visual media. The court may also award a
prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs. This
paragraph shall not be construed to limit or preclude a
plaintiff from securing or recovering any other available
remedy.
``(3) Burden of proof.--In any civil action alleging a
violation of this section, the plaintiff shall bear the
burden of establishing the violation through clear and
convincing evidence.
``(e) Rule of Construction.--This section shall not be
construed to alter or negate any rights, obligations, or
immunities of an interactive service provider under section
230 of title 47, United States Code.
``(f) Materially Deceptive Audio or Visual Media Defined.--
In this section, the term `materially deceptive audio or
visual media' means an image or an audio or video recording
of a candidate's appearance, speech, or conduct that has been
intentionally manipulated in a manner such that both of the
following conditions are met:
``(1) The image or audio or video recording would falsely
appear to a reasonable person to be authentic.
``(2) The image or audio or video recording would cause a
reasonable person to have a fundamentally different
understanding or impression of the expressive content of the
image or audio or video recording than that

[[Page H8427]]

person would have if the person were hearing or seeing the
unaltered, original version of the image or audio or video
recording.''.
(b) Criminal Penalties.--Section 309(d)(1) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30109(d)(1)), as
amended by section 103, is further amended by adding at the
end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a
violation of section 325 shall be fined not more than
$100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.
(c) Effect on Defamation Action.--For purposes of an action
for defamation, a violation of section 325 of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971, as added by subsection (a),
shall constitute defamation per se.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I thank Ms. Lofgren for her leadership and her courage
and hard work in bringing this important bill to the floor.
My amendment to H.R. 4617, the SHIELD Act, would generally prohibit
the use of so-called deepfakes within 60 days of a Federal election.
These digital photo, audio, and video forgeries are generated using
artificial intelligence. They appear realistic and are intended to
manipulate or deceive their audience.
This amendment also establishes criminal and civil penalties for the
malicious use of deepfakes in Federal elections while providing
necessary exemptions for broadcasting or publication of deepfake
content by news media organizations in satire or parity and other
appropriate cases.
As chairman of the National Security Subcommittee of the Oversight
and Reform Committee, I can attest to the escalating warnings that we
have received from U.S. intelligence community officials and national
security experts regarding the use of these deepfake technologies as an
emerging tool of foreign election interference.
During our recent hearing to examine election security, government
and private-sector panelists testified about the capacity of deepfake
technologies to ``weaponize'' false information on a massive scale.
That is because it is already widely accessible, easy to use, low cost,
and rapidly evolving.
In reference to the security of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election,
FBI Director Christopher Wray has stated that deepfake content is a
``topic of great concern,'' as Federal intelligence agencies combat the
threat of election meddling by foreign adversaries that are intent on
developing new ways to perpetuate malign influence operations.
According to the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations, deepfakes
present ``disinformation on steroids'' and could easily be deployed to
influence an election, spark violence, exacerbate societal divisions,
and undermine other democratic institutions.
The Congressional Research Service similarly warns that hostile state
actors could release digitally altered videos of government officials
or candidates making incendiary comments or engaged in inappropriate
behavior to erode public trust, degrade our public discourse, defame
particular candidates, and sway elections.
The proliferation of deepfake technologies presents a serious threat
to the integrity of U.S. elections, considering that our Nation's 17
intelligence agencies already determined that our most fundamental
democratic process has come under attack by foreign adversaries. With
high confidence, the U.S. intelligence community found that Russian
President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at the
2016 election that included clandestine intelligence operations and
blatant meddling by state-owned agencies, state-funded media outlets,
third-party intermediaries, and paid social media trolls. The final
report issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller augmented this
assessment.
According to the ``2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S.
Intelligence Community,'' our adversaries will continue refining their
interference capabilities and add new tactics to dramatically alter the
threat landscape for 2020 and future elections.
In the interest of enhancing election security, campaign law must
adapt to these evolving technologies. A prohibition on the use of
deepfakes in Federal elections is a great first step in the right
direction.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to
the amendment, although I am not necessarily opposed it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, this is a problem.
Misinformation, false representation, digitally manipulated images,
that is a problem.
What we do in this institution, and the political nature of our jobs,
I think we have all been victims of videos that try to provide false
information. This has to be addressed.
I believe we need to have some hearings on this issue because it is
pretty complicated. And we haven't had a single hearing with any of the
platforms, where many of these videos would be published, before this
bill was rushed to the floor.
I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) that
deepfakes present a unique challenge for Congress to address. I would
hate to see a potential solution that is being offered by my good
friend put on a partisan bill.
An additional problem I see is that I am not aware of any technology
that can identify which images or video are deepfakes. Perhaps the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology should hold a hearing on
this issue as well.
In dealing with this issue, Congress needs to appropriately weigh the
First Amendment protections afforded to public speech with the
dangerous potential of deepfakes to add further damage to our already
polarized climate.
This amendment, like many of these amendments, would be better served
to pass through regular order and give the American public a chance to
learn about these very important and, at times, recent and troubling
issues.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I do appreciate the gentleman from Illinois'
thoughtful support for this amendment.
I thank Chair Lofgren for her leadership again in bringing the SHIELD
Act to the floor and working with me on this amendment.
I again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Levin of Michigan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 36, insert after line 22 the following:

SEC. 206. PROHIBITING ESTABLISHMENT OF CORPORATION TO CONCEAL
ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS BY FOREIGN
NATIONALS.

(a) Prohibition.--Chapter 29 of title 18, United States
Code is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 612. Establishment of corporation to conceal election
contributions and donations by foreign nationals

``(a) Offense.--It shall be unlawful for an owner, officer,
attorney, or incorporation agent of a corporation, company,
or other entity to establish or use the corporation, company,
or other entity with the intent to conceal an activity of a
foreign national (as defined in section 319 of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121)) prohibited
under such section 319.
``(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a)
shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined under
this title, or both.''.
(b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter
29 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 611 the following:

``612. Establishment of corporation to conceal election contributions
and donations by foreign nationals.''.

[[Page H8428]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, my bipartisan amendment cracks
down on foreign influence in our elections.
I would like to begin by thanking my friend and coauthor of this
amendment, Ranking Member McCaul, with whom I have the great privilege
of serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as my
colleagues cosponsoring this amendment, especially Representatives
Rouda, Slotkin, and Speier.
I also thank Chairwoman Lofgren for her inspiring leadership and for
working with me on this provision.
I came to Congress to strengthen our democracy, and that is the
fundamental purpose of this truly bipartisan amendment that I am
proposing today.
Current campaign finance laws prohibit foreign nationals from making
campaign contributions or conducting political activity. But because of
a loophole, there is no law specifically preventing foreign nationals
from setting up a shell corporation or company to hide illegal
political activity.
Our bipartisan amendment will nail that loophole shut by prohibiting
foreign nationals from funneling money through shell companies to
engage in political activity in America.
We must keep our democratic process safe from all bad actors,
including foreign actors, and strengthen the integrity of our
elections. That is what this amendment does.
Specifically, this amendment will make it a felony for an owner,
officer, attorney, or incorporated agent of a corporation, company, or
other entity to establish or use the corporation, company, or other
entity with the intent to conceal the political activities of foreign
actors.
Put simply, passing our amendment will ensure serious consequences
for anyone who starts or operates a shell company, or anyone who helps
start or operate a shell company, for the purpose of concealing
political activities of bad foreign actors.
I am proud to partner with the gentleman from Texas in proposing this
bipartisan amendment to defend our elections against foreign
interference. Our elections are a sacred cornerstone of our democracy,
and we must do everything in our power to protect them.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I am particularly pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rouda), my good friend.
Mr. ROUDA. Madam Chair, I thank my friend from Michigan,
Representative Levin, for yielding.
Madam Chair, preventing foreign election interference is a bipartisan
issue. This amendment is proof of that statement. I am proud to support
this amendment, a commonsense measure to close a loophole that is
allowing illegal political spending by foreign nationals in United
States elections.
In the 2016 election, millions of Americans saw and engaged with
political advertisements paid for by foreign nationals. Last year,
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg confirmed in sworn testimony before
Congress that foreign nationals were purchasing campaign ads and issue
ads through American shell companies.
As elected officials, we took an oath to defend the Constitution of
the United States of America against both foreign and domestic
adversaries and threats. That includes the cornerstone of our
democracy, free and fair elections.

{time} 1615

This amendment and the underlying bill seek to end a dangerous and
well-documented form of foreign election interference.
I thank Representatives Levin and McCaul for offering this important
amendment, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to
address this critical issue.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition, although I am not opposed to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I support this amendment.
I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Levin, Ranking Member McCaul, Mr.
Rouda, Ms. Speier, and Ms. Slotkin, for offering this very thoughtful
amendment. I would like to note that, even though the issue of using
shell corporations to make contributions is covered under the existing
straw donor prohibition, I do believe more clarity is needed on this
issue.
Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleagues. I am prepared to close,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, I will close by thanking the
gentleman from Illinois for his kinds words on this. We really have
worked hard as a team. It is a truly bipartisan effort.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank, again, my good
friend from the great State of Michigan for offering this amendment.
The only thing that I wish could have happened is I wish we could
have had some hearings on this bill so that we could have brought
experts in on shell corporations that are making straw donor donations
to Federal campaigns that are already prohibited so we could find out
the best way to ensure that doesn't happen in the future, especially
from nefarious foreign actors.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Langevin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 28, insert after line 12 the following:

SEC. 118. INDEPENDENT STUDY ON MEDIA LITERACY AND ONLINE
POLITICAL CONTENT CONSUMPTION.

(a) Independent Study.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Election
Commission shall commission an independent study and report
on media literacy with respect to online political content
consumption among voting-age Americans.
(b) Elements.--The study and report under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) An evaluation of media literacy skills, such as the
ability to evaluate sources, synthesize multiple accounts
into a coherent understanding of an issue, understand the
context of communications, and responsibly create and share
information, among voting-age Americans.
(2) An analysis of the effects of media literacy education
and particular media literacy skills on the ability to
critically consume online political content, including
political advertising.
(3) Recommendations for improving voting-age Americans'
ability to critically consume online political content,
including political advertising.
(c) Deadline.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the entity conducting the study and
report under subsection (a) shall submit the report to the
Commission.
(d) Submission to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after
receiving the report under subsection (c), the Commission
shall submit the report to the Committee on House
Administration of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, together
with such comments on the report as the Commission considers
appropriate.
(e) Definition of Media Literacy.--The term ``media
literacy'' means the ability to--
(1) access relevant and accurate information through media;
(2) critically analyze media content and the influences of
media;
(3) evaluate the comprehensiveness, relevance, credibility,
authority, and accuracy of information;
(4) make educated decisions based on information obtained
from media and digital sources;
(5) operate various forms of technology and digital tools;
and
(6) reflect on how the use of media and technology may
affect private and public life.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.

[[Page H8429]]

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, it is quite evident that our democracy is under attack
from concerted foreign influence campaigns, and online disinformation
is one of our enemies' most potent weapons.
Starting in 2013, Russian operatives associated with the Internet
Research Agency waged a robust and systematic influence campaign on
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter that reached millions of users in the
United States.
These operatives used political advertisements and falsified news
articles and other content in an attempt to deceive social media users,
widen our political and social divisions, and weaken our confidence and
participation in the democratic process.
Their efforts, particularly surrounding the 2016 election, were
disturbingly successful.
About 60 percent of Americans who prefer getting their news through
social media say they have shared false information. Additionally,
public confidence in our democracy is low, and we are perhaps more
polarized than ever before.
With the 2020 elections right around the corner, we must act now to
build up our resilience to these efforts and ensure Americans are
informed, critical consumers of online content. Voters must view online
political advertising with a discerning eye and be able to make
educated decisions based on the content that they consume.
This amendment, Madam Chair, to the SHIELD Act would direct the FEC
to commission a study on Americans' media literacy skills, including
the ability to critically evaluate sources and responsibly share
information. It would require a report on the impact of media literacy
education on how Americans consume and understand online political
content, with a focus on political advertisements. The study would also
include recommendations to improve voters' resilience to
disinformation.
A functioning democracy depends on informed citizens who can
responsibly participate in the political process, and the unquestioning
consumption and sharing of disinformation online undermines the
integrity of this system. My amendment will help shed light on the
skills Americans need to resist these malicious campaigns.
Renee Hobbs, the director of Media Education Lab in Rhode Island and
a professor at the University of Rhode Island, puts it plainly:
``Learning to recognize and resist propaganda and disinformation is
an essential dimension of education in a digital age. After all, it is
the only long-term strategy that embodies our country's vital
democratic traditions of robust dialogue and debate in the marketplace
of ideas.''
Professor Hobbs is right, and as more and more Americans rely on
social media to get their news, media literacy is becoming ever more
important.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment so we can
explore how best to build up our citizens' resilience to foreign online
influence campaigns.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Langevin, for offering this
amendment. As good a friend as he is, it somewhat pains me to have to
stand up and be opposed to it.
Again, the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, is the independent
regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the Federal
campaign finance law. They have jurisdiction over the financing of
campaigns for us here in the House, our colleagues in the Senate, the
President, and the Vice President. They are not the fake news police,
much to the chagrin of the current FEC Chair.
This amendment requires an independent report from the FEC, and I am
not convinced that the FEC Chair is capable of issuing any independent
report, any independent guidance, or any independent legal
interpretations; and, frankly, I don't think she is capable of offering
any independent tweets.
I think it is worth noting that every single House Democrat voted to
make the FEC a partisan agency earlier this Congress in H.R. 1 and has
lamented how dysfunctional they believe the FEC is. If the FEC were a
partisan agency, would we want them determining which news was fake
news and which news was legitimate?
I agree we need to understand and improve media literacy with respect
to political content in this country, but the FEC is not the entity to
lead that endeavor.
Let's take a look at the danger of overregulating online ads and
misinterpreting political content. The ad I have behind me and the ones
behind it are already being labeled as political ads on Facebook. These
came straight from the Facebook ad library.
First off, we have my favorite. As the proud dad of two Yorkies at
home in Taylorville, Illinois, this political ad for hotdogcollars.com
would allow me to get my two Yorkies some new dog collars. I don't
know--except maybe the American flag dog collar--how political that is.
Next up is the very political ad Facebook is now categorizing under
current law and under their current regulations as a political ad--
Pizza Crave. Hey, it is Halloween season, it is almost upon us, $10
pizza pies. I don't know why that is categorized as political, but it
is.
Do we really want the FEC to figure out that they are the agency to
correct that? No. Facebook ought to correct it.

Lastly, Stone Bridge Pizza & Salad: We always crave the classic--
obviously a political ad. I don't know anybody who would eat pizza like
that, but clearly this is not a political ad.
I think we need to take a step back. We need to realize that the
current FEC that is dysfunctional is the last place for independent
review of anything. We need to make sure that the FEC does its job in a
nonpartisan way.
Madam Chair, we need to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, if only my colleague had actually read and
understood the bill, he would know that it is an independent study. I
think that would make a difference in how, perhaps, he felt about the
bill.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Slotkin).
Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment
to the SHIELD Act, the digital citizenship and media literacy
amendment.
We have said it before. No matter who we are, Democrats, Republicans,
or Independents, we should all agree that we don't want foreigners
manipulating our citizens, sowing discord in our society, and playing
in our political process.
We know that foreign entities continue to target social media ads and
disinformation at voters, particularly in swing States like mine,
Michigan. These ads are horrible. They seek to divide us and influence
our political process.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a bipartisan
report late last month and said that the public needs to be informed
and both understand and identify disinformation that is critical to
preventing foreign influence. This means our citizens, and especially
our kids, need to have the tools to spot this disinformation.
In this new age of digital warfare, we need education. Education is
critical. This study helps us get at this so that we can all understand
how to identify propaganda and flag it.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments from my good friend from
Michigan. I, too, am in a swing district. We don't want misinformation.
To address comments made by my good friend from Rhode Island, I
understand that what the gentleman is asking for is an independent
report. I don't believe the FEC can offer an independent assessment of
anything right now.
Madam Chair, you have an FEC that is completely dysfunctional. You
have a Chair of the FEC who is doing nothing but taking partisan shots
at our

[[Page H8430]]

President. That is not what the FEC should be.
The FEC is incapable of offering any independent review of anything.
That is my concern. That is why I believe if we could work together and
come up with a more viable solution to get a true independent study, I
think we could do that.
Madam Chair, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Madam Chair, to address my colleague's point, again, it is not the
FEC that is going to do the study. It is an independent study that will
be done, be commissioned to be concluded, and that would be the final
product, not the FEC.
So, with that, Russia's election interference efforts in 2016 were
sweeping and damaging, and we know that social media was one of their
greatest weapons. As the 2020 elections approach, and for future
elections, we must ensure that our citizens are resilient to foreign
influence companies by arming them with the skills to be critical
consumers of online political content.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to study media literacy
and its impact on American voters--again, an independent study that
will be commissioned.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, to clarify, I don't think
the FEC is capable of actually commissioning an independent study. I
would be happy to work with the gentleman from Rhode Island to find
another agency that we believe could offer a fair assessment.
Madam Chair, I will urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment for those
reasons, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1630

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk, No. 6, made in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, line 15, insert ``and each immediate family member
of a candidate'' after ``each candidate''.
Page 4, line 9, insert ``an immediate family member of the
candidate,'' after ``a candidate,''.
Page 7, line 9, strike the closing quotation mark and the
second period.
Page 7, insert after line 9 the following:
``(4) Immediate family member.--In this subsection, the
term `immediate family member' means, with respect to a
candidate, a parent, parent-in-law, spouse, adult child, or
sibling.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Swalwell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of the underlying bill and my
amendment, which would include a candidate's immediate family members
to those whose direct or indirect contacts or communications with a
foreign national may amount to a reportable foreign contact.
I also think it is very fitting that we are doing this legislation in
the same week that we will honor Oversight and Reform Committee
Chairman, Elijah Cummings, someone who I have had the privilege of not
only working with but being represented by when I was a law student in
Baltimore.
But Elijah, the gentleman from Maryland, and I worked to write the
Protecting Our Democracy Act immediately after the Russian interference
campaign.
Every member of the Democrat Caucus and members from the Republican
Caucus signed on to that. I still believe that is the best way to
address what the Russians did in 2016 and to harden our systems so they
don't do it again.
But I believe that this effort, the SHIELD Act, led by Chairwoman Zoe
Lofgren will go a very, very long way in protecting our elections, and
I thank the chairwoman for her leadership in this effort.
American elections should be decided by Americans. Ms. Lofgren's bill
will go a long way to stopping secret foreign attempts to influence our
democracy, as we saw in 2016.
We know that as a part of Russia's attack on us, it purchased social
media advertisements.
Madam Chair, 3,500 advertisements on political or public policy
topics were purchased using rubles. To combat this conduct, I had
introduced in May, H.R. 2853, the Corporate Duty to Report Act. Part of
my bill would require companies distributing political communications,
including social media companies, to take the small but important step
in at least asking if the purchaser is a foreign national. I thank
Chairwoman Lofgren for including this concept in the SHIELD Act.
We also learned in June 2016 that Donald Trump, Jr., was told over
email that the Russian Government was offering ``official documents and
information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with
Russia,'' which was, ``part of Russia and its government support for
Mr. Trump.''
Don Jr., replied in part, ``If it's what you say, I love it,
especially later in the summer.'' Then he accepted the offer of
assistance. He told a lot of people about the offer, including his
brother-in-law and the chairman of the campaign, he had a meeting
around the offer, but he never told law enforcement.
This is the part of the honor code that most candidates in America
follow. It is just the right thing to do. Unfortunately, Donald Trump,
Jr.'s conduct highlights that we have to take parts of the honor code
that good people usually just follow and codify them into law.
I wrote the Duty to Report Act last Congress with Senator Richard
Blumenthal, who sponsored it in the Senate, that also would include
immediate family members, not just the candidate to tell law
enforcement, but the parent, parent-in-law, spouse, adult child, or
sibling.
I am afraid that someone like Don Jr., who didn't have an official
role in the Trump campaign, would not be included in the SHIELD Act as
written, and that is the reason I am offering this amendment.
Madam Chair, I ask for support on my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to
this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, this amendment amends the
underlying duty to report section.
The goal of this underlying section is something I share with my
friend across the aisle. If a foreign national would approach me with
an offer of assistance in my campaign, I would absolutely alert the
FBI.
My colleague from California mentions an instance with the
President's son. I mean, clearly, I know that he and my Democratic
colleagues, they look at this, this is not about what is going to
happen to many of the colleagues here, because, likely, we are never
going to be approached by a foreign national. But if we are, I think we
all agree, it is a pretty bipartisan consensus, we would call the FBI.
This is a partisan attack on the President. But rarely are instances
as blatant as what I mentioned before about being contacted and I would
call the FBI. What this underlying section is asking of political
committees is for them to serve as immigration officials, where they
will be in a position to determine the citizenship of anyone that their
campaign comes into contact with.
But, again, I believe through bipartisan negotiations, we could make
this work. The underlying duty to report section was already vague to
begin with, and adding in additional parties, as this amendment does,
that must comply only adds to our concern that we are setting up
campaign committees, as well as their families, we are setting them up
for failure.

[[Page H8431]]

It is also worth noting that this amendment would affect family
members the candidate has no control over. My family members own fast
food restaurants. So are they going to have to ask--if this becomes
law--every customer if they are a foreign national representing a
foreign government?
Do they have a duty to report?
That is something that needs to be clarified.
We have to do a little bit more work. I think we can work this out,
but again, the secretive nature of how this bill was written and forced
onto the floor with zero hearings doesn't give us a chance, or frankly,
the majority a chance to ask these questions and address our concerns.
Madam Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of
my time.

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
I appreciate the gentleman's concerns and I accept that the gentleman
would report, if he was contacted by a foreign national. And I want to
clarify, in the legislation under section (c)(1), the term is covered,
``foreign national,'' which means a foreign principal who would fall
subject to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. So it is not an
immigrant. It is not any person born outside the United States. It is
someone acting on behalf of a foreign agent.
And it also has a ``knowing standard,'' meaning that you would have
to have some knowledge that this person is acting on behalf of a
foreign agent. And the Donald Trump, Jr., example, it was represented
that the individuals were working with the prosecutor general of
Russia, so clearly, that would be notice that this is on behalf of a
foreign agent.
Now, I also want to just point out that, yes, there is an honor code
that we all follow, and I believe most of my colleagues would tell the
FBI. And, of course, in 2000, when the Gore campaign received debate
prep materials for the Bush campaign, the Gore campaign went to the FBI
because it was provided by a foreign national.
However, what we learned in 2016 is not everyone is as honorable, and
so we have to codify this. And I do believe that we will be judged by
what we do as our democracy has been tested. And not only what we do,
but what we learn from the vulnerabilities that have been exposed.
And that is why I think it is so important that Ms. Lofgren's
legislation is voted for and passed on this floor, and that we include
this amendment to make sure it is not just candidates, but also the
family members.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague
from California. We will be judged on how we actually impact foreign
interference in our elections. We will be judged on the chilling effect
to free speech that this legislation, if put into law, would have on
our system that is so much different from those nefarious countries and
leaders who want to meddle in our election process.
But my point earlier still stands. I agree that somebody who would
fall under FARA, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, would be the ones
that we would have a duty to report, if they came to our campaign. But
at the same time, how do we know? Are they going to wear a badge that
says, Hey, I am a FARA-registered individual from another country, and
I am coming to talk to you since you are a Member of Congress in a
political campaign?
I mean, am I going to have my kids who are in college, am I going to
have to have them ask everyone they come into contact with, ``Are you
registered under the Foreign Agent Registration Act in Washington,
D.C., because I have a duty to report.''
How are we going to know? That is why we have to take a step back. We
have to sit down. We have to work this together. There are too many
unintended consequences that, yes, Madam Chair, we will be judged by in
this country. We will be judged by the freedoms and the freedom of
speech that many in this country take for granted, that we should stand
together, Republicans and Democrats, to protect, or we will be judged
by bad legislation that could be turned into law that could have a
chilling effect on these freedoms, on these liberties that our
adversaries that meddle in our elections want to use to take them away
from every single American.
Vote ``no'' on this amendment. Vote to protect free speech and vote
to take a step back to clarify how we work to ensure that no foreign
entity can interfere with our elections again.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 3, line 11, insert after ``foreign contact.'' the
following: ``The Federal Bureau of Investigation, not later
than 1 week after receiving a notification from a political
committee under this paragraph, shall submit to the political
committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of
the House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate written or electronic confirmation
of receipt of the notification.''
Page 11, insert after line 23 the following (and
redesignate the succeeding section):

SEC. 104. REPORT TO CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES.

(a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the
congressional intelligence committees a report relating to
notifications received by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
under section 304(j)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (as added by section 101(a) of this Act).
(b) Elements.--Each report under subsection (a) shall
include, at a minimum, the following with respect to
notifications described in subsection (a):
(1) The number of such notifications received from
political committees during the year covered by the report.
(2) A description of protocols and procedures developed by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to receipt and
maintenance of records relating to such notifications.
(3) With respect to such notifications received during the
year covered by the report, a description of any subsequent
actions taken by the Director resulting from the receipt of
such notifications.
(c) Congressional Intelligence Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``congressional intelligence committees''
has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, I want to recognize, first, the hard work of Chairwoman
Lofgren. Your hard work and your leadership on this important issue and
the underlying bill. It is clear that our foreign adversaries have and
will continue to interfere and influence our elections and attempt to
erode confidence in our government and destroy our democratic system.
The Mueller report made clear that the Russian Government interfered
in the 2016 Presidential election in a sweeping and systematic fashion.
And Mr. Mueller testified earlier this year that many more countries
have developed misinformation campaigns since 2016 targeted at the
United States, our democracy, and our system of elections.
Facebook on Monday disclosed that it had taken down four new foreign
interference operations originating from Iran and Russia. Soliciting or
accepting foreign interference doesn't just violate our democratic
norms; it clearly violates our laws.
Yet, in June, President Trump said there would be nothing wrong with
accepting from a foreign government incriminating information about an
opponent and saw no reason--the President saw no reason--to call the
FBI if it were to happen.
He went one step further and said it was wrong for FBI Director Chris
Wray to say that public officials or campaigns should contact the FBI
if they

[[Page H8432]]

are contacted by other nations seeking to influence or interfere with
our elections.
The President's remarks mirrored one given by his son-in-law, Jared
Kushner, who also said he was not sure he would call the FBI if a
foreign government offered damaging information about a political foe.
That is why it is critical that we pass this legislation, to protect
the integrity of our elections.
The underlying bill requires public officials, candidates, and
campaigns to report to the FBI when foreign governments and their
agents contact them and holds them responsible when they fail to
report.
Madam Chair, my amendment strengthens this legislation by requiring
the FBI to confirm receipt of any notification of possible foreign
interference operations.
Additionally, the FBI must also notify both the House and Senate
Intelligence Committees guaranteeing that Congress, as a coequal branch
of government, is made aware when foreign agents and hostile nations
are attempting to undermine our democracy.
Finally, my amendment would require the FBI to submit an annual
report to Congress related to all the notifications it has received and
the corresponding actions the Bureau has taken in response.
The FBI cannot be passive to these threats to our national security
but must take decisive action to respond to election interference.
Madam Chair, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this
amendment and this underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to
this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, the provision this section
seeks to amend has problems in and of itself. I object to this
amendment because I object to the underlying premise of the bill. It is
unreasonable to require candidates to vet every foreign national they
come into contact with.
I understand that this bill requires that candidates know or have
reason to know that foreign nationals are covered. My question is:
Would not any government employee, such as those that work at an
embassy, be covered under this bill? Wouldn't a conversation with a
traffic officer or embassy clerk be subject to penalties under this
section?
I absolutely believe that campaigns should have to report offers of
assistance from foreign nationals. The issue with this bill and, thus,
this amendment, is that it is overbroad and puts the responsibility on
campaigns. Campaigns are ill-prepared to interpret this language.
I am also concerned that requiring the FBI to not only notify
Congress, but detail how they are managing and responding to
notifications from political committees will inevitably lead to
selective leaks and will politicize the well-intended goal of
preventing foreign influence.
Madam Chair, for those reasons, I oppose this bill. And since my
colleague yielded back, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Delgado

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 33, line 7, strike ``and''
Page 33, insert after line 7 the following (and redesignate
the succeeding provision accordingly):
``(2) an analysis of the extent to which illicit foreign
money was used to carry out disinformation and propaganda
campaigns focused on depressing turnout among rural
communities and the success or failure of these efforts,
together with recommendations to address these efforts in
future elections; and''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Delgado) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

{time} 1645

Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, I rise in support of my amendment to the SHIELD Act, which is
meant to keep foreign influences from depressing voter turnout in rural
communities.
Protecting our democracy and upholding the sanctity of our elections
is of critical importance.
Madam Chair, the SHIELD Act is urgently needed legislation. Americans
will go to the polls in a matter of weeks, and every day, we are
presented with more data that our foreign adversaries are working to
influence our elections and undermine our democracy.
These destructive tactics, as we have seen in previous election
cycles, continue to get more sophisticated, with outside parties now
manipulating our elections through the ballot box, social media, and
spreading misinformation.
My amendment fights against these tactics and requires an analysis,
following each Federal election, into whether or not illicit foreign
money was used to carry out disinformation or propaganda campaigns
focused on depressing turnout among rural communities.
The amendment also requires a breakdown of the successes or failures
of these efforts and recommendations for how we can address these
tactics in future elections.
Americans in rural communities face many hurdles to exercising the
right to vote, including the distance to the nearest poll. We cannot
add additional hurdles of foreign disinformation and its influence on
voter turnout.
There is nothing more important than protecting our democracy and
ensuring every American has the ability to vote and the opportunity to
make their voices heard.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I, too, like my colleague
from New York, represent a district with a very large rural population.
I want to see rural turnout as high as possible.
But the mission of the FEC is to administer and enforce Federal
campaign finance law. I mean, if this becomes law, along with some of
the other previous amendments and amendments after this, I don't know
when the FEC is going to have any time to actually enforce campaign
finance violations that are happening right now. The FEC is not
equipped to receive all these mandates from Congress.
This is an extremely important job, a job some on the Commission,
including the Chair, are ignoring by spending all their time attacking
the President. I think we need to let the FEC focus on their day job.
There are many groups, within and outside government, that could
produce a report on misinformation, such as the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, maybe even the Brennan Center. Let's let them do it.
Help us help the FEC to be able to do the job that we have required
it to do.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I would note to my friend that in order for
the FEC to enforce the law as you suggest, which I certainly believe
they ought to, it would help if they would have the data and the
information to do so and to be able to track down attempts to break the
law.
This would be exactly what we are trying to do with this amendment.
To speculate on who might--when, where, and how--be able to do this is
a waste of time when we know at this point that we are under siege.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I look forward to working
with my colleague from New York to address many issues regarding rural
America. I would love to be able to sit down and find a workable
solution.

[[Page H8433]]

The problem is, the solution that is being offered in this amendment
is going to be tacked on to a bill that is never going to become law.
So we are either going to talk about amendments that are going to
remain talking points or we can sit down together and work in a
bipartisan fashion to get a law passed that is going to have the impact
that my colleague from New York and I want it to have.
Let's sit down, without having to write the rules that the FEC would
have to follow. Let's work together and send a letter to the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights. Let's send a letter to the Brennan Center
and see if they can study it.
Why do we have to wait so long? This is a much easier way to address
the problem that I think he and I agree ought to be addressed. Let's do
that.
When this bill passes on a partisan rollcall today and goes nowhere
when it moves into the Senate, let's commit to working together to see
what we can do to get this done because rural America is too important
to be affected by partisanship here in Washington, D.C.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I would be more than happy to work with my
colleague to do whatever we can to deal with protecting our elections
and ensuring that they remain free and fair.
As I am sure the gentleman understands, representing a rural
district, too many folks in our communities are being left behind, and
they should not be left behind in the least bit when it comes to the
sanctity of our elections.
While we might be in a position where, unfortunately, partisanship
gets in the way of these issues, I will note that to simply say these
things won't become law is part of the problem. I think it is also
important to deconstruct why these things are not making their way into
law in the first place.
When people become overly partisan in this environment, we are at an
impasse, unfortunately. I am here to work beyond that.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, again, I agree with my
colleague. This place becomes overly partisan. This entire process,
this bill, with zero hearings in the House Administration Committee
before it was forced to markup through our committee, without us to
have a chance to ask experts what they can and cannot do to address
many of the problems that my colleague from New York actually offers
solutions for, that is the problem of partisanship.
We can't just blame the Senate. I was told by many of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle when we were in the majority, ``So what
if the Senate is not going to pass it? We ought to work together in the
House.'' I agreed then, and I agree now. We ought to find solutions.
Unfortunately, partisanship has overtaken this process. The
unfortunate result of that is that good ideas like the one my colleague
has are going to stop in their tracks when this amendment passes on a
partisan rollcall vote for this amendment, and then it is not going to
be signed into law.
Again, I can't wait to work with my colleague on finding a way to get
this information into the right hands and have those who can study it
without having to go through a dysfunctional Federal Election
Commission and also have them study why we had historic turnout not
just in urban America but in rural America during the 2018 midterms.
Let's talk about what we have done right to make sure that voters have
a chance to get to the polls at historic turnout numbers like we saw
during the 2018 election cycle, which allowed many of my colleagues to
get elected to this institution.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I look forward
to working with my colleague in the future to address the problem of
access and voter access in rural America, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I would like to note, to bring the
discussion back full circle, when my friend says that the FEC is
dysfunctional but began this conversation saying that it has the
responsibility to enforce election laws, those two points don't really
go hand in hand.
I think it is important that if we are going to make the FEC able and
capable of enforcing the laws that we know are critical to protecting
our democracy, then we should operate on the assumption of how we could
make the FEC as functional as possible and give the FEC data and
information to achieve its stated purpose.
I thank Chairwoman Lofgren for her leadership on this issue and urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put the protection of our
democracy over partisan division and pass both my amendment and the
underlying bill.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Delgado).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Houlahan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 40, insert after line 6 the following:

SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE
RELATING TO CONTRIBUTION OR DONATION BY FOREIGN
NATIONALS.

Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
(52 U.S.C. 30121), as amended by section 117, section 201(a),
section 201(b), and section 301, is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) a person to knowingly provide substantial assistance
to another person in carrying out an activity described in
paragraph (1), (2), or (3).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(f) Knowingly Described.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(4), the
term `knowingly' means actual knowledge, constructive
knowledge, awareness of pertinent facts that would lead a
reasonable person to conclude there is a substantial
probability, or awareness of pertinent facts that would lead
a reasonable person to conduct a reasonable inquiry to
establish--
``(A) with respect to an activity described in subsection
(a)(1), that the contribution, donation, expenditure,
independent expenditure, or disbursement is from a foreign
national;
``(B) with respect to an activity described in subsection
(a)(2), that the contribution or donation solicited,
accepted, or received is from a foreign national; and
``(C) with respect to an activity described in subsection
(a)(3), that the person directing, dictating, controlling, or
directly or indirectly participating in the decision making
process is a foreign national.
``(2) Pertinent facts.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
pertinent facts include, but are not limited to, that the
person making the contribution, donation, expenditure,
independent expenditure, or disbursement, or that the person
from whom the contribution or donation is solicited,
accepted, or received, or that the person directing,
dictating, controlling, or directly or indirectly
participating in the decision making process--
``(A) uses a foreign passport or passport number for
identification purposes;
``(B) provides a foreign address;
``(C) uses a check or other written instrument drawn on a
foreign bank, or by a wire transfer from a foreign bank, in
carrying out the activity; or
``(D) resides abroad.
``(g) Substantial Assistance Defined.--As used in this
section, the term `substantial assistance' means, with
respect to an activity prohibited by paragraph (1), (2), or
(3) of subsection (a), involvement with an intent to
facilitate successful completion of the activity.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank Chairwoman Lofgren today for having supported such an amazing
body of work and for also supporting this amendment.
I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 4617, which helps
secure our elections by holding Americans who help foreigners funnel
money into our elections more accountable.
Throughout our history, people have fought for the right to vote, and
our men and women in uniform have died to protect that right. Being an
American is a privilege, and the right for

[[Page H8434]]

every American to cast their ballot is sacred. It is part of our duty,
and it is part of our duty in Congress, to protect that right. That is
why I am encouraging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support my amendment.
Foreign money in our elections is an assault on the American
electorate and on the democracy that our forefathers built. Americans
who help foreign actors meddle in our elections must be held
accountable under the law.
To vote against my amendment is, therefore, to condone the actions of
Americans who act against the interests of our country and who help
foreigners undermine our elections.
I believe I speak for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle when I
say this body is committed to defending our country's democratic
processes. This need not be partisan because there is nothing more
fundamentally American than protecting our most sacred right, the right
to vote, from all foreign interference.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition,
although I am not opposed to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my good friend
from the great State of Pennsylvania for offering this amendment.
However, I would like to add, this is an incredibly wonky amendment
to an already complicated, convoluted, and confusing bill. I don't
think you should have to be a high-powered campaign finance attorney to
understand what is at stake in terms of election security.
The issue of foreign nationals meddling in elections can be resolved
more simply by passing my bill, the Honest Elections Act. My bill does
not have to empower the FEC, an already--I have said, and I hope my
colleagues agree--pretty dysfunctional agency.
If they didn't believe it was dysfunctional, they wouldn't have
voted, in H.R. 1, to make it a partisan agency. If they think it is
great now, why did they try to make it into an even more partisan
agency?
So, I think we all agree it is dysfunctional. We may have different
reasons why.
But my bill doesn't empower a dysfunctional FEC to address the
problem of foreign nationals meddling in our elections. My bill
empowers the Department of Justice, which has jurisdiction over
enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act. That is a better option.
Clearly, I am not going to get an option because this bill was
brought to the floor without any hearings, without any opportunity for
us to have input, and that is a problem. That is a problem with
legislating in this institution.
That is a broken promise that this Democratic majority made to the
voters who sent them here and put them in the majority. They said they
were going to do things differently, right? I heard from my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, in my terms before this one, how things
were ramrodded through, how regular order wasn't followed, how they
weren't given a chance to sit down and come up with solutions. Well, I
find it ironic that the success story we have of the Republican
majority in the 115th Congress of investing $380 million in election
security funds, where we saw historic turnout in the 2018 midterms--we
saw historic turnout, and we saw success.
That is what a Republican majority gave. The Democrat majority, they
have given us hearings--well, wait, no. No hearings before this bill
was put to the floor, that is a problem.
I really want to say thank you to my colleague from Pennsylvania for
offering this amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. But, again, the
FEC is not the place. I am not going to be opposed to this amendment.
The DOJ is the place.
Madam Chair, I am going to make sure I reserve my time. If I had a
challenge flag, I thought my colleague last time yielded back, but I
believe the judgment from the referees up there was that he did not
yield back. Maybe we could check the replay a little later, so I will
go ahead and reserve this time.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I will take it as the deepest compliment
from my colleague, Mr. Davis, that he says that my amendment is wonky
since I believe that is our responsibility here in Congress, to
legislate and to develop good policy.
I will also take that back to the working group that was a bipartisan
working group that developed this amendment with me, the bipartisan
Task Force Sentry, which really worked very hard to find a way to make
sure that we would codify what was already being practiced by the FEC.
This doesn't give the FEC any more power. It simply gives the power
to us to be able to actually criminalize people by defining what it
means to support foreign interference.
I believe that this amendment does speak for itself, and I am very,
very grateful for the compliments of how this is a policy wonk's dream.
I will go ahead and interpret the gentleman's words.
I very much would encourage Americans to understand why we need to
prevent funneling foreign money into our elections.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1700

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Slotkin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 54, insert after line 14 the following:

Subtitle C--Assessment of Exemption of Registration Requirements Under
FARA for Registered Lobbyists

SEC. 321. ASSESSMENT OF EXEMPTION OF REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER FARA FOR REGISTERED
LOBBYISTS.

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct and submit to Congress an assessment of the
implications of the exemption provided under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et
seq.) for agents of foreign principals who are also
registered lobbyists under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and shall include in the
assessment an analysis of the extent to which revisions in
such Acts might mitigate the risk of foreign government money
influencing elections or political processes in the United
States.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of an amendment to
the SHIELD Act, which takes a step toward solving a tough, complicated,
outstanding challenge in preventing foreign influence in our elections,
and that is closing loopholes that currently allow lobbyists of foreign
governments to contribute to U.S. campaigns.
Again, no matter who we are or what party we are from, we can all
agree that we don't want foreigners playing in our political process.
I am very proud that the SHIELD Act includes legislation--we have
discussed it earlier--that closes loopholes so that foreigners cannot
buy ads for or against a candidate in an American election. That idea
was very simple. Particularly on social media, this is important.
So why, then, if we are not letting foreign entities buy ads in our
political process is it okay that lobbyists for foreign governments are
able to contribute to candidates, campaigns, and otherwise influence
U.S. elections?
There is some work to be done on this. It is, admittedly,
complicated. But in order to properly close these loopholes, we need to
first understand what those loopholes are and how they impact foreign
entities' ability to influence our elections.
My amendment directs the Government Accountability Office to assess

[[Page H8435]]

existing law to identify loopholes in FARA, the Foreign Agents
Registration Act, and then recommend the right legislative fixes.
The SHIELD Act does a great deal to meet the threat of foreign
influence and interference with robust legislative responses. This
amendment will help us continue that work and get us closer to a
solution to an outstanding vulnerability in our system.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition,
although I am supportive of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I just want to say to my
colleague from the great State of Michigan, thank you.
Finally--finally--we have a study that is not too wonky, a perfect
amount of wonkiness, that is going to go through an agency that is
going to give us an unbiased review: the GAO.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Pass this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I am just shocked because I have them
running, jumping up and down over there.
I continue to think that the gentleman from Illinois doesn't
understand that when he calls our bills wonky and our amendments wonky,
we are deeply proud of that over here. I am thrilled that he is
supportive.
There actually is a bipartisan agreement on the need to reform FARA,
as reflected, I think, by Senator Grassley's bipartisan bill, very
similar language.
I am thrilled. I thank the gentleman for his support and for jumping
up and down, giving us a little energy.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Sherrill

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 41, line 1, strike ``60'' and insert ``90''.
Page 42, line 11, strike ``60'' and insert ``90''.
Page 45, line 20, strike ``60'' and insert ``90''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentlewoman
from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to
strengthen protections from deceptive practices in Federal elections.
We know that in the lead-up to the 2016 election, our adversaries
employed multiple systematic efforts to spread disinformation and sow
confusion among American voters. In one particularly egregious example,
Russian bots used social media to mislead voters and tell them that
they could ``vote from home'' by simply texting a code or going online.
On the eve of the 2018 election, Facebook deleted many accounts--
including those with links to the Russian Government--that were engaged
in coordinated, deceptive behavior.
Today, we know that our adversaries are not only working to hijack
our political system just before an election, they are interfering in
our democracy on a continuous basis.
Madam Chair, election security is not about Democrats or Republicans.
Election security is about all Americans coming together to defend our
shared democracy--our democracy--enshrined in our Constitution.
I have prioritized election security since arriving in Washington 10
months ago. As chairwoman of the House Science Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight, I held a hearing on disinformation and
the threat posed by online imposters and deep fakes.
I have worked with a group of colleagues on both sides of the aisle
on election security, and we have heard over and over again from
experts on the need for more robust protections to combat this new era
of coordinated disinformation efforts.
As a proud Representative of the great State of New Jersey, I will
always defend our right as Americans to have a spirited debate,
particularly when it comes to what matters to us in the run-up to our
elections.
One of the things I love about my district is, while we don't always
agree on the path forward, we agree on the need for honest and
respectful debate. That is what our democracy is all about. It is what
I signed up to defend when I joined the United States Navy.
So it is essential that we stand together as Americans to strengthen
our laws and to ensure that our foreign adversaries are not able to
dictate the outcomes of our elections.
I offer this amendment to prohibit any attempts to deceive voters 90
days before a Federal primary and general elections. This includes
knowingly providing false information about the time or place of
voting, what qualifications a voter must have in order to vote, or
public endorsements of candidates.
Expanding the provisions in the Deceptive Practices and Voter
Intimidation Act from 60 days before an election to 90 days will better
protect our democracy from hostile foreign actors trying to disrupt the
voices and votes of Americans. It also protects against longstanding
efforts to disenfranchise communities of color, women, and other
marginalized groups.
In my home State of New Jersey, early voting can occur up to 45 days
before an election. In fact, 39 States across the country have some
form of early voting. That is why we need this critical amendment to
extend protections and prohibit disinformation before any American
casts their ballot.
I urge my colleagues to pass this important amendment, safeguard our
democracy, and ensure that the American people, not our foreign
adversaries, determine the results of our elections.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to
this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I appreciate my new
colleague from New Jersey offering this amendment and participating in
this process. I look to work with her and many of my colleagues when
the majority party finally comes to the table and wants to put a
bipartisan solution together.
Everyone here is against deceptive practices. This includes providing
false information about the time or place of voting and qualifications
for voting.
But the underlying section here presents numerous questions because
of its vagueness. Some of the situations this would apply to seem
pretty ridiculous.
Do you want to know how ridiculous this section of the SHIELD Act is?
Let's talk about public endorsements.
Recently, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said about
current Presidential candidate, our colleague, Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard:

I think the Russians have got their eye on somebody and are
grooming her to be a third-party candidate. She's a favorite
of the Russians.

So Secretary Clinton is suggesting the Russians endorse Congresswoman
Gabbard. Is that not a false endorsement? Would Hillary Clinton not be
subject to 5 years in prison according this section if this bill were
passed?
Let the Record show, nobody is chanting ``Lock her up.''
This is another ridiculous section of the bill. It is not surprising,
given the warp speed with which this bill is being rushed to the floor.
I have to commend my colleague from New Jersey because this amendment
is right about the amount of wonkiness that we need in amendments and
pieces of legislation.
But I will stand here and say, as a Member of this institution, that
we can never get so wonky with our jobs and our writing of bills that
it has a chilling effect on the First Amendment

[[Page H8436]]

rights to free speech that every American in this country deserves.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Cunningham

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 33, line 7, strike ``and''
Page 33, insert after line 7 the following (and redesignate
the succeeding provision accordingly):
``(2) an analysis of the extent to which illicit foreign
money was used to carry out disinformation and propaganda
campaigns focused on depressing turnout among African-
American and other minority communities and the success or
failure of these efforts, together with recommendations to
address these efforts in future elections; and''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my
straightforward, commonsense amendment which would specifically examine
how illicit foreign money was used to carry out disinformation and
propaganda campaigns focused on depressing turnout among African
American and other minority communities and the success or failure of
these efforts during our recent elections. This amendment would also
call for recommendations to address these concerns in future elections.
Republicans and Democrats agree that foreign adversaries should never
be allowed to sow discord in our political system and interfere with
our electoral process. Unfortunately, in the last two elections, we saw
massive misinformation campaigns launched by hostile foreign powers,
and we know--we know--those efforts disproportionately targeted African
American communities.
Last May, the House Judiciary Committee released a trove of over
3,500 Facebook ads posted by Russia-linked accounts between 2014 and
2017. In 2015, for instance, Kremlin-backed accounts tweeted and
retweeted dozens of messages manipulating the tragic mass shooting at
the predominantly African American Mother Emanuel AME Church in
downtown Charleston. Ads like this reached over 11.4 million people.
Russia has sought to influence our democratic process by stoking
racial, religious, and political differences, and this has had real
consequences. African American turnout declined in 2016 for the
Presidential election for the first time in 20 years, according to the
U.S. Census Bureau, falling to less than 60 percent, from a record high
of 66.6 percent in 2012.
Election security is not a partisan issue; it is essential to our
democracy; and Americans deserve to have the confidence of knowing the
information they seek hasn't been manipulated by foreign adversaries.
Our next elections are quickly approaching, so the time to show the
world that we stand united on election security is now. I ask all my
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to support this amendment
to protect against foreign interference in America's elections.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition,
although I am not necessarily opposed.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I have had the opportunity
to travel the country with my friend and colleague Congresswoman Marcia
Fudge on the subject of the Voting Rights Act.
We have heard testimony that minority turnout across the board was
higher than ever: Hispanic and Asian communities jumped 13 points above
the turnout levels in 2014 when compared to the 2018 election cycle;
this last midterm, in 2018, African American turnout jumped 11 points.
I hope this trend continues, and I hope we see increased minority
turnout in our upcoming elections.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, in closing, I urge both Democrats and
Republicans to support this commonsense amendment to prevent malicious
misinformation and propaganda campaigns from targeting African American
and other minority communities.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Cunningham

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 33, line 7, strike ``and''
Page 33, insert after line 7 the following (and redesignate
the succeeding provision accordingly):
``(2) an analysis of the extent to which illicit foreign
money was used to carry out disinformation and propaganda
campaigns focused on influencing military and veteran
communities and the success or failure of these efforts,
together with recommendations to address these efforts in
future elections; and''.

{time} 1715

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, today I rise in support of my amendment
to help protect our Nation's veterans and servicemembers from targeted
disinformation campaigns bankrolled by foreign governments.
Earlier this month the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee
released its report on Russia's attempts to interfere with the 2016
U.S. Presidential election. In that report, the committee described how
Russian-influenced operatives created fake online personas to target
specific groups, including veterans, with the goal of sowing discord in
the American political system.
To that end, operatives created social media pages impersonating
congressionally-chartered veteran service organizations, or VSOs, to
push their divisive message. In one such case, a page impersonating
Vietnam Veterans of America run by a troll farm in Bulgaria grew to
nearly 200,000 followers before it was shut down.
After learning of this illicit account, VVA launched their own 2-year
investigation into the issue, and they found more than 150 similar
efforts across every major social media platform.
And while I think their actions are reprehensible, I have to admit
that their approach makes sense. Numerous studies have shown that
veterans vote at higher rates than those who haven't served. And those
votes are especially concentrated in swing states. In my South Carolina
district, veterans make up nearly 13 percent of the voting population,
so I for one prefer my chances against a fellow American, rather than a
campaign run out of a troll farm in Saint Petersburg.
Joking aside, it is unacceptable that we are allowing those same men
and women who have served our Nation overseas to be susceptible to
these malign influences. That is why I am proud to support the
underlying bill, which would prohibit foreign governments from
sponsoring influenced campaigns designed to affect the outcome of a
Federal election.

[[Page H8437]]

But since we know that foreign adversaries aren't interested in
playing by our own rules, my amendment would require the FEC to
investigate those foreign influence campaigns after each election so we
can put a stop to them.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, as much as I would like to
have some fun with my good friend and colleague from South Carolina and
oppose this amendment and have great debate back and forth, it is a
pretty darn good amendment.
I think we need to do everything we can in a bipartisan way to make
sure that our Nation's heroes have the right to vote not only here at
home, but abroad.
I look forward to working with you--after this bill that will pass
today on a partisan roll call but will go nowhere--to make sure that
our Nation's heroes are not adversely affected by any propaganda or any
attempts to stop them from exercising that right.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, in closing, I want to thank Chairwoman
Lofgren for her leadership on the House Administration Committee and
all the members of the committee for their work on this critical
legislation. I also want to thank Chairman McGovern and the members of
the Rules Committee for allowing my amendments to come to the floor. I
want to thank my colleague, Mr. Davis, across the aisle for his work.
And I hope that all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join
me in supporting my straightforward, commonsense amendment, as well as
the underlying bill.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Spanberger

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 23, line 8, strike ``and a list'' and insert ``a
list''.
Page 23, line 11, strike the period and insert the
following: ``, and, if the person purchasing the
advertisement is acting as the agent of a foreign principal
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended
(22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), a statement that the person is
acting as the agent of a foreign principal and the
identification of the foreign principal involved.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentlewoman
from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to
H.R. 4617, the SHIELD Act.
Today the House is discussing and debating how we can safeguard the
integrity of our elections, the bedrock of our democracy. How do we
protect our electoral systems from foreign threats? And how do we
prevent foreign influence over our electorate?
As we stand here today, the number of countries engaged in active
campaigns to mislead the electorate, the American people continues to
grow. According to a new report from the University of Oxford, the
number of countries engaged in disinformation campaigns has more than
doubled in the last 2 years. Additionally, at least seven countries
have used their intelligence or military apparatuses to deploy
disinformation on social media to influence a foreign country and its
people.
As a former intelligence officer, I recognize the risks that these
potential attacks, yes, attacks, pose as we head into the next year's
Federal, State, and local elections. There is a legitimate fear across
our intelligence community that foreign governments will build on
Russia's extensive information warfare strategy. Foreign actors from
Russia to China to North Korea to Iran are eager to undermine the
foundations of our democracy.
Leading up to the 2016 Presidential election Facebook disclosed that
it had found more than $100,000 worth of ads on divisive issues
purchased by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin, and the potential
return on investment is extremely high. As we approach 2020, they have
every reason to follow this playbook again and to strengthen their
disinformation operations.
In the context of these threats, we need to take a serious look at
how we build resiliency against foreign interference on social media
platforms. Digital advertising can be a far less expense and time
intensive as a tool for propaganda, and it can spread disinformation,
confusion, hate, and division at an alarming rate.
The SHIELD Act takes real steps to require large online platforms to
keep records of qualified political advertisements, and I would like to
thank my colleagues for their hard work on this critical issue.
The SHIELD Act would require online companies to keep publicly
available records about online digital political advertisements. It
would require information about the contents of a specific
advertisement, its target audience, and the issue it addresses.
Additionally, it would require disclosure information about those
purchasing the advertisement. Disclosure sheds light on corruption. It
unmasks influence. And it stops our democracy from becoming vulnerable
to foreign governments, nonstate actors, and shadowy influence groups
constantly working to distract and mislead the American people. My
amendment would strengthen this disclosure requirement.
My amendment would add that online platforms need to include a
statement when the person purchasing a political advertisement is
acting as the agent of a foreign principal.
Not only would it include language making it clear that they are
acting on behalf of a foreign entity, but it would require the online
platform to identify the foreign principal involved. That principal
could be a foreign government, a foreign political party or a nonstate
actor.
Fundamentally, my amendment to the SHIELD Act would put the power
back in the hands of the American people. It would help address a
critical underlying question, who is in charge of deciding American
elections? Is it those abroad, working to divide and influence the
American people? Or is it the American people themselves?
By requiring online records of purchase requests that include public
information on the foreign principal behind these advertisements, the
American people will be able to see clearly who is attempting to
influence their decisions.
As Congress acts today to restore the trust of those we serve in our
system of government, my amendment would strengthen our efforts to
prevent the spread of foreign influence in our democratic system.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 4617 to increase
transparency in online advertisements, something that should not be
controversial.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to
this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from
Virginia for offering this amendment, but this amendment shares the
same flaw as the main text of the bill, putting media platforms in
charge of enforcing our Nation's laws.
They are not doing a good job right now. I don't know if Mr.
Zuckerberg is still across the street testifying in front of the
Financial Services Committee, but if they were doing a good job, he
wouldn't have been here so long.
Rather, we need to strengthen FARA and help the Department of Justice
do

[[Page H8438]]

its job. I do not understand why the Democrats want the social media
companies to have more responsibilities when they failed miserably in
2016.
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. I also urge every Member, both
Republicans and Democrats, to take a look at my bill. It is a
nonpartisan bill.
I don't want to empower the media platforms or restrict speech by
American citizens. I want to give the DOJ the resources to do its job
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time
Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, the purpose of this amendment is, in
fact, to ensure that the American people are aware when an agent of a
foreign principal under FARA parameters purchases a political
advertisement. We, as Members of Congress, have the ability to set the
parameters under which the transparency and information is available to
the American public. And in doing so, we need to make sure that not
only do the American people know when there is a foreign individual
purchasing advertisements meant to influence them, but when someone
else is purchasing those advertisements on behalf of a foreign entity
as described by FARA.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I appreciate the
gentlewoman's willingness to want to help fix a bill where the
underlying bill is one that we never had a chance to have an open
debate about, never had a chance to have hearings about.
When it doesn't pass, I look forward to working with my colleagues.
When it doesn't pass into law--it will pass here on a partisan roll
call--when it doesn't pass into law, I look forward to working with my
colleagues.
But I do have a bill that would address this situation. FARA, let's
work together to let the DOJ have the resources and the ability to do
their job. The SHIELD Act is not allowing that to happen. The Honest
Elections Act, my bill, will allow that to happen. I would urge
everybody to take a look at that.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time
Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, I also support increasing the
enforcement of FARA.
But this, in particular, is about transparency and the transparency
that it brings as it relates to the underlying aspect of the Honest Ads
Act, which is a bipartisan bill, Republicans and Democrats in equal
amounts. This is about transparency. This is about allowing the
American people to know who, in fact, is purchasing the ads that are
meant to influence them.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Lesko

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished
business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 2 printed
in part B of House Report 116-253 offered by the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 231, not voting 26, as follows:

[Roll No. 581]

AYES--180

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Miller
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--231

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--26

Amodei
Armstrong
Bilirakis
Collins (GA)
Eshoo
Estes
Gabbard
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Grothman
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Kind
Luria
McEachin
Meuser
Mitchell
Peters
Radewagen
Reschenthaler
Smucker
Steil
Stivers
Takano
Thompson (PA)
Timmons

{time} 1759

Messrs. RUSH, VAN DREW, Ms. WILD, and Mr. LOWENTHAL changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H8439]]

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thompson of Mississippi). The question is on
the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
DeGette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 4617) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
clarify the obligation to report acts of foreign election influence and
require implementation of compliance and reporting systems by Federal
campaigns to detect and report such acts, and for other purposes, and,
pursuant to House Resolution 650, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to
recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 4617 to the Committee on House Administration with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
Strike subsection (b) of section 1 and all that follows and
insert the following:
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

TITLE I--FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION REFORM

Sec. 101. Clarification of coverage of activities directed within the
United States by agents outside of United States.
Sec. 102. Application of press exemption to other forms of media for
purposes of engagement in political activities.
Sec. 103. Treatment of activities to influence public opinion on
elections as political activity.
Sec. 104. Effective date.

TITLE II--DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS FOR ONLINE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS

Sec. 201. Clarifying disclaimer requirements for online political
advertisements.

TITLE III--REDUCING ILLICIT FOREIGN MONEY IN ELECTIONS

Sec. 301. Report on illicit foreign money in Federal elections.
Sec. 302. Prohibition on contributions and donations by foreign
nationals in connections with ballot initiatives and
referenda.

TITLE IV--PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO STATES
ALLOWING BALLOT HARVESTING

Sec. 401. Prohibition on payments to States allowing collection and
transmission of ballots by certain third parties.

TITLE V--PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO STATES
ALLOWING VOTING BY NON-CITIZENS

Sec. 501. Prohibition on payments to States allowing voting by non-
citizens.

TITLE VI--INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS ENGAGING IN
IMPROPER ELECTION INTERFERENCE

Sec. 601. Inadmissibility and deportability of aliens engaging in
improper interference in United States elections.

TITLE I--FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION REFORM

SEC. 101. CLARIFICATION OF COVERAGE OF ACTIVITIES DIRECTED
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES BY AGENTS OUTSIDE OF
UNITED STATES.

(a) Treatment of Agents Engaged in Activities as Agents of
Foreign Principals.--Section 1(c)(1) of the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611(c)(1)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii);
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iv) and
inserting ``or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(v) engages outside the United States in political
activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal
which are directed at persons within the United States,
including activities consisting of communications
disseminated within the United States through
telecommunications or computer equipment or services, the
Internet, broadcast, cable, satellite, print, or mail; and''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9 of such Act (22 U.S.C.
619) is amended by striking the period at the end and
inserting the following: ``, and shall be applicable outside
the United States to the extent described in section
1(c)(1)(v).''.

SEC. 102. APPLICATION OF PRESS EXEMPTION TO OTHER FORMS OF
MEDIA FOR PURPOSES OF ENGAGEMENT IN POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES.

(a) Application.--Section 1(d) of the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611(d)(1)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(d)'' and insert ``(d)(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) In addition to the exception described in paragraph
(1), to the extent that a person engages with the United
States in political activities, the term `agent of a foreign
principal' does not include any bona fide media outlet
organized under the laws of the United States or of any State
or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, or any bona fide media outlet for which there is on
file with the United States Postal Service information in
compliance with section 3685 of title 39, United States Code,
published in the United States, solely by virtue of any bona
fide news or journalistic activities, including the
solicitation or acceptance of paid advertisements,
subscriptions, free social media access which is made
available to the general public, or other compensation
therefor, so long as it is at least 80 per centum
beneficially owned by, and its officers and directors, if
any, are citizens of the United States, and such media outlet
is not owned, directed, supervised, controlled, subsidized,
or financed, and none of its policies are determined by, any
foreign principal defined in subsection (b), or by any agent
of a foreign principal required to register under this
Act.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 1 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 611) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(q) The term `media outlet' means any of the following:
``(1) Any newspaper, magazine, or periodical.
``(2) Any broadcast, satellite or cable television or radio
station.
``(3) Any Internet-based website, application, or
platform.''.

SEC. 103. TREATMENT OF ACTIVITIES TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION
ON ELECTIONS AS POLITICAL ACTIVITY.

Section 1(o) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of
1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611(o)) is amended by striking
the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: ``, or
with reference to public opinion about public officials,
candidates, or elections of the United States.''.

SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this title shall apply with respect
to activities carried out on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

TITLE II--DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS FOR ONLINE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS

SEC. 201. CLARIFYING DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS FOR ONLINE
POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS.

(a) Clarification.--Section 318 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30120) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Application of Requirements to Online
Communications.--
``(1) Method of provision of information.--Except as
provided in paragraph (2) or paragraph (3), a covered
Internet communication shall provide the information required
under this section on the face of the communication.
``(2) Authorizing use of alternative mechanisms.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a covered Internet
communication described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4),
the communication may provide the information required under
this section through the use of a technological mechanism
described in subparagraph (B), so long as the communication
presents an indicator described in subparagraph (C).
``(B) Technological mechanism described.--A technological
mechanism described in this subparagraph is, with respect to
a communication, any technology which enables the individual
reading, observing, or listening to the communication to
read, observe, or listen to the information required under
this section without navigating more than one step away from
the communication itself. Such mechanism may take any form,
including hover-over, mouse-over, voice-

[[Page H8440]]

over, rollover, pop-up screen, scrolling text, rotating
panels, or click-through or hyperlink to a landing page.
``(C) Indicator described.--An indicator described in this
subparagraph is, with respect to a communication, any clear
and conspicuous visible or audible element of the
communication that gives notice to the individual reading,
observing, or listening to the communication that the
individual may read, observe, or listen to the information
required under this section through a technological
mechanism. An indicator may take any form, including words
such as `Paid for by', `Paid by', `Sponsored by', or `Ad by',
a website URL, an image, a sound, a symbol, or an icon.
``(3) Waiver.--A disclaimer shall not be required for any
covered internet communication that cannot provide a clear
and conspicuous statement of the information required under
this section either on the face of communication or through
the use of a technological mechanism under paragraph (2).
``(4) Covered internet communication defined.--In this
subsection, the term `covered Internet communication' means
any communication which is required to include information
under this section and which is any of the following:
``(A) Any electronic mailing of more than 500 substantially
similar communications which is disseminated by a political
committee.
``(B) Any communication disseminated on a publicly-
available website of a political committee.
``(C) Any communication placed for a fee on another
person's website or Internet-based application or
platform.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to communications made after the
expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the date of
the enactment of this Act.

TITLE III--REDUCING ILLICIT FOREIGN MONEY IN ELECTIONS

SEC. 301. REPORT ON ILLICIT FOREIGN MONEY IN FEDERAL
ELECTIONS.

(a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 319 the following new section:

``SEC. 319A. REPORT ON PRESENCE OF ILLICIT FOREIGN MONEY.

``(a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the end of
each Federal election cycle, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report containing--
``(1) an analysis of the presence of illicit foreign money
in such cycle; and
``(2) recommendations to address the presence of illicit
foreign money in elections, as appropriate.
``(b) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) The term `Federal election cycle' means the period
which begins on the day after the date of a regularly
scheduled general election for Federal office and which ends
on the date of the first regularly scheduled general election
for Federal office held after such date.
``(2) The term `illicit foreign money' means any
disbursement by a foreign national (as defined in section
319(b)) prohibited under such section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to the Federal election cycle that
began during November 2018, and each succeeding Federal
election cycle.

SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS BY
FOREIGN NATIONALS IN CONNECTIONS WITH BALLOT
INITIATIVES AND REFERENDA.

TITLE IV--PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO STATES
ALLOWING BALLOT HARVESTING

SEC. 401. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENTS TO STATES ALLOWING
COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION OF BALLOTS BY
CERTAIN THIRD PARTIES.

(a) In General.--Subtitle D of title II of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21001 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new part:

``PART 7--PROHIBITION ON PAYMENTS TO STATES ALLOWING COLLECTION AND
TRANSMISSION OF BALLOTS BY CERTAIN THIRD PARTIES

``SEC. 297. ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS OF STATES ALLOWING
COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION OF BALLOTS BY
CERTAIN THIRD PARTIES.

``(a) In General.--A State is not eligible to receive funds
under this Act unless the State has in effect a law that
prohibits an individual from the knowing collection and
transmission of a ballot in an election for Federal office
that was mailed to another person, other than an individual
described as follows:
``(1) An election official while engaged in official duties
as authorized by law.
``(2) An employee of the United States Postal Service while
engaged in official duties as authorized by law.
``(3) Any other individual who is allowed by law to collect
and transmit United States mail, while engaged in official
duties as authorized by law.
``(4) A family member, household member, or caregiver of
the person to whom the ballot was mailed.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, with
respect to a person to whom the ballot was mailed:
``(1) The term `caregiver' means an individual who provides
medical or health care assistance to such person in a
residence, nursing care institution, hospice facility,
assisted living center, assisted living facility, assisted
living home, residential care institution, adult day health
care facility, or adult foster care home.
``(2) The term `family member' means an individual who is
related to such person by blood, marriage, adoption or legal
guardianship.
``(3) The term `household member' means an individual who
resides at the same residence as such person.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
296 the following new item:

``Part 7-Prohibition on Payments to States Allowing Collection and
Transmission of Ballots by Certain Third Parties

``Sec. 297. Eligibility for payments of States allowing collection and
transmission of ballots by certain third parties.''.

TITLE V--PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO STATES
ALLOWING VOTING BY NON-CITIZENS

SEC. 501. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENTS TO STATES ALLOWING VOTING
BY NON-CITIZENS.

(a) In General.--Subtitle D of title II of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21001 et seq.), as amended by
section 401, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new part:

``PART 8--PROHIBITION ON PAYMENTS TO STATES ALLOWING VOTING BY NON-
CITIZENS

``SEC. 298. ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS OF STATES ALLOWING
VOTING BY NON-CITIZENS.

``A State is not eligible to receive funds under this Act
if the State allows an individual who is not a citizen of the
United States to vote in an election for public office.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such
Act, as amended by section 401, is further amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 297 the
following new item:

``Part 8-Prohibition on Payments to States Allowing Voting by Non-
citizens

``Sec. 298. Eligibility for payments of States allowing voting by non-
citizens.''.

TITLE VI--INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS ENGAGING IN
IMPROPER ELECTION INTERFERENCE

SEC. 601. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS
ENGAGING IN IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN UNITED
STATES ELECTIONS.

(a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(H) Improper interference in a united states election.--
Any alien who a consular officer, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General
knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, is seeking
admission to the United States to engage in improper
interference in a United States election, or has engaged in
improper interference in a United States election, is
inadmissible.''.
(b) Deportability.--Section 237(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1227(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Improper interference in a united states election.--
Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after
admission engages in improper interference in a United States
election is deportable.''.
(c) Definition.--Section 101(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(53) The term `improper interference in a United States
election' means conduct by an alien that--
``(A)(i) violates Federal criminal, voting rights, or
campaign finance law, or
``(ii) is performed by any person acting as an agent of or
on behalf of a foreign government or criminal enterprise; and
``(B) includes any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or
unlawful act or attempted act, undertaken with the purpose or
effect of undermining public confidence in election processes
or institutions, or influencing, undermining confidence in,
or altering the result or reported result of, a general or
primary Federal, State, or local election or caucus,
including--
``(i) the campaign of a candidate; or
``(ii) a ballot measure, including an amendment, a bond
issue, an initiative, a recall, a referral, or a
referendum.''.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.

[[Page H8441]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the
motion to recommit, a proposal that would actually assist law
enforcement in pursuing those individuals who seek to disrupt our
elections, as opposed to the partisan bill we have been debating here
today.
I first want to address some of the accusations made here today about
how my colleagues and I on this side of the aisle do not care about
election security or how we are the only thing standing in the way of
securing elections. This is simply not true.
In the 115th Congress, a Republican-controlled Congress appropriated
over $400 million to the States and to DHS prior to the 2018 midterms
to bolster election security, allowing for unprecedented cooperation
between DHS and all 50 States and 1,400 localities. Earlier this year,
$33 million was appropriated to DHS to continue these assistance
efforts.
I also introduced a bill during the debate of the SAFE Act that will
provide even more funding for DHS to combat nefarious activity. But
last week, I introduced, along with many of my colleagues, the Honest
Elections Act, which the entire basis for this motion to recommit is
based upon. So don't tell me that we on this side of the aisle are
standing in the way.
According to the report recently released by the Senate Intelligence
Committee, out of the $1.4 billion spent on digital political ads in
the 2016 election cycle, Russia spent $100,000 over 2 years on Facebook
ads. The majority of those were not election ads, so they wouldn't
necessarily be regulated by the Honest Ads Act portion of SHIELD and
will not address the real threat that we saw in 2016.
My motion today strengthens and reforms the Foreign Agents
Registration Act, FARA, to combat election interference. It modernizes
online political ad disclosure. It increases monitoring of spending by
foreign nationals in elections. It incentivizes States to prohibit the
practice of ballot harvesting and encourages States to stop this recent
trend of noncitizen voting.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to
recommit because I was given some advice by our colleague from Idaho
(Mr. Simpson) before I came up here. He said: ``The more you talk, the
fewer votes this MTR will get.''
So, let's make sure everyone goes back to their districts. But first,
vote for this motion to recommit. Vote to protect our elections from
interference from foreign countries like Russia, China, and all others.
Vote to hunt down those who are attempting to interfere in our
elections. And vote, finally, to restore the American people's trust in
our institutions.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion to recommit, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would like to say that this motion to
recommit should be opposed. It is so much weaker than the bill that we
have an opportunity to pass to get foreign interference out of our
elections so that millions of Americans are not exposed unwittingly to
ads by Russian trolls.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rose).
Mr. ROSE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to this blatant attempt to help foreign agents subvert our
democracy.
Madam Speaker, we stand at the crossroads of history. Foreign enemies
have attacked our elections in a sweeping and systematic fashion, and
they are continuing to do so.
We are faced today with a very simple question: Should Iran, Russia,
and China be allowed to interfere in our elections? Should they have
more of a say in who gets elected than our constituents?
Let me tell you my answer. Our soldiers did not fight our enemies
overseas just to watch them try to corrupt our democracy here at home.
I am not sure when that became a controversial position, but it is a
damn shame that it has.
Protecting America should not be a one-party issue. It should be what
unites us, not a cause for petty games.
But once again, the minority party has decided it is more important
to practice the kind of politics that put them in the minority in the
first place. They have decided, yet again, to play another political
stunt, just like they played this morning in the SCIF. It is the same
exact thing.
That is your choice. My choice is to stand up to say American
elections are for Americans only.
The SHIELD Act puts forward critical reforms to improve our defenses
against foreign influence and interference. The bill strengthens
reporting requirements, closes loopholes, and deters illegal foreign
activity in our elections.
I can understand if some of my colleagues are worried that they
cannot win on a fair and level election playing field, but for all
those who believe in free and fair elections, who swore an oath to
protect and defend the Constitution, I urge you to reject this MTR and
stand with the United States of America.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes on:
Passage of H.R. 4617, if ordered; and
The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 777.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 225, not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 582]

AYES--182

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Miller
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--225

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay

[[Page H8442]]

Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--24

Amodei
Armstrong
Bilirakis
Collins (GA)
Estes
Gabbard
Grothman
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Kind
McEachin
Meuser
Mitchell
Newhouse
Peters
Reschenthaler
Smucker
Steil
Steube
Stivers
Takano
Thompson (PA)
Timmons

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The Speaker Pro Tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1816

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 181, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 583]

AYES--227

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--181

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Miller
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Peterson
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--23

Amodei
Armstrong
Bilirakis
Collins (GA)
Estes
Gabbard
Grothman
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Kind
McEachin
Meuser
Mitchell
Peters
Reschenthaler
Smucker
Steil
Steube
Stivers
Takano
Thompson (PA)
Timmons

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The Speaker Pro Tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1824

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________