Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for A Lasting Democracy Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source