Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for A Lasting Democracy Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. 4617.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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 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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time remains.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer), who is a leader in the Honest Ads Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb), a star in our caucus.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips), a valued new Member of Congress.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source