Providing for Consideration of H.R. Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for A Lasting Democracy Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I rise to exercise the time that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my good friend, has extended to me.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my very good friend, the distinguished vice-chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I would be the first to admit that there are some good things in this bill. But to say also to my good friend, at the end of the day it is a very easy no. And that is sad.
Frankly, we could have had an opportunity to work together in a bipartisan fashion and actually produce a product that would be effective and one in which every Member of this Chamber could vote for. But my friends have chosen not to do that.
Madam Speaker, we are here on another attempt by the majority to push deeply partisan measures to change America's electoral system in response to the 2016 Presidential election.
Earlier this year, the majority pushed through H.R. 1, which they gave the misnomer of the, ``For the People Act.'' The reality was that H.R. 1 was completely misnamed. It was not ``for the people,'' it was for the Democratic majority, by the Democratic majority in hopes of maintaining the Democratic majority for many years to come.
Similarly today, we are considering H.R. 4617, yet another misnamed and misguided bill aimed at changing America's election laws. The majority has called H.R. 4617 the SHIELD Act. Unfortunately, this bill shields us from exactly nothing. It expands the power of the Federal Government, limits freedom of speech, and reduces the ability of the American people to participate in their own elections, all while failing to protect our democracy from foreign interference.
Before I talk about the problems with the SHIELD Act, I think we should be clear: Republicans stand ready and willing to work with Democrats on bipartisan solutions to reform our election system and protect it from foreign influence.
My good friend from Illinois, Ranking Member Rodney Davis, has proposed such a bill that would do exactly that. H.R. 4736, the Honest Elections Act updates existing election laws in a fair way. It strengthens the Foreign Agents Registration Act to combat election interference, modernizes online political ad disclosure, increases monitoring of spending by foreign nationals in our elections, and bans the practice of ballot harvesting.
These are the kinds of bipartisan solutions Republicans and Democrats should be able to come together on. But instead, the majority is once again proposing a partisan bill that fails to put forward real solutions to these problems.
Let's take a look at just a few of those provisions in H.R. 4617:
First, H.R. 4617 imposes draconian limitations on online political advertising that will only make it harder for Americans to participate in our elections. It applies a model of regulation designed for TV ads to online ads, which are two very different media. And it requires the same four-second disclosures for online ads as they currently require for TV ads, even though online ads are generally significantly shorter.
H.R. 4617 also attempts to add limitations on the ability of foreign nationals to buy online ads for electioneering communications. But I note this will likely have very little effect. The primary means by which Russia interfered in the 2016 election was through traditional social media posts and troll farms, which this bill will not impact.
What is worse, the bill also expands the definition of the term ``electioneering communication'' to include, ``issues of national importance.'' This term is going to become so overinclusive that it will become meaningless. If a company wants to take out an advertisement talking about the need for jobs in their community, they may be shocked to learn that they have actually purchased an electioneering communication and are now subject to new rules of political advertisement.
This kind of overinclusive, ill-defined regulation will do nothing to protect our democracy, and will, instead, just simply make it harder for Americans to exercise their right to freedom of speech.
What is worse, the bill expands the power of the United States Attorney General--hardly a nonpartisan figure--by allowing that political official to interfere in State elections, by any means necessary. This unprecedented intervention ability would mean that the Congress is once again expanding the power of Washington at the expense of the States.
Madam Speaker, a bill this flawed should never have come before the Rules Committee and should not be coming to the floor. Republicans are ready and willing to work with Democrats on bipartisan solutions to prevent foreign interference and secure our elections, but instead, the majority is putting forward a deeply partisan product that will not secure our elections and will only make it harder for Americans to participate in their own democracy.
And, frankly, they are putting forward a product that I think they have every confidence the Senate will not take up, and the President, I would predict, would almost certainly not sign.
We can and should do better than that. I look forward to when my friends decide they want to do better than that to actually working with them.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), distinguished ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, and my good friend.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to this great institution to talk about this piece of legislation. I thank the ranking member and also my colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for a great spirited debate last night in the Rules Committee, but I still, today, have to rise in opposition to the rule for consideration of H.R. 4617.
Last night at the Rules Committee meeting, there was bipartisan consensus that this bill has not gone through regular order. We did not have the opportunity to hold a single hearing addressing foreign political propaganda in the Committee on House Administration.
We are focusing on paid political advertisements, when the Senate Intel's bipartisan report stated that ``paid advertisements were not key'' to Russia's activity. Out of the $1.4 billion spent on political advertisements in the 2016 election cycle on digital advertising, the Russians spent $100,000 of that over 2 years on paid political Facebook ads.
This is relevant information. This should have been considered and discussed in a committee hearing before sidestepping process and rushing a bill to the floor that does not address key issues.
None of us had a chance to ask Facebook: ``Why did you take a payment from Russia?''
``Was it in rubles?''
``Was it in dollars?''
``Why in the world did you take $100,000 from Russia and put overtly political ads online?''
At some point, companies that participate in the political process, we need to have them in front of us to ask them why; ask them how. But we didn't get a chance to do that because the Committee on House Administration had zero hearings before rushing this bill to the floor.
We have a process here in the House for a reason, Madam Speaker. The process is set up to make sure what gets to the floor will address the problem at hand and will not harm the rights of the American people. Instead, the language in this bill is so broad that it does little to stop foreign political propaganda and, instead, creates a chilling effect on America's free speech.
If the House had held hearings on this legislation, then we could have appropriately tailored language to address the real problem of foreign interference without affecting free speech.
In 2016, the Russians tampered in our elections and engaged in stunning misinformation campaigns in an effort to undermine our elections.
Much of what the Russians did was already illegal. If we want to stop this from happening in the future, then we should be strengthening existing laws and making sure law enforcement has the resources it needs to track down foreign nationals that are breaking the law by spreading propaganda.
Instead, this bill provides zero resources to help law enforcement enforce existing laws and, rather, imposes new regulations that will harm Americans' right to free speech.
The sweeping language in this bill will very likely silence the voices of honest American organizations and nonpolitical companies that wish to speak out on ``issues of national importance.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. SHIELD's burdensome regulations will make it more difficult for Americans to be heard. Isn't that the goal of the Russians, to shut down our free and open society and silence the voices of Americans?
Madam Speaker, we should support our law enforcement to do their jobs, not make up new regulations that chill free speech.
This bill is a misinformation stunt to the American people. It sends a message to America that something is being done to stop what happened in 2016 when, in reality, it fails to address the actual threat. It is a Trojan horse from the majority.
Do we actually want to stop foreign interference, or do my colleagues simply want talking points?
Madam Speaker, you have a bill before you that will not stop meddling. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Just quickly, to respond to a couple of points my friends made, first, let's remember, in 2016, President Obama was the President of the United States when a lot of the activity that my friends are concerned about took place. In 2018, when President Trump was President, we don't have accusations of foreign interference. As a matter of fact, it was a pretty good election cycle for my friends, and I congratulate them on that.
So, I suspect this administration has done a better job than the last administration in dealing with these issues. But I agree there are some things we can and should work on to improve our system, and we have offered--Mr. Davis chief among them--a variety of areas where we can cooperate and where we, frankly, agree.
In the areas where we can't agree, let's set them aside and have our disagreements. But where we can, let's put things together that we all agree on and at least get those things passed. That would be my recommended choice.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately suspend the House's impeachment inquiry until the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 and the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2020 are law.
Madam Speaker, Congress has failed to meet the deadline for one of our most crucial responsibilities, to pass the authorization act and the appropriations bill for our national defense prior to the start of the fiscal year. We did not succeed in getting either of these bills into law by September 30, and now the Department of Defense is operating under a continuing resolution, which in no way adequately supports and funds our military.
Instead of pushing forward, the House is distracted by an unprecedented and unauthorized impeachment inquiry, which is remarkable mostly for the complete lack of transparency the majority has adopted. Republicans have been repeatedly denied their reasonable requests to attend depositions with witnesses and even to review transcripts and other documents. Moreover, the House is proceeding in this inquiry without ever taking a vote to authorize it or establish the parameters and ensure due process.
At a time when threats are continuing to emerge around the world, and our constituents want us to tackle important issues impacting their everyday lives, the House can ill afford the distraction this inquiry is causing.
Consequently, my amendment will require us to suspend the impeachment inquiry until such time as both the NDAA and the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2020 have been enacted.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my good friend, the distinguished ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the distinguished ranking Republican Member of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to begin by thanking my very good friend from Florida for what we always get, which is always a thoughtful debate, always professional, always civil. And even when we disagree, I always enjoy the exchange, so I thank my friend for that.
I will disagree vehemently, though, that the process in terms of impeachment that we are going through right now is remotely transparent. The American people can't get in there. And, frankly, I can tell you, Members, under the rules of the Intelligence Committee, all of us, as long as it is not classified, are supposed to be able to get transcripts. We haven't been able to get those things. So we will watch as this unfolds.
But my friends would have been far better to do what has been done in previous impeachments; that is, to hold a formal vote, to set up a process.
I do remind my friend, when we went through this during the Clinton years, the President, President Clinton, had the right to have counsel there, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to subpoena witnesses. Our friends who were then in the minority had the right to subpoena witnesses.
None of that exists now. There is no process. It is very one-sided, very opaque, very obscure, and extremely partisan.
But back to the legislation at hand.
The tragedy here is that we could work together on a variety of things that we both agree would make good law. My good friend, the ranking--excuse me--the chairwoman on the House Administration Committee, Ms. Lofgren, mentioned that last night.
There are actually elements in this bill which, I agree with my friend, are things we could work on together. There are other things that, whether we are right or wrong, my friend knows we will disagree with and we will not accept and, frankly, the United States Senate will not accept and the President will not accept.
So it is a classic legislative dilemma: What do you want to do? Do you want to make a point or do you want to make law?
If you want to make law, you get to the things that you agree on and that can pass the other Chamber and be signed by the President. So far in this area of election security, I think my friends have been more interested in making a point than actually in making law.
So I urge opposition to the rule on H.R. 4617 because it is deeply flawed and a partisan bill that will not solve the underlying problems. It will not prevent foreign interference in our elections. It will only make it harder for Americans to participate in their own democracy.
It applies inappropriate regulatory schemes to online advertisement. It applies overly inclusive definitions that could make almost any advertisement a political advertisement and expands the power of the Attorney General at the expense of the States.
My friends seemed, over and over, to want to federalize State elections. We don't want to do that. That is a big mistake. One of the best securities we have is that we have multiple jurisdictions, and the people close to the people make the laws under which our elections occur.
We can work together in a bipartisan manner and find real solutions to real problems, and I hope and I believe some day we will, Madam Speaker. But in the interim, I urge the House to reject both this rule and this bill so that we can actually advance, together, on something that can pass and become law.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source