-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Violations of the law are subject to criminal and civil penalties. Generally, a person who willfully violates these regulations may face up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Now, many thought leaders have written about the overcriminalization of regulations, the fact that we add criminal penalties to people with paper violations. Ed Meese has written about this extensively. Justice Neil Gorsuch has written a new book, ``Over Ruled,'' talking about so many regulation crimes, paperwork crimes, having criminal penalties.

A 2016 inspector general audit reported that, historically, the Department of Justice's practice has been to pursue voluntary compliance rather than the prosecution of agents who failed to register under the act. More recently, though, the Department of Justice has signaled that it is shifting from treating these violations as an administrative obligation to one that is increasingly an enforcement priority.

In 2022, DOJ reported that it had charged a record number of criminal cases for this regulatory breach. In other words, what was once considered a mistake that could be rectified simply by encouraging voluntary compliance is now a weapon that can be used to silence dissent by threatening individuals with prison time.

Just 2 weeks ago, four members of the African People's Socialist Party, two of whom are 82 and 78 years old, were convicted of conspiracy to violate a law similar to FARA by acting as agents of Russia. The Department of Justice press release states that the defendants ``face a maximum penalty of five years in prison.''

And what had they done to potentially lose their liberty? The specific acts they were accused of included attending an international conference in Russia, publishing a Petition to the United Nations on the Crime of Genocide Against the African People in the United States of America, accepting financial support for a speaking tour to discuss reparations, and speaking in support of the Russian Government.

The African People's Socialist Party was founded in 1972. For decades, the party has criticized the United States and maintained the government owes trillions of dollars in reparations for the crime of genocide against Black Americans.

While I don't agree with any of their policy statements or any of the things they are for, I really don't wish to put them in prison.

Highlighting the disturbing nature of DOJ's prosecution of this minuscule fringe group, Patrick Eddington, of the Cato Institute, writes that the party ``and its related political movement can only be described as fringe, bit players on the American political scene whose previous statements and stances already mirrored the Kremlin's line'' for decades.

Eddington continues: ``It makes one wonder why the FBI targeted such marginal groups with little to no impact on the broader political process, and whether an unstated goal of'' these DOJ raids and imprisoning people ``was to put the entire domestic political advocacy community on notice that a domestic group with foreign connections is considered fair game for FBI scrutiny even if legitimate First Amendment activity is involved.''

According to an article in The Nation magazine, ``Since its initial enactment into law, the DOJ has invoked FARA,'' the statute at hand, ``to stigmatize and criminalize political advocacy that is contrary to the interests of the US government. Early illustrative examples include the 1951 indictment of W.E.B. Du Bois, who was prosecuted as an agent of the Soviet Union for having promoted and circulated the Stockholm Appeal, calling for a ban on nuclear weapons.''

You can see how this gathers up political speech. You don't have to agree with the speech. But if the speech happens to represent the viewpoint of another country, the speech may be stifled and you may be arrested for it.

I understand the Senate will be asked to pass unanimously two bills today that would allow the DOJ to retroactively require this registration or this paperwork and another that would, effectively, write an enemies list into law.

Both give the DOJ prosecutors greater ability to selectively threaten disfavored groups by prosecuting activities that are otherwise protected by the First Amendment. Yet these bills have not been marked up by the committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At the very least, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, should consider these bills before being rushed into passage.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source