[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
         ENHANCING THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT OF 1938

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

  SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                         TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-62

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
         
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
               
                          ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
48-304                WASHINGTON : 2022             
               
               
               
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

          AMY RUTKIN, Majority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
              CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director 
                                 ------                                

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS,
                          AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                     STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair
                DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina, Vice-Chair

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, Ranking 
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Member
    Georgia                          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              CHIP ROY, Texas
CORI BUSH, Missouri                  MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            BURGESS OWENS, Utah

                       JAMES PARK, Chief Counsel
                       
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Tuesday, April 5, 2022

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Steve Cohen, Chair of the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the State 
  of Tennessee...................................................     2
The Honorable Mike Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
  the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the 
  State of Louisiana.............................................     3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     5
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Ohio...............................     7

                               WITNESSES

Dr. Jacob R. Straus, Specialist on the Congress, Congressional 
  Research Service
  Oral Testimony.................................................     9
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    11
Mr. Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, Government Affairs Manager, Project 
  On Government Oversight
  Oral Testimony.................................................    26
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    28
  Supplemental Material..........................................    34
Mr. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of 
  Public Interest Law; Director, Environmental Law Advocacy 
  Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners; The 
  George Washington University Law School
  Oral Testimony.................................................    71
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    73
Mr. Nick Robinson, Senior Legal Advisor, U.S. Program, 
  International Center for Not-For-Profit Law
  Oral Testimony.................................................    83
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    85

                                APPENDIX

A letter from Martin Antonio Sabelli, President, National 
  Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, submitted by the 
  Honorable Steve Cohen, Chair of the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the State 
  of Tennessee, for the record...................................   108


         ENHANCING THE FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT OF 1938

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, April 5, 2022

                     U.S. House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,

                          and Civil Liberties

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Cohen 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Nadler, Cohen, Raskin, 
Ross, Johnson of Georgia, Garcia, Jackson Lee, Jordan, and 
Johnson of Louisiana.
    Staff present: John Doty, Senior Advisor and Deputy Staff 
Director; David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Moh Sharma, 
Director of Member Services and Outreach & Policy Advisor; 
Jordan Dashow, Professional Staff Member; Cierra Fontenot, 
Chief Clerk; Gabriel Barnett, Staff Assistant; Merrick Nelson, 
Digital Director; James Park, Chief Counsel for Constitution; 
Matt Morgan, Counsel for Constitution; Agbeko Petty, Counsel 
for Constitution; Will Emmons, Professional Staff Member/
Legislative Aide for Constitution; Katy Rother, Minority Deputy 
General Counsel and Parliamentarian; Betsy Ferguson, Minority 
Senior Counsel; Caroline Nabity, Minority Senior Counsel; James 
Lesinski, Minority Senior Counsel; and Kiley Bidelman, Minority 
Clerk.
    Mr. Cohen. [Presiding.] The Committee on Judiciary, 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
Liberties, will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Welcome to today's hearing on enhancing the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act of 1938.
    I remind Members we have an email address if you want to 
have exhibits, motions, et cetera, at our hearing today. If you 
would like to submit those materials, send them to the address 
there, and we will distribute them.
    Finally, I would ask all Members and Witnesses to mute your 
microphones when you are not speaking. This will prevent 
feedback and other technical issues. Obviously, you may unmute 
yourself anytime you seek recognition; otherwise, you will not 
be able to gain recognition.
    I will recognize myself for an opening statement.
    At an historical moment when America once again finds 
itself in a global struggle against anti-democratic adversaries 
abroad, it is right that the Subcommittee examine one of the 
tools that Congress intended to protect us from undue influence 
in our nation's policymaking process--the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act of 1938.
    Congress passed, and President Franklin Roosevelt signed, 
FARA, as it is known, into law in response to concern about 
Nazi Germany's efforts to spread propaganda and influence 
political discourse in the United States in the years leading 
up to the Second World War. So, Russia is not unique in this; 
they are much like Nazi Germany. Congress later amended the 
statute in the 1960s and 1990s to confront new circumstances. 
Indeed, the last time any component of the House Judiciary 
Committee held a hearing specifically focused on FARA was in 
1991.
    Under FARA, ``an agent of a foreign principal'' that is 
engaged in certain activities on behalf of that country within 
the United States--such as political activities, acting as an 
information service, or representing interests before any U.S. 
government agency or official--must file a registration 
statement with the Department of Justice within 10 days of 
becoming an agent and file supplements detailing their 
activities with the Department of Justice every six months.
    Registrants are also required to disclose copies of 
information/materials that the registrant believes will be, or 
intends to be, disseminated or circulated among two or more 
persons on the foreign principal's behalf. Registrants must 
also label those materials to indicate they are being 
disseminated by an agent of a foreign principal and to keep 
records of the registrant's activities for three years 
following the end of their agent status.
    FARA defines the term ``agent of a foreign principal'' and 
``foreign principal'' very broadly. For example, foreign 
principal means not just a foreign government or a foreign 
political party, but includes any person outside the United 
States, unless the person is a U.S. citizen or an entity 
organized under U.S. law that has its principal places of 
business in the United States.
    Finally, FARA contains a number of exemptions, including 
one for those who are registered under the Lobbying Disclosure 
Act, or the LDA, in connection with the agent's representation 
of foreign principals who are not a foreign government or a 
political party.
    For decades, the Department of Justice initiated few FARA 
enforcement actions, pursuing only a handful of prosecutions 
under the act's criminal provisions and a few attempts at 
seeking objective relief, the only civil remedy currently 
available under the act.
    Since 2017, the Department of Justice has admirably 
increased the resources and intentions devoted to enforcing 
this law, including hiring additional staff dedicated to civil 
enforcement. The result has been a 50 percent increase in 
registrations today compared to 2016.
    Some high-profile FARA-related charges included those 
against former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort for failing 
to register under FARA for his work in representing former 
Ukrainian President and Soviet Russia's friend, Victor 
Yanukovych, and Ukraine's pro-Russia Party of Regions as well, 
as well as charges against former National Security Advisor 
Michael Flynn for making materially false statements of 
documents that he filed, pursuant to FARA, for his work in 
representing the Turkish government.
    While the Department of Justice's increased efforts at FARA 
enforcement have clearly reinvigorated the act, there main 
areas where the act itself could be strengthened and better 
targeted. I note, also, the Department is currently engaged in 
the preliminary stages of a FARA-related rulemaking process.
    Since 2016, many Members of Congress have introduced FARA-
related measures, focused mostly on enhancing enforcement. Our 
own distinguished Subcommittee Ranking Member and outstanding 
servant to his community, for which he got a great deal of 
money recently, Mike Johnson, the Ranking Member, sponsored a 
bill a few years ago that contained some ideas of what we might 
be able to support.
    The Subcommittee should consider enforcement enhancement 
measures like eliminating or curtailing FARA's LDA exemption, 
the lobbyist exemption providing for civil penalties to 
encourage more civil enforcement by the Department of Justice 
and updated standards for making FARA materials publicly 
available.
    H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2021, which passed the 
House, amends FARA to provide civil penalties and additional 
resources to the Department of Justice to enforce the act, 
among many other portions of the law.
    Importantly, FARA is a transparency measure. It does not, 
and cannot constitutionally, prohibit speech, even by foreign 
principals, and shouldn't. In taking this balanced approach, 
Congress recognized that in meeting our desire to confront 
foreign influence in our political process, we should not erode 
our own constitutional values. Registration and notice are okay 
in transparency.
    In keeping with this loyalty to our own values as we seek 
to enhance FARA, we should keep in mind some potential 
unintended consequences of stronger enforcement and ask whether 
a sharper targeting of FARA may be necessary to achieve the 
act's aims without compromising our civil liberties or 
diverting attention away from FARA's primary concerns.
    I thank our Witnesses for being here. I look forward to 
their testimony.
    I would now like to recognize the distinguished Ranking 
Member from the city of Shreveport, home of the Independence 
Bowl, Mr. Johnson, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you for that, Mr. Chair.
    I do want to thank our Witnesses for being here this 
morning.
    The Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA for folks 
watching at home, as mentioned, is a decades old law that has 
been pushed to the forefront of politics in the courts in 
recent years. The point of FARA is simple. If you engage in 
certain activities on behalf of a foreign principal, you are 
supposed to register with the Department of Justice. The 
purpose of this law is very simple. We need to inform the 
American public when people working for foreign companies or 
governments intend to influence our government, the U.S. 
government officials, or the American people.
    It is a very important statute that ensures transparency in 
our system, and as such, violations of FARA carry stiff 
penalties, up to a $250,000 fine for each violation and up to 
five years in prison.
    For decades, FARA was only known to DC insiders really. The 
Department of Justice focused on promoting voluntary compliance 
with the law, rather than prosecuting violations. One 
Washington, DC, lawyer who represents clients in FARA matters 
remarked that, before 2016, FARA was, ``a backwater of American 
law--and a very still backwater at that,'' with just seven 
prosecutions between the years 1966 and 2016, just seven cases.
    That all changed after 2016, and a lot of people scratch 
their heads and wonder why. Well, desperate to find any law 
that President Trump and his aides could have broken during the 
2016 election, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team 
turned to FARA. They dusted it off. He and politically-biased 
FBI officials sought to push FARA to its limits. Why? To 
advance their partisan investigations and take down anybody 
related to President Trump.
    The FBI used to fail to register under FARA during 
investigations to pressure George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, 
Paul Manafort, and Carter Page. On April 28th, 2020, the FBI 
and the DOJ even used a failure to register under FARA to 
justify a raid on Rudy Giuliani's apartment and his law offices 
in New York City.
    Of course, now that President Trump has left office, the 
FBI again has little interest in enforcing FARA. If that is not 
evidence of political bias in the depths of government, I don't 
know what it is, especially since there is ample evidence now 
that, during the Obama administration--listen to this; hey, 
everybody turn on the news--Hunter Biden attempted to influence 
his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, by promoting the 
interests of foreign companies. Full stop. This evidence can be 
found in Hunter Biden's laptop, which we now know the FBI has 
had in its possession since December 2019, nearly two and a 
half years, but has seemingly done nothing with it at all.
    My colleague, Congressman Matt Gaetz, also introduced the 
laptop into the Congressional Record of the House Judiciary 
Committee, this Committee, just last week. I certainly hope the 
majority staff doesn't delay the sharing of its contents with 
the American people.
    Everybody has a right to know that the son of the Vice 
President used his political influence to benefit, among many 
other companies, CEFC China Energy Company, a Chinese 
conglomerate whose chair had links to the Chinese Communist 
Party. It wasn't as if Hunter had no idea, he was potentially 
breaking the law over his dealings with the Chinese 
corporation. Listen to this: On May 1st, 2017, he texted his 
friend and business associate, Tony Bobulinski, writing, ``We 
don't want to have to register as foreign agents.''
    He goes on to suggest that they set up a shell corporation 
to, presumably, shield their involvement and allow the Chinese 
company to do business with the U.S. government without raising 
flags. Mr. Bobulinski has since publicly stated that then-Vice 
President Joe Biden knew exactly what Hunter's business 
dealings with China were, as he discussed them with him 
directly.
    An email from Hunter's laptop, dated May 13th, 2017, even 
contains a discussion of, quote, ``remuneration packages'' for 
a deal with CEFC China Energy Company, including equity splits 
of, quote, ``20 for H,'' and, ``10 held by H for the Big Guy.'' 
According to Bobulinski, the ``Big Guy'' is a nickname Hunter 
commonly used to refer to his father. The laptop also has 
evidence of possible FARA violations from Hunter Biden's 
involvements in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Sri Lanka, just to 
name a few.
    In summation, Hunter Biden appears to have arranged 
meetings with U.S. officials and engaged in other 
representational activities on behalf of his foreign business 
connections. Based on my reading of FARA, and anybody else who 
looks this up, failing to register such behavior is clearly a 
violation of the law.
    However, the DOJ and FBI have so far failed to utilize the 
same hard-ball tactics they used against President Trump's 
aides to get answers from the current President's son. To date, 
zero charges have been filed and FARA has not been used as a 
pretext to conduct any pre-dawn raid of Hunter Biden's 
residence, as was done to Mr. Giuliani.
    Once again, the political bias of our country's top law 
enforcement bodies is rearing its head. The double standard 
continues to erode the American people's faith in our 
institutions, and this is a dangerous, dangerous road to be on.
    Mr. Chair, I look forward to further discussing this issue 
with our Witnesses today, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
    I want to mention that they also prosecuted Mr. Greg Craig, 
who was a favorite on the Democratic side.
    I want you to know, because of your testimony, I have 
instructed Mr. Greengrass to get us the computer after he gets 
us the unredacted Mueller report, the final information on the 
Kennedy assassination, and as much as he can get on the death 
of Marilyn Monroe.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Listen, with respect, Mr. Chair, 
you can mock that, but this has been duly entered into the 
record of this Committee. There is no reason to delay it, and 
the American people are demanding to know the contents of that 
laptop. I think this Committee has an obligation under the law, 
and the rules of the Committee, to get that done.
    Mr. Cohen. I agree with you. We are going to get those 
other three things, too.
    Mr. Nadler, you are recognized.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I, too, wish to thank our Witnesses for appearing today.
    Today's hearing on the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 
1938, often referred to by its acronym FARA, is an important 
opportunity for Members to learn about the origins and 
development of the act and to consider potential enhancements. 
Although FARA has been on the books for decades, the statute 
remains relatively obscure to Members in the public.
    As Chair Cohen noted, it has been over 30 years since the 
House Judiciary Committee last held a hearing on FARA. Then-
Representative Dan Glickman, who was invited to testify at that 
hearing, remarked at the time that FARA is, ``either widely 
misunderstood, ignored, poorly written, not enforced, or all of 
the above.''
    While I would add that FARA is an important tool for 
government transparency and would note that the Justice 
Department has taken steps to improve enforcement of the act in 
recent years, the gist of Representative Glickman's statement, 
arguably, still applies today.
    Passed by Congress in 1938 to combat the influence of Nazi 
propaganda, FARA is a public disclosure law that generally 
requires an ``agent of a foreign principal'' engaged in certain 
covered activities on behalf of a foreign principal to register 
with the Department of Justice.
    In the 1960s, Congress amended FARA to reorient the statute 
away from exposing sources of foreign propaganda towards 
concerns regarding efforts by foreign interests to influence 
U.S. policy through lobbying.
    For decades, however, FARA went relatively underenforced by 
the Justice Department. A 2016 Office of Inspector General 
report noted that the Department brought only seven criminal 
FARA cases between 1966 and 2015.
    The Justice Department has recently stepped up FARA 
enforcement since the 2016 presidential election and the 
Special Counsel's prosecution of several individuals, including 
former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort and former National 
Security Advisor Michael Flynn for charges related to FARA 
violations stemming from political activities they engaged in 
on behalf of foreign governments.
    This increased enforcement appears to have had an effect. 
According to one Justice Department official's post to the 
website Just Security, the number of FARA registrants has 
increased by 50 percent since 2016.
    This past December, the Department also published an 
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on 
potential changes to modernize FARA's implementing regulations, 
including clarifying the scope of certain exemptions and 
updated various definitions. I applaud the Justice Department's 
recent efforts to increase FARA enforcement.
    At a time when we see democracy literally under Russian 
attack abroad in Ukraine, and foreign government attempts to 
influence or undermine the democracy at home, it is important 
to shine a light on efforts by foreign governments to shape 
U.S. policymaking.
    I also think it is important to keep in mind, as we 
consider proposals to enhance FARA's transparency mechanisms, 
that while hidden efforts by foreign governments to influence 
U.S. policymaking and the public have a corrupting effect on 
our democracy, the underlying activities FARA regulates are 
constitutionally protected.
    That is why Congress, even as war clouds began to gather 
over Europe in the 1930s, chose transparency as the means to 
combat foreign influence in our democracy. It is also why I am 
opposed to proposals to grant the Justice Department the 
authority to issue Civil Investigative Demands, also known as 
CIDs, in the FARA context. My fear is that such type of 
administrative subpoena authority, which, by definition, lacks 
judicial involvement, may be used as an end run around Fourth 
Amendment protections and potentially erode other 
constitutional rights.
    While CID authority always raises civil liberties concerns, 
this authority is particularly troubling in the FARA context 
because the statute regulates constitutionally protected 
activities. Moreover, because FARA lacks robust civil 
penalties, most recent FARA proceedings have been criminal in 
nature. As of the publication of the 2016 OIG report, the 
Department had not sought civil injunctive relief under FARA 
since 1991.
    These factors, which are particular to the FARA context, 
taken together, heighten the risk that granting CID authority 
will erode civil liberties over time. Indeed, as we will hear 
from one of our Witnesses today, as it is, nonprofit 
organizations across the political spectrum have raised 
concerns of FARA's sweeping scope, which may create unintended 
consequences and burden constitutionally-protected activities 
Congress, arguably, sought to exempt from the statute. It may 
permit future administrations too much discretion to use FARA's 
breadth to selectively investigate or prosecute organizations 
whose viewpoints the government disfavors. Any discussion of 
how to enhance FARA's enforcement and public transparency 
mechanisms would not be complete without also considering the 
potential consequences and concerns raised by the nonprofit 
sector.
    Lastly, I would like to express my desire for today's 
discussion to remain focused on legal and policy 
considerations. We have already heard from Members who they 
think should be investigated for FARA violations. We are not 
here today to discuss the details of any potential case or 
individual. Instead, it is my hope that, amidst the potential 
temptation to score partisan political points, it is not lost 
on us that there appears to be general bipartisan support for 
FARA, and that there may be areas of bipartisan agreement on 
how to improve the act. I look forward to hearing from our 
Witnesses on potential avenues for reform.
    With that, I thank Chair Cohen for holding a hearing on 
this important subject, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Nadler.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. 
Jordan from Ohio, for as much time as he now consumes.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    On October 22nd, 2020, just two weeks before the most 
important election we have, election for President of the 
United States, then-candidate Biden said, regarding his son's 
dealings with foreign companies, ``Nothing was unethical. My 
son has not made money from Chinese business interests.'' Now, 
there are 4.8 million reasons why that statement was not 
accurate.
    How do we know? How do we know that statement was not 
accurate? The Washington Post told us so last week. Not Mike 
Johnson, not President Trump, not Republicans--The Washington 
Post told us this last week. They did two stories last 
Wednesday, one at 11:00 a.m. and one at 11:04 a.m., two eight-
page stories four minutes apart, confirming what we already 
knew: The laptop was real; the eyewitness was real; the emails 
were real. The only thing fake 18 months ago in the runup to 
the Presidential election was the news. I find that amazing--
two eight-page stories four minutes apart saying the laptop is 
accurate; all the emails are accurate, saying this from The 
Washington Post, when for 18 months they said, ``No, no, no, it 
was Russian disinformation.''
    When we think about what happened in the runup to the most 
important election we have, big media, big tech, and Democrats 
all colluded to bury that story, something I think the American 
people would have liked to have known a little something about, 
as they went to the polls to elect the Commander-in-Chief.
    Oh, they were joined--it wasn't just big tech, big media, 
and Democrats telling us something that wasn't true--they were 
joined by 51 former intelligence officials who told us it was 
Russian disinformation.
    Now, think about this. This is funny how this story has 
changed. First, it wasn't his laptop. Then, it was, ``Oh, yeah, 
it was his laptop, but it was Russian disinformation.'' Then, 
it was, ``No, it wasn't Russian disinformation, but Joe Biden 
wasn't involved.'' Now, it was, ``Oh, yeah, Joe was involved, 
but he did nothing wrong.'' It is amazing how that has all 
changed in 18 months.
    So, I look forward to hearing from our Witnesses and 
figuring out what we can do with the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act of 1938. It probably does need some changes, 
something done to it. The title of today's hearing is 
``Enhancing FARA, the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 
1938.'' How about we just figure out a way to apply it 
consistently?
    As the Ranking Member said in his opening statement, this 
has been used--just about anyone who was involved in the Trump 
campaign had it used against them to get information and do a 
prosecution, do the whole Mueller investigation, which found 
out there was no collusion. We have obviously had collusion 
here.
    Maybe it does need to be applied at least in a consistent 
fashion to Hunter Biden. We know Hunter Biden took millions of 
dollars from the wife of the mayor of Moscow. We know he took 
millions of dollars from energy companies in Ukraine, and 
millions of dollars from companies in China with ties to the 
Chinese Communist Party, including, as the Ranking Member 
mentioned, CEFC, which paid him $4.8 million in one year's 
time.
    Should Hunter Biden have registered under this act? Why 
didn't he register under this act? Why is the Department of 
Justice being inconsistent? At least that is what it seems, 
when, as the Ranking Member said, ``only seven people were 
prosecuted between 1966 and 2016,'' and then, shazam, they 
started using it against everyone associated with President 
Trump's campaign, it seemed.
    So, this is important. The Chair of the Committee just said 
we are not here today to discuss individuals, but I do think 
the American people would like to know the truth about this 
story and why it was kept from them--kept from we, the people--
prior to, as I said before, the most important election we have 
in this nation. That is important information, and I hope we 
can begin to dig into that.
    This Committee should dig into that. We should be all about 
making sure the American people get the truth, and not have, as 
I said before, big tech, big media, Democrats, and 51 former 
intel officials, tell us something in the runup to the election 
that was not accurate.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Jordan.
    Our Witnesses are here. We welcome you and thank you for 
participating.
    I will introduce each of the Witnesses before their 
testimony. Therefore, you might remember who they are.
    You get five minutes. There is a light system in front of 
you. Green means you are on, and you have somewhere between one 
and four minutes. Then, it turns yellow. That means you are 
down to your last minute. When it turns red, that means you 
should be finished.
    Your full testimony will be entered into record, although 
five minutes is what you are limited to in testimonial.
    I will give verbal notice on the minutes remaining today as 
well.
    Before proceeding with the testimony, I would like to 
remind all our witnesses that you are under oath to tell the 
truth, and if you don't, you will be, could be cited with a 
violation of section 1001 of title 18 of the U.S. Code.
    Our first Witness is Mr. Jacob Straus. ``Doctor'' it says 
there. I guess he is a doctor. He is a specialist on the 
Congress and the government in the Finance Division of the 
Congressional Research Service, one of our most esteemed 
branches. He works on lobbying; ethics; commemorations, 
including monuments and memorials, and congressional advisory 
commissions. Dr. Straus received his M.A. and Ph.D. in 
political science from the University of Florida and his B.A. 
from the University of Maryland.
    Dr. Straus, you are recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF JACOB R. STRAUS

    Dr. Straus. Chair Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Congressional 
Research Service, thank you for the opportunity to appear 
today.
    My testimony focuses on two areas: The history of the 
Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, and legislative 
proposals to amend the law.
    Concern over foreign influence in American politics dates 
to the Revolutionary War and the Continental Congress' alliance 
with France. President George Washington addressed foreign 
influence in his 1796 farewell address writing that, ``history 
and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most 
baneful foes of republican government.''
    In the early days of the Republic, several incidents 
brought concerns about foreign influence to prominence. In 
1808, for example, the House of Representatives authorized an 
investigation into allegations that General of the Army James 
Wilkinson was a Spanish agent. General Wilkinson was, 
ultimately, acquitted, but governmental interest in the 
potential influence of foreign governments and actors on 
American public policy remained for much of the next century.
    The idea of regulating foreign influence dates to at least 
the early 1900s, when the first pieces of legislation aimed at 
directly addressing the real or perceived possibility of 
foreign influence in American politics were introduced. These 
measures, generally, would have required the registration of 
individuals or groups seeking to influence public policy or 
promote propaganda.
    With the rise of Nazism in the 1930s in Germany, concern 
about foreign propaganda influence grew. In 1934, the House 
created the Special Committee on Un-American Activities to 
investigate foreign propaganda and influence. Chaired by future 
Speaker of the House John McCormack, the Special Committee 
investigated the scope of foreign influence activities in the 
United States and the spread of subversive propaganda that 
originated from foreign countries.
    In 1937, Representative McCormack introduced the bill that 
would become FARA, and on June 8, 1938, President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt signed it into law. As enacted, FARA sought, as 
described by the Department of Justice, to, ``combat the spread 
of hidden foreign influence in American politics.''
    Specifically, FARA responded to foreign influence concerns 
by creating a system designed ``to identify agents of foreign 
principals who might engage in subversive acts or in spreading 
foreign propaganda, and to require them to make public record 
of the nature of their employment.''
    Over the years, Congress has substantially amended FARA on 
several occasions, most notably, in 1942, 1966, and in 1995. 
Today, the Department of Justice administers FARA. The law, as 
amended, generally focuses on individuals conducting advocacy 
or public relations work on behalf of foreign principals within 
the United States. These agents of a foreign principal are 
required to register with DOJ and provide information about 
their business and foreign principals they represent. For each 
foreign principal, a foreign agent must periodically disclose 
to DOJ copies of contracts, details of the financial 
relationship, advocacy and public relations activities, and 
informational materials.
    In recent years, various Members of Congress have 
introduced a number of measures to amend FARA. A CRS review of 
these bills identified several trends. Broadly, these bills 
proposed to provide civil investigative demand authority to 
DOJ; change the penalties that could be imposed for 
noncompliance; repeal or modify exemptions to FARA; modify the 
administration of FARA by DOJ; amend FARA registration and 
disclosure requirements, and public access to documents; alter 
the requirements for labeling of informational materials; 
restrict certain former officials, including Members of 
Congress, from acting as foreign agents, and require reporting 
to Congress and the DOJ on FARA implementation, administration, 
and enforcement.
    In closing, the Foreign Agents Registration Act is more 
than 80 years old and primarily focuses on foreign agents 
engaged in advocacy activities in the United States. 
Congressional proposals recently introduced to amend FARA 
include a range of options. CRS is available to discuss these 
provisions further.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Dr. Straus follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Doctor.
    Our next Witness will be Mr. Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette. He is 
the Government Affairs Manager at the Project on Government 
Oversight. In this role, he advocates for more accountable and 
transparent Federal government through advancement of good 
government policy reforms. He focuses on issues ranging from 
lobbying and ethics reform to judicial accountability and 
congressional oversight. He received his M.S. degree from 
Northeastern University and his B.A. from the University of 
Southern Maine.
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette, you are recognized for five minutes.

              STATEMENT OF DYLAN HEDTLER-GAUDETTE

    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette. Thank you, Chair Cohen, Ranking 
Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee.
    My name is Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, and I am the government 
affairs manager at the Project on Government Oversight. I am 
privileged to be here today.
    I want to first start by commending the Committee for 
holding a hearing on the Foreign Agents Registration Act and 
ways to improve it. Making much-needed and long-overdue reforms 
to this law will not only help the Federal government keep a 
closer eye on the activities of foreign lobbyists and those who 
advocate on behalf of foreign interests, but it will also 
demonstrate to the American people that nobody is above the 
law, which includes politically well-connected K Street 
operatives.
    Shining a bright light onto the sources and activities of 
foreign lobbying is essential to protecting the integrity of 
the U.S. political and policymaking processes. The Foreign 
Agents Registration Act is designed to do just this by 
requiring robust disclosure and reporting requirements on the 
part of those who advocate on behalf of foreign interests.
    We, as a nation, have been concerned with the potentially 
corrupting impact of undue foreign influence in domestic 
affairs since the dawn of the Republic, and today is no 
different, with the exception of the fact that today's foreign 
actors have evermore access to more sophisticated and more 
effective ways of influencing and shaping U.S. policy toward 
their own ends, which includes having access to a willing 
cottage industry of mercenary lobbying firms and influence 
peddlers.
    There are a number of flaws in the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act framework, and I wanted to highlight just a 
couple of them with you today, and I would like to offer some 
proposals. I would encourage the Committee to refer to my 
written testimony, as well as to a supplemental report I have 
attached to that testimony, to see a more complete range of 
proposals.
    First and foremost, the Department of Justice has not, and 
continues to not, sufficiently prioritize the enforcement and 
administration of this law. Back in 2014, the Project on 
Government Oversight published a comprehensive report in which 
we laid out a wide number of issues with the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act. One of our key findings was a systemic 
pattern of lax enforcement and an overall lack of interest at 
the highest levels of leadership at the Department of Justice. 
In 2016, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice had 
its own report in which they found very similar things.
    Unfortunately, not much has changed in the intervening 
years. One way to remedy this problem is to create a dedicated, 
standalone office that is responsible for enforcing and 
administering the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Right now, 
those responsibilities are in the hands of an underresourced 
subcomponent of a subcomponent within the National Security 
Division, and this simply isn't working.
    One other issue we see with the Foreign Agents Registration 
Act is registration itself. There are a large number of people 
operating here in DC who should be registered under the Foreign 
Agents Registration Act, but they aren't. One of the key 
reasons for this is the existence of a large loophole, the LDA 
exemption. The LDA exemption allows lobbyists who should 
otherwise be registered under FARA to avoid doing so by simply 
registering under the far less restrictive Lobbying Disclosure 
Act. One keyway Congress can strengthen the law is by closing 
this loophole.
    One other issue we see with the Foreign Agents Registration 
Act is its overreliance on criminal prosecution as the primary 
enforcement mechanism. We encourage Congress to create civil 
monetary penalties as another option in the toolbox that will 
enhance enforcement of this law at the Department of Justice.
    Lastly, I want to raise the issue of the outdated and 
anachronistic way that the Department of Justice makes 
available to the public the documents and materials that are 
filed by registrants. We are 22 years into the 21st century, 
and it is long overdue for the Department of Justice to 
overhaul and modernize the way it makes these materials 
available to the public, which must include adherence to, and 
compliance with, the latest guidelines and standards related to 
digital accessibility.
    Since I began my testimony with bedrock principles, I want 
to end in the same way.
    Mr. Cohen. You have a full minute to go.
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette. What's that?
    Mr. Cohen. You have about a minute left.
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette. One minute left or five minutes done? 
Okay. Okay.
    Since I began my testimony with bedrock principles, I want 
it to end that way, too. We must strengthen the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act because there are weaknesses in the law that 
undercut its primary purpose, which is to shed light on the 
activities of foreign agents. We must also strengthen the law 
because it is critical to demonstrate to the American people 
that the rule of law is real and that nobody is above the law, 
and that includes the wealthy, the well-connected, and the 
powerful.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I look 
forward to answering your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
    
       
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Our next Witness is Jonathan Turley. He is the Maurice C. 
Shapiro and J.B. Professor of Public Interest Law and Director 
of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, 
Project for Older Prisoners, at GW Law School. He has written 
more than three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a 
variety of leading law journals and served as counsel in 
several notable cases over the last two decades. He has served 
as a consultant at Homeland Security on constitutional issues 
and is a frequent Witness before this Committee and others in 
the House and the Senate, particularly on some tort reform 
legislation. He received his J.D. from Northwestern, not 
Northeastern, and his B.A. from the University of Chicago.
    You are recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF JONATHAN TURLEY

    Mr. Turley. Thank you, Chair Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, 
and Members of the Subcommittee. It is a great honor to appear 
before you today to talk about the reforms on FARA.
    It is also a particular honor to appear with my esteemed 
fellow Witnesses. I have tremendous respect for all three of 
these Witnesses. I commend the majority in calling them here 
today. We have a great deal of shared views in terms of FARA, 
its possible reforms, and its potential dangers that Chair 
Nadler discussed earlier.
    I come to this as someone from the free speech community 
that has a rather robust view of free speech. I have been 
called a free speech purist. That used to be a compliment. I 
have a certain resistance to registration systems because of 
the dangers the Chair Nadler apply laid out.
    FARA, for that reason, has been a subject of great concern 
in the civil liberties community for a long time. The concern 
is not with the degree of prosecutions. The degree of 
prosecutions remains relatively low. The concern is that it can 
be used to secure warrant, conduct searches, seize material, 
including confidential material, under a statute that is 
ambiguously worded and, also, in my view, inconsistently 
applied.
    As the Members of this Committee know, FARA has been 
replicated in some countries, like Russia, which cite to our 
own law as a justification for their crackdown on NGOs, 
journalists, and dissenters. That level of abuse is capable in 
any country, including our own. Indeed, FARA has been used for 
abusive applications in the past.
    We should not forget that FARA was created in the 1930s as 
something of an anti-free-speech measure. The motivations were 
good. It was intended to combat fascist propaganda, but it was 
designed to stigmatize people that had views that were called 
un-American. That type of origin, obviously, raises a lasting 
concern among the civil liberties community.
    Now, in terms of its actual use, as has already been 
pointed out, it has been rather modest. Indeed, even in World 
War II, we only had a couple of dozen figures that were 
prosecuted. We only had eight individuals that were prosecuted 
between 2016--I'm sorry--1966 and 2015. On the civil 
enforcement side, we only had 17. That has gone largely dormant 
since then.
    We have an uptick, a shift towards criminal prosecutions. 
That is what concerns me about the changing of FARA. We are 
sort of in the third incarnation of this statute. I would 
encourage the Committee not to go back to its origins in terms 
of speech-control mechanism, a way of stigmatizing what is 
viewed as un-American speech, even if that is done under the 
guise of disinformation.
    If it is transparency that is being sought in lobbying, you 
can achieve that with some well-reasoned reforms. In 1966, in 
the sort of second incarnation of the act, the Congress sort of 
moved towards that transparency model. For that reason, I have 
suggested four areas that, in my view, would warrant 
clarification.
    That includes--and this may seem rather trite--but it 
includes clarifying the purpose of FARA. It is not clear what 
the purpose is. We need to understand, if this the third 
incarnation, what FARA's purpose is today.
    I also suggest clarifying the line between criminal and 
civil enforcement. The Department of Justice has laid out 
sweeping discretion. That is a difference between five years in 
prison and a retroactive registering under the act. It is 
considerable, and the Congress should look at it. I have 
suggested clarifying key terms that I believe are, as some of 
my colleagues have noted, ambiguous and dangerous.
    Finally, I specifically raise the clarifying of the legal 
exemption. It is still an exemption that is heavily laden with 
these terms that can have wildly different applications between 
different cases.
    My greatest concern I started with and I will end with. I 
hope this Congress does not return to the original purpose of 
FARA and does not return to the use of the statute to combat 
un-American statements or viewpoints.
    There has been an array of statutes passed since 1938 that 
allows Congress to return to a more civil administrative 
approach to FARA. There is no political agenda that you will 
see among the Witnesses today. We are in agreement on many of 
these points. I echo the Chair's view; I think that is a 
wonderful opportunity for us to come together on this statute.
    [The statement of Mr. Turley follows:]
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Professor Turley.
    The final Witness is Nicholas Robinson. He is a Senior 
Legal Advisor at the International Center for Not-for-Profit 
Law, where he manages the organization's U.S. program. Not-for-
profit law, that means you don't have to do billable hours, I 
guess? That is good. That is good.
    [Laughter.]
    His research and expertise centers on how laws aimed at 
curtailing foreign influence can impact civil society 
organizations, the regulation of freedom of assembly, and civic 
space in a time of rising global authoritarianism. His research 
has been published in a number of academic journals, including 
Duke Law Journal--but not the UNC Law Journal or the Kansas Law 
Journal--and the Cornell Law Review. He is regularly quoted and 
cited in leading news outlets. Prior to joining this group, he 
was a lecturer and fellow at Yale University, where he taught 
both human rights and professional responsible. He is a post-
doctoral fellow at Harvard Law School. So, he doesn't play 
favorites. Before that, he worked in India, where he was a 
clerk at the Indian Supreme Court, a professor at the Jindal 
Global Law School, and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Policy 
Research. He received his J.D. from Yale and B.A. from the 
University of Chicago.
    Mr. Robinson, you are recognized for five minutes.
    You don't go to anything but the best schools.

                   STATEMENT OF NICK ROBINSON

    Mr. Robinson. Good morning, Chair Cohen and Ranking Member 
Johnson, and Members of the Subcommittee.
    My name is Nick Robinson. I'm a Senior Legal Advisor at the 
International Center for Not-For-Profit Law, where we work to 
create an appropriate legal environment for nonprofits for the 
U.S. and around the world.
    Today, I want to highlight why the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act needs to be better targeted. After the 2016 
presidential election, there was an understandable increase in 
concern about Russian and Chinese influence in U.S. politics. 
In response, some policymakers, including the Justice 
Department, turned to FARA as a potential answer.
    To be clear, renewed focus on the act has provided needed 
transparency around lobbying by foreign governments and has led 
to important prosecutions. However, as enforcement has ramped 
up, FARA's notoriously sweeping provisions have also 
increasingly interfered with the operations of nonprofits, 
businesses, religious institutions, and others, with limited or 
no connection to a foreign government, and in a manner that 
Congress never intended.
    Civil society has been raising the alarm. Consider a recent 
open letter to the Justice Department signed by the ACLU, 
Americans for Prosperity, the NRDC, and other prominent 
nonprofits. It warns that, ``FARA's overbreadth and vagueness 
can undermine and chill First Amendment rights to speech and 
association and the statute has a history of being used to 
target undesirable expressive conduct.''
    While the Department has in recent decades prioritized 
enforcement of the act against lobbyists of foreign 
governments, the act's provisions capture a dizzying array of 
other Americans. For example, a U.S. nonprofit that arranges a 
public speaking event in Chicago at the request of a visiting 
Ukrainian pro-democracy advocate, would, arguably, be required 
to register under the act.
    Nor are these concerns merely hypothetical. As the Justice 
Department has ramped up enforcement, it has demanded that a 
U.S. church register for putting up banners at the request of 
foreign congregants who came to Washington, DC, for the March 
for Life rally, or the Justice Department required the National 
Wildlife Federation to register because it accepted money from 
the Norwegian government to work with U.S. multinational 
corporations on improving sustainability of product supply 
chains in certain tropical countries.
    FARA's overbreadth provides the Justice Department the 
power to decide who will and will not be a foreign agent, a 
stigmatizing label that carries extensive reporting 
requirements and other burdens. Such power is ripe for abuse. 
For example, during the McCarthy Era, the Justice Department 
used FARA to prosecute W.E.B. Du Bois, the renown civil rights 
leader, for disseminating anti-war literature from a French 
nonprofit.
    This overbreadth and vagueness also creates confusion about 
who needs to register. As I sometimes joke with colleagues, 
FARA has become a job creation scheme for high-end D.C. law 
firms. While some can afford such expert counsel, most cannot.
    Importantly, having such a broadly worded act undercuts the 
Justice Department's ability to enforce it. Currently, the 
Department is distracted by registrants who are not their 
enforcement priority, and they face the real prospect of the 
act being challenged on First Amendment grounds, undermining 
their ability to enforce it against anyone.
    I would respectfully urge Congress to take action. While 
there are many proposals to strengthen enforcement of the act, 
as my colleague from POGO described, and as Professor Turley 
also emphasized, the act, though, needs to be better targeted. 
This should include three key pillars.
    First, fix the foreign principal definition. Currently, the 
act's foreign principal definition makes no distinction whether 
one is an agent of the Chinese government or one's grandmother 
in Canada. This simply does not make sense.
    Second, clarify the agency definition. One can currently 
become an agent under the act by acting at the, ``request of a 
foreign principal.'' However, if I asked 10 different FARA 
experts what ``request'' means, they could give me 10 different 
answers.
    Third, better target the act's covered activities. FARA has 
had success in making visible the lobbying of foreign 
governments, but its other benefits have been far less clear. 
Congress should review the broad, often outdated, set of 
activities that FARA currently covers to make sure that they 
are tailored to the purpose Congress is trying to accomplish 
with the act.
    Thank you for inviting me today, and I would be happy to 
answer any of your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Robinson follows:]
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
  
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
    I am just curious, the lady behind, who are you and who do 
you represent?
    [Inaudible response from audience member.]
    You don't work with Mr. Robinson?
    [Inaudible response from audience member.]
    Oh, because she was nodding the whole time, and I assumed 
she was part of your team. I wasn't sure.
    [Laughter.]
    I just didn't know if you were getting good ratings, or 
whatever it was.
    I appreciate your testimony on how we can improve FARA. 
This is the question portion of our program where I have five 
minutes, and we will go down the line.
    Do you think we should even have FARA? I mean, you don't 
have a great perspective on it. Do you think it is that what 
maybe wasn't appropriate even in 1938-1939, but do we need FARA 
at all?
    Mr. Robinson. I think this is the question that Congress 
should be asking.
    Mr. Cohen. I am.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Robinson. Yes. Congress, as a collective body, asking.
    As I said, it has been used most recently for providing 
transparency around lobbyists for foreign governments. There 
are some distinctions from the LDA. The LDA could potentially 
be used this way or the LDA could be amended.
    I think what is ironic here, when FARA was passed in 1938, 
they didn't have lobbyists in mind. There weren't really 
lobbyists in Washington, DC, in the same way. So, it is really 
just not tailored, it is not targeted to purpose. That is what 
it is used to--most people can agree today, or many people on 
both sides of the aisle think it should be used for lobbyists 
of foreign governments. Beyond that, it breaks down, and 
there's many other tools and mechanisms that have been enacted 
since to target, say, outside election interference or other 
issues like that of concerns around foreign influence.
    Mr. Cohen. My friend, Mr. Johnson, brought up several 
Republicans who were involved in prosecutions. Mr. Greg Craig 
was, too, a Democrat. He went to trial, et cetera, but were 
there errors or areas where maybe he shouldn't have been? Did 
it go too far in getting Mr. Craig, do you think?
    Mr. Robinson. So, I'm not an expert on that case. I don't 
feel comfortable talking to that case, but maybe one of my 
colleagues--
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
    Well, Professor Turley, do you have any opinion on Mr. 
Craig's prosecution?
    Mr. Turley. Well, that's one of those cases. I was 
concerned with a lot of the cases during that period because, 
as I say in my testimony, if you take a look at the legal 
exemption, but not just under the act itself, but, more 
importantly, obviously, the exemption defined by the Department 
of Justice, it is extremely ambiguous as to when you trip that 
wire. I think the Craig case shows that what happened with him 
could have been applied to others.
    You will notice that there was also an investigation of 
John Podesta. He was allowed to retroactively register. When 
that happened, I have to tell you, I was looking at those cases 
going, ``Well, all right. What's the distinction here? What's 
the clear distinction?''
    Attorneys need to have some clear line. I want to echo what 
Mr. Robinson said. It is not just attorneys. Nobody really 
cares about us in terms of being put in a tough position. This 
is impacting public interest organizations who also have to 
make this decision.
    When you think that the National Wildlife Federation was 
told that they have to register as a foreign agent because they 
are working, advocating against the burning of the rainforest, 
it should be an alarm for Congress to say, ``Look, we need to 
look at this, as to where these lines are, and have some 
consistent, coherent approach to who has to register.''
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Professor Turley.
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette, you have heard Mr. Robinson's 
discussion about LDAs. What is your response to those who argue 
that LDA registration provides sufficient transparency for the 
subset of agents of foreign principals that it covers because 
they don't represent foreign governments or political parties?
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette. I think the short answer is, no, I do 
not believe that the LDA has sufficient transparency, 
safeguards, and protocols in there, relative to what we should 
expect of foreign agents or people lobbying on behalf of 
foreign agents. I think it is perfectly appropriate to have two 
different systems for people who are lobbying purely 
domestically and those who are lobbying on behalf of foreign 
interests. That is in many ways the system we have now.
    I agree with my colleagues, though, that there is always--I 
think it is always a good heuristic in policymaking to be as 
clear and targeted and tight as possible, especially around key 
terms here in the Foreign Agents Registration Act. I would not 
say that we should simply funnel foreign agents into the LDA's 
framework, because the LDA framework also has quite a few 
shortcomings and weaknesses. So, I would, as I said in my 
testimony--and I elaborate a little bit in my written 
testimony--I would advocate that we actually close the LDA 
exemption and require all foreign lobbyists to register under 
the FARA framework, because it has much stronger reporting and 
transparency and disclosure mechanisms in there. I think that 
is appropriate. That is as it should be.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    I will now yield to Mr. Johnson, the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you all, for the Witnesses. Very much appreciate your 
expertise.
    Mr. Turley, I appreciated your testimony about the threats 
of the Foreign Agents Registration Act being enforced as it may 
have been originally intended. Many of you mentioned that.
    In your written statement, you noted, quote, ``FARA began 
in the 1930s to combat propaganda and was framed as a way to 
curtail un-American speech.'' When I read that, I must say that 
my first thought went directly to Judge Ketanji Brown Johnson. 
If un-American speech was still unlawful today, I would just 
note here, there is no way she could be considered as a nominee 
for the U.S. Supreme Court. I mean, if you didn't see over the 
weekend, she testified in her post-hearing written questions 
for the record, quote, ``I do not hold a position on whether 
individuals possess natural rights.'' It is unbelievable.
    I mean, we can hardly imagine a more un-American position 
than denying the first self-evident truth of America listed in 
the Declaration, but I think she is the first SCOTUS nominee to 
openly hold such a position. I digress.
    Okay. Mr. Turley, as I noted earlier, during Special 
Counsel Robert Mueller's probe, there were at least five 
indictments of conservatives under FARA, and that represents 
nearly as many FARA prosecutions in just 18 months as there 
were in the previous 40 years combined. It would seem these 
alleged FARA violations were used as either a pretext to 
investigate those with ties to President Trump or that FARA 
charges were used to pressure conservative aides in a bid to 
find a connection between the Trump campaign and Russia. So, no 
improper connection on the President's part was ever found, 
obviously, and now, everybody knows that was all just a 
complete sham.
    Here is the question: Based on your research into the 
issue, and your understanding of the history of FARA, is it 
fair to say that the law became a highly weaponized tool of the 
DOJ and FBI against the Trump campaign?
    Mr. Turley. Well, I do think that the Mueller investigation 
used FARA, as many prosecutors do, as a cudgel to go after some 
of these individuals. It is a very handy tool. It is sort of 
like 18 U.S.C. 1001. If you allege a false statement, you get 
into a warrant. You were able to do a search. You are able to 
secure information.
    Particularly with FARA, the concern is that--at least with 
18 U.S.C. 1001, you have to establish a false statement, and 
that was involved in the Michael Flynn case--with FARA, these 
terms are really difficult to track in terms of how they are 
being interpreted. The Department of Justice itself has 
withdrawn advisory opinions--well, at least one critical one--
as to the definition of some of these terms.
    So, suddenly, what was interesting about the Mueller 
investigation is that many of us were familiar with FARA, but, 
suddenly, all the lights went on. It seemed like we went from a 
dead stop to you could throw a stick and hit a FARA violation 
on every corner in the city.
    What really should focus the attention of Congress is not 
necessarily a questioning of Mueller's investigation, but the 
consistency of the application of the law, and why, suddenly, 
we had this emphasis placed on the criminalization and the 
prosecution under FARA.
    I have to say, that was quite a change from what preceded 
it. Before that happened, FARA was widely known in Washington 
as largely an administrative process, and the penalty was 
usually retroactive registration, like what happened with John 
Podesta.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Right. Okay. So, let me get to 
Hunter Biden now. Have you had a chance to review the documents 
contained in that laptop, or at least the publicly available 
reports on those documents?
    Mr. Turley. I have.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. As the statute currently stands, 
do you believe that Hunter Biden's activities on behalf of 
foreign interests, as evidenced by the documents on the laptop, 
required him to register under FARA?
    Mr. Turley. What I think I feel comfortable in saying is I 
don't want to presuppose anyone's guilt.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Sure.
    Mr. Turley. I guess what I would feel comfortable in saying 
is that, with Paul Manafort, if you take a look at what he pled 
guilty to in 2018, there's obviously very strong similarities 
in the type of activities that were described in that 
indictment and what we are seeing in the laptop, including the 
acknowledgment of the possible necessity of registering under 
FARA. So, if you look at that indictment, that would be a 
strong basis.
    If I were his counsel--quite frankly, I'm a criminal 
defense attorney--I think most people in my position would tell 
him that we need to be prepared for a charge here, if Manafort 
is the standard.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The standard.
    Mr. Turley. I have to say, all we have are these accounts. 
We don't know what was presented in the grand jury. My 
understanding is that Hunter Biden has given information to the 
U.S. Attorney. So, I don't think that we can say with any great 
certainty that these cases are identical or that a charge is 
forthcoming. What I am saying is that, if you use the Manafort 
indictment, this does not look good for Mr. Biden.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We all look forward to reviewing 
that record.
    I yield back. I am out of time.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
    First, I would like to have Mr. Hank Johnson take the chair 
temporarily. I have got some visitors.
    I will recognize Mr. Nadler for five minutes.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Straus, in 1938, Congress chose to structure FARA as a 
transparency and disclosure regime. While clearly concerned 
about the influence of foreign propaganda at the time, was 
Congress also concerned about potentially curbing First 
Amendment protected activities?
    Dr. Straus. Thank you, Congressman.
    So, in my review of the record or my recollection of the 
record, it was something that was discussed, but I would have 
to get back to you as to exactly where the discussion came down 
on the lines in that original passage of the law for 1938. 
Certainly, based on my recollection of reading the 
congressional documents, it was something that was discussed 
during the hearings.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette--if I have pronounced your name 
correctly--in your testimony you highlight that FARA's 
registration exemption for individuals and organizations 
registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act is particularly 
problematic from a public transparency perspective. Can you 
further explain why it is problematic and what action Congress 
should take to address it?
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair 
Nadler.
    The Lobbying Disclosure Act is not a very strong 
transparency and disclosure framework for people who are 
engaged in lobbying activities. The Foreign Agents Registration 
Act is a much stronger mechanism in terms of the actual 
reporting it requires; what documents and materials that 
someone who registers has to provide; the timely manner in 
which they have to provide it.
    So, my recommendation there is to close the loophole that 
allows people who should, otherwise, being registering as 
foreign agents--or we can call them something else, if we would 
like to, people lobbying on behalf of foreign interests--they 
should be lobbying under FARA because they are doing something 
that is distinctly different that we have a different interest 
in, and they should not be allowed to register under the less 
restrictive Lobbying Disclosure Act.
    I think part of the problem there is we need additional 
sunlight and transparency around what could be potential undue 
foreign influence. Because, at the end of the day, we have to 
ensure that American policy is, first and foremost, being made 
on behalf of American people. That is the bedrock guiding 
principle here, the North Star, if you will, around why these 
are two separate categories of activities, two separate 
categories of individuals, and why they require two separate 
regulatory frameworks.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Robinson, in your testimony, you noted that the 
definition of ``agent of a foreign principal'' is overbroad, in 
particular, because of how it defines the agent-principal 
relationship. How does FARA's definition depart from how this 
relationship is commonly understood in American law? Why is 
this problematic for the nonprofit sector?
    Mr. Robinson. Thank you.
    That's right. So, the agency definition is very vague in 
the law. It is not just vague to us. The Justice Department has 
issued now over 50 advisory opinions on the agency definition. 
You must have a high-end law firm to go through to try to make 
sense of it.
    One word that keeps on coming up in the FARA agency 
definition is if you act at the request, quote, ``request'' 
unquote, of a foreign principal, then you can be considered an 
agent of that foreign principal. Under normal ``agency'' 
definitions, it is at the direction and control with consent of 
both parties. That is what you would find in the restatement of 
``agency'' in case law.
    This creates a big problem. So, for example, I was 
requested today to come to Congress and appear and talk before 
you. No one thinks that I'm acting as your agent today, right? 
Or if I request a meeting with one of your staffers, they are 
not acting as my agent, right? You see this all the time in the 
nonprofit sector where, say, an organization that works in 
child trafficking, one of their partners abroad requests, 
right, that they may be hosting a meeting--
    Chair Nadler. I hope you mean against child trafficking.
    Mr. Robinson. What?
    Chair Nadler. I hope you mean against child trafficking.
    Mr. Robinson. Yes, against child trafficking. Yes. Thank 
you. For combating child trafficking.
    That if they ask request to help set up a public meeting in 
the U.S. or to distribute some literature, they can be covered 
by the act. This has just created a lot of confusion and 
uncertainty in the nonprofit community.
    I don't think the Justice Department is trying to go after 
the Amnesty Internationals of the world, but the act, as it is 
written, can clearly capture some of the behavior that 
nonprofits frequently engage in.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. [Presiding.] Thank you.
    The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
    Before I get into FARA, I think that fairness compels me to 
answer my friend, Mr. Johnson's, amazing drive-by slam on Judge 
Jackson for stating the obvious, that she will enforce the 
Constitution and the Bill of Rights as written, and not invent 
whatever rights she wants under the rubric of ``natural 
rights'' or ``natural law''--two phrases which do not appear in 
our Constitution or in Federal law. Other than Justice Thomas, 
who ended up having to backtrack from this position, I am not 
aware of a single Supreme Court Justice who thinks that a 
judge's personal interpretation of ``natural rights'' or 
``natural law'' should inform his or her interpretation of the 
Constitution of the United States.
    It was, in fact, the great conservative hero, Robert Bork, 
who vehemently opposed this idea of even trying to import 
natural law or natural rights through 14th Amendment due 
process or through the Ninth Amendment.
    So, I think Mr. Johnson may owe Judge Jackson an apology 
for what he has just said. We put Justices on the Supreme Court 
to enforce the Constitution of the United States and the laws 
of land, not their own airy notions of natural law or natural 
right. I would urge you to rethink that whole thing.
    On FARA, I would like to come to Mr. Robinson. I want to go 
back to something you said about the potentially vast coverage 
of this statute. I have got a lot of constituents who are 
Ukrainian Americans. If they talk to Ukrainian family who urge 
them to come to Congress because of Putin's slaughter in their 
country, and to urge us in Congress to support the Ukrainian 
people with jets, for example, or anti-aircraft missiles, would 
they, arguably, be covered under FARA, such that they would 
have to register?
    Mr. Robinson. Yes, I think this is the concern, that under 
both the language of the act and, also, recent interpretation 
by the Justice Department, because they have been interpreting 
that word ``request'' so broadly, that they are covered under 
the language of the act. That is just a serious problem.
    It also came up, when former military personnel who served 
with folks in Afghanistan, when they were trying to flee the 
Taliban, were making similar kinds of requests to Congress. 
They could also easily get caught up in the language of FARA as 
well.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, as a nation of immigrants, where people 
do have family and friends all over the world, I think that is 
deeply problematic and a ludicrous implication of an existing 
Federal law.
    On the other hand, would you agree that, if Vladimir Putin 
wants to employ people from his multimillion dollar internet 
research agency to work to pump his propaganda into the 
American system, say, to promote his pro-Russian views, and 
pays people to do that, either working on internet messages or 
working on influencing TV celebrities like Tucker Carlson, that 
people who are directly on the payroll or receiving consultant 
money from a foreign government, people like that should have 
to register?
    Mr. Robinson. Yes--no, so I think this is the question. The 
way that we have been advocating is to define ``foreign 
principal'' as foreign government or political party, or those 
operating on their behalf, and to redefine the ``agency'' 
definition to make it much more acting at the direction and 
control, so that type of situation. So, I think those are the 
types of situations where FARA could apply.
    Mr. Raskin. The reason the analogy I want to draw is to our 
campaign finance laws, where we don't allow Vladimir Putin or 
President Xi, or Orban, or any of the authoritarians around the 
world, or any political parties or governments around the 
world, to put money into our political system period.
    Mr. Robinson. Right.
    Mr. Raskin. They are banned. At the very least, if they are 
paying people to come and lobby here, or to disseminate 
propaganda, disinformation, in our society, we should know 
about it. That should be exposed. Do you have any problem with 
that idea?
    Mr. Robinson. Yes, I think that is right. I think the 
challenge on the propaganda side is, how do you distinguish 
kind of the BBCs of the world from the RT TVs of the world? 
Right now, FARA doesn't do a good job of that, and I think that 
is--
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, but why do you need to distinguish it? If 
BBC is actually paying people to work as reporters here, that 
should be disclosed. So, what is the problem with that?
    Mr. Robinson. Right, and I think, right now, the FCC has 
just adopted regulations requiring that kind of disclosure. So, 
I think the question is, what tool should Congress be using for 
that disclosure?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I will now go to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina, Ms. Ross, for five minutes.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for 
being in the room to help out our Subcommittee.
    I also want to thank all the panelists for joining us 
today.
    The Foreign Agents Registration Act is an important tool 
used to combat foreign influence in the United States. The law 
promotes government transparency by requiring certain foreign 
agents of foreign principals who are engaged in political 
activities to publicly disclose their relationship with foreign 
principals. The law does not prohibit attempts by agents of a 
foreign principal to shape political discourse in the United 
States, but is intended to shed light on who is engaged in such 
efforts on behalf of foreign principals. By doing so, FARA 
promotes transparency in the policymaking process by allowing 
the public to consider the source and the allegiance of the 
messenger when evaluating the message.
    This Committee has not held a hearing on FARA since 1991, 
when the world's geopolitical and technological landscape was 
dramatically different than it is today. There is bipartisan 
interest in reforming the law to enhance its transparency 
mechanisms. It is time that we consider new proposals to modify 
the law to strengthen its impact and ensure that it is serving 
its intended purpose.
    My first question is for Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette. The 
effectiveness of FARA is, ultimately, premised on the notion 
that shedding light on the activities of certain agents of a 
foreign principal seeking to influence the United States will 
make the government more accountable to the American public. 
Based on your organization's research, are the registration 
statements, supplements, and informational materials filed with 
the Justice Department accurate, timely filed, and easily 
accessible to the public?
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    I think in response to your question, I think the short 
answer is, no, not really. The Department of Justice has come a 
long way in recent years, though.
    As a quick anecdote, back when we published our report in 
2014, a couple of our staff members, they spent just like about 
every day at the FARA unit, which, by the way, it was only open 
between 12:00 and 4:00 each day. They spent every day there 
trying to comb through a document that had been filed by a FARA 
registrant.
    At the time--this was 2012; we are talking only 10 years 
ago, not that long ago--the FARA unit didn't even have a 
scanner. So, it could not make these things that had been filed 
with the FARA unit, they could not have them in electronic 
format, which I think just tells you about the lack of sort of 
emphasis and prioritization and lack of resources around 
enforcement.
    Now, things have changed a little bit since then and they 
have gotten a little bit better. They are not yet where they 
need to be. I mentioned in my opening statement that we are 22 
years into the 21st century, but the Department of Justice, at 
least in the FARA context, has not caught up, and not even come 
close to catching up. They need to standardize. They need to 
standardize, and then, they need to harmonize the way things 
are filed, the way things are posted, the way things are made 
available to people like me.
    By the way, I'm blind, in case you all didn't know. So, I 
have to use a screen reader to read things on the computer. If 
you are simply scanning a physical document, all you are 
scanning is an image. A screen reader cannot read an image. So, 
what you have is you have a whole crop of people, blind folks 
and others, completely locked out of the process of being able 
to access these documents. That is just a small example of how 
the Department of Justice has not caught up to modern standards 
around this kind of thing. That hurts and undermines public 
accessibility broadly.
    So, that is a long way of answering your question, 
Congresswoman, saying we are in need of a comprehensive 
overhaul and modernization effort at the Department of Justice 
when it comes to these documents and making them actually 
transparent and available to the public.
    Ms. Ross. Is there anything specific that Congress can do? 
Or do you think this is merely just oversight of what an 
administrative agency does?
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette. Yes, I think, unfortunately--and this 
is not specific to the Department of Justice; this is true 
across the Federal government in all agencies--without prodding 
and without being required to do so, they will not do things to 
make their informational materials more accessible, and they 
won't do it proactively.
    So, I think Congress is in a position where you all have to 
force the issue in some way here. We have seen that it has 
taken this long to get to where we are, and where we are is not 
sufficient. Without congressional action, I fear we will still 
be waiting another 10 years for the Department of Justice to 
catch up to where it needs to be.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady.
    I will now recognize myself for five minutes.
    Thank you to the Witnesses for your appearance today.
    Always great to see, Professor Turley. I will start with 
you with my questions.
    Since we have been talking, or you guys have been talking, 
about the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, you did have an 
opportunity to read The Washington Post articles about the 
laptop, is that correct?
    Mr. Turley. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You would not disagree with me that 
The Washington Post article found that the verifiable emails on 
the hard drive were just a small fraction of the data on the 
hard drive, is that correct?
    Mr. Turley. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The vast majority of the data could 
not be verified that was on the hard drive, isn't that correct?
    Mr. Turley. I'm not too sure if that is correct with regard 
to the grand jury.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I will take judicial notice 
myself of the fact that it was a part of the story.
    [Laughter.]
    Sloppy handling of the hard drive was one of the reasons 
why they could not verify the vast majority of the data. They 
found, isn't it correct that they found that data was 
repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter 
Biden over a three-year period?
    Mr. Turley. Yes, I'm not too sure if that's been clearly 
established. I think the--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, yes, that's what, again, the 
article reports. I don't think there is anything that would 
refute that at this time.
    The bottom line, though, even in the 129,000 emails, or 
however many it was that could be verified as authentic on the 
Hunter Biden hard drive, not a scintilla of evidence of 
criminal wrongdoing has been talked about today by my friends 
on the other side of the aisle, isn't that correct?
    Mr. Turley. I'm not too sure what has been discussed, but 
in terms of criminality--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I--
    Mr. Turley. --I think there are legitimate questions in the 
laptop.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, the FBI has the laptop and is 
looking at those, including whether or not Hunter Biden should 
have registered as a foreign agent.
    So, thank you, Professor Turley.
    Mr. Robinson, FARA contains several exemptions to the 
registration for agents of a foreign principal engaged in 
certain activities which are specified under 22 U.S.C. 613, 
correct?
    Mr. Robinson. That's correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. What are some of the examples of 
these exempted activities?
    Mr. Robinson. So, probably the most frequently cited 
exemption is for private and nonpolitical activities for bona 
fide trade or commerce. This is a really important exception, 
the commercial, because the act actually requires registration 
if you distribute anything of value in the United States on the 
behalf of a foreign principal. So, if there wasn't this 
exemption, it would stop almost all cross-border activity, 
commercial activity. There's not a similar exemption for 
nonprofits. So, there's a host of exemptions or a set of 
exemptions, but, unfortunately, they don't capture very common 
activity by both nonprofits and the public at large.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, you believe that the exemptions 
are not adequate to address current realities?
    Mr. Robinson. That's correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Have you seen any evidence that 
Hunter Biden unlawfully failed to register as a foreign agent 
in the laptop contents?
    Mr. Robinson. I have not seen the laptop contents.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Just fishing, I guess.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You're blessed.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Pardon me. I'm sorry.
    How would you respond to those who may argue that the need 
to disclose foreign influence on U.S. policymaking outweighs 
the burdens to nonprofits that you have outlined here today?
    Mr. Robinson. Well, I think you can have both, in the sense 
that the act needs to be better targeted, right? I don't think 
anyone is questioning that a lobbyist for the Saudi government 
or the Chinese government should need to register or have some 
sort of disclosure.
    The problem is when it starts catching up congregants at 
churches who are printing out banners for March for Life 
rallies or for climate change rallies. That is the situation we 
are in right now.
    So, the act needs to be much better targeted to develop the 
purpose.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette, you stated in your written testimony 
that strengthening FARA helps to secure the rule of law. What 
do you mean by that?
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette. Thank you, Chair Johnson.
    What I mean by that is, when we see so few FARA violations 
being--I don't want to say prosecuted because we have concerns 
about overuse of criminal prosecution--but, we see so few 
people who violate this law being held accountable in a 
meaningful way, what that does is it sends a message, and it 
not only sends a message, but it actualizes the message that 
laws are not necessarily always laws and not everyone is held 
accountable to those laws in an evenhanded way. That 
fundamentally undermines the rule of law.
    The rule of law is predicated on the idea that we are all 
subject to them, and we are all subject to them because, to use 
a term that is particularly applicable here, justice is 
supposed to be blind. If we are unevenly and selectively 
applying laws, including this law, then we are not delivering 
on the promise of the rule of law in a rule-of-law society.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. My time has expired.
    We will now move to the gentlelady from Texas, 
Representative Jackson Lee, for five minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, thank you.
    To the Witnesses, I appreciate very much the testimony that 
you have given here today.
    Let me thank and specifically pose questions to Professor 
Turley. First, I think we have been seeing each other any 
number of years, as you have come before this Committee, and 
your scholarship is well respected.
    We have come to a point that is so different from when I 
came here--that the divide now is so intense, that we use laws 
to try to probe divisively. This seems to draw some moment of 
conclusion of the unity behind the fact that there is a purpose 
in trying to deal with the foreign agent's registration.
    Can you go back again, just very briefly, to its origins of 
speech? Then, I would pose a question of, how do we protect 
against that now?
    Second, my friends on the other side seem to be consumed 
with the son of the President. I would hope that you would 
respond that should not be the purpose of this legislation, to 
pull and condemn and indict individuals. That should not be the 
point of our reform because this is going to be a lasting 
legacy, if you will, of reform.
    So, let me pose that question to you.
    Mr. Turley. Thank you, Congresswoman. It's wonderful to see 
you again.
    Yes, I believe that you framed the question exactly right 
in terms of the origins of FARA. It did begin as a tool to 
stigmatize speech that was deemed as un-American. That is a 
legacy of this act that I hope Congress will not return to.
    As has been already noted, there is a public interest in 
transparency, and it is hard to argue against that. It is also 
important to remember that, since 1938, we have a lot of new 
laws--not particularly new. We have a lot of laws since that 
time that force transparency. You don't need FARA to get 
transparency in higher education or in elections. You don't 
need it in most proceedings. For example, when I came here 
today, I was asked to identify any foreign interest that I 
might represent.
    So, I think that this is a really important time to 
reevaluate what we are trying to achieve in FARA, and possibly 
sort of reframe it to achieve whatever those purposes are.
    I certainly agree with you, Congresswoman, that we should 
not be viewing this as a weapon to use against political 
opponents. This is a very powerful law, and it can do great 
harm.
    You only have to look at what Russia has done, and they 
point to us; they point to our law and say that they modeled 
their FARA on what we do. We have to be aware of that, that 
this is something that can be easily used for the worst 
purposes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I like that framework.
    My time is running, but let me, Dylan, Mr. Hedtler-
Gaudette, let me try to suggest that we are in different times. 
We have social media. We are sometimes getting such 
politicizing of propaganda with Russia.
    Let me put on every record that I am before of my disdain 
for Vladimir Putin in terms of the murderous behavior and 
terrorist behavior that he is engaging in, and, of course, 
perpetrating lies about Ukraine and what is going on to the 
Russian people, and really around the world.
    With social media joining in, in some instances, who happen 
to support that, do we need additional definitions--because 
this is such an ancient law, if you will--to update, because 
some of that behavior may be the behavior of a foreign agent 
that is trying to impact the people in the United States?
    Mr. Hedtler-Gaudette. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    I think, yes, we do need to update that. As has been 
pointed out many times today, this law dates back to 1938 and 
hasn't been substantially reformed since 1995. A lot of things 
have changed since then, including, as you point out, the 
advent of social media.
    I would also want to pause to flag that there has been an 
effort right here in the House of Representatives. There is a 
bipartisan bill by Representative Spanberger and Representative 
Katko that would do just this. It would try to contemplate 
social media content and try to construct the sort of framework 
around it that we need to reflect modern-day realities, 
including that it needs to be conspicuously labeled as being on 
behalf of a foreign agent, if it is, in fact, that.
    I think you are absolutely correct that we do need to 
update, yes, the Foreign Agents Registration Act framework 
around what kind of content is an informational material and if 
it should be reported and labeled as such.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. If anyone quickly wants to answer?
    I note the gentleman's indulgence. He has just gaveled me.
    I would like others to provide answers in writing. I 
appreciate that very much if they cannot provide it at this 
time.
    I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I do yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady.
    This concludes today's hearing. I want to thank all the 
Witnesses for appearing today.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the Witnesses 
or additional materials for the record.
    With that, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]



      

                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]