[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 168 (Wednesday, October 23, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8398-H8403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4617, STOPPING HARMFUL INTERFERENCE 
                IN ELECTIONS FOR A LASTING DEMOCRACY ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 650 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 650

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4617) to amend the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 to clarify the obligation to report acts of 
     foreign election influence and require implementation of 
     compliance and reporting systems by Federal campaigns to 
     detect and report such acts, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on House Administration now printed in the 
     bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 116-35 modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my 
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 650, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 4617, the Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting 
Democracy, better known as the SHIELD Act, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by 
the Chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration. 
The rule also executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Lofgren, 
makes in order 14 amendments, and provides one motion to recommit on 
the bill.
  Madam Speaker, it is going to be interesting to watch my Republican 
friends twist pretzel-like today to convince themselves that voting 
against a bill that will protect the sanctity of our electoral process 
from foreign interference is the right thing to do for the American 
people.
  Through today's rule, the Democrats bring to the floor a bill that 
states that those campaigns that are offered assistance from foreign 
actors should be required to report such attempts at assistance.
  Sadly, I predict that my Republican friends will vote against such 
protections.

[[Page H8399]]

  We, as Democrats, say that foreign governments should not be allowed 
to buy political advertisements in a clear and ongoing attempt to 
spread conspiracy theories and sow discord among the American 
electorate.
  I predict that for reasons undecipherable, the Republicans will still 
vote against today's bill.
  In fact, let us pause here for a moment. The use of social media 
platforms by maligned actors to undermine our democracy is not only 
historical, but is happening today, as we speak. An article that 
appeared in yesterday's Washington Post outlines how Russia's 
intelligence apparatus through the Internet Research Agency continues 
to use Facebook and Facebook's photo-sharing app, Instagram, to sow 
discord among the American people.
  With alarming precision, they target our vulnerabilities, our fears, 
our baser instincts in hopes of tearing asunder the fabric of our 
democracy.
  As it turns out, past is indeed prologue, and unless we want Facebook 
and others to be left to play an ongoing game of whack-a-mole against 
Russian, and now apparently Iranian, and potentially other intelligence 
agencies, we in Congress need to provide the needed support that any 
platform can fully meet the threat posed by these nefarious actors.
  Madam Speaker, on this side of the aisle, we say that we should 
strengthen the ban against foreign nationals and foreign governments 
spending money in our elections, and we have put pen to paper in 
today's bill to ensure that we do, indeed, strengthen such a ban.
  Again, I predict that many, if not all, of my colleagues across the 
aisle will vote against today's bill, and, therefore, against the 
notion that foreign governments ought not to be spending money in our 
elections.
  Today's bill is a direct rebuke of the Trump campaign's sharing of 
nonpublic polling information with Russian intelligence in the hopes 
that this information would make it to Moscow in order to help with 
their beyond well-documented campaign to interfere with the 2016 
Presidential election.
  Simply put, this bill treats the behavior engaged in by the Trump 
campaign as an illegal solicitation of support. Why? Because that is 
what it was.
  Again, I say to the American people, watch today's vote. I once again 
predict that you will see Republicans vote against making such behavior 
illegal, and that is sad.
  Finally--and this one is personal--today's bill incorporates language 
that will punish those who seek to intimidate, misinform, or 
maliciously misdirect those who simply wish to exercise that great 
American pastime: casting a ballot.
  Attempts to dissuade voters from going to the polls, whether through 
violence or other means, have been part of this country's history for 
far too long.
  We now know that in addition to homegrown efforts to keep voters away 
from the polls on election day, the Russians also engaged in voter 
suppression tactics, including the malicious dissemination of 
misinformation in a brazen attempt to sow confusion in the electorate 
in 2016. I might add, that three Florida counties had their elections 
offices compromised by Russian hackers.
  A vote for today's rule is a vote to bring forth a bill that will 
work to put an end to these dastardly deeds. Unfortunately, for reasons 
unfathomable, Republicans will stand brick-wall-like against such 
reform.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I rise to exercise the time that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my good friend, has extended to 
me.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, my very good 
friend, the distinguished vice-chairman of the Rules Committee, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would be the first to admit that there are some good 
things in this bill. But to say also to my good friend, at the end of 
the day it is a very easy no. And that is sad.

  Frankly, we could have had an opportunity to work together in a 
bipartisan fashion and actually produce a product that would be 
effective and one in which every Member of this Chamber could vote for. 
But my friends have chosen not to do that.
  Madam Speaker, we are here on another attempt by the majority to push 
deeply partisan measures to change America's electoral system in 
response to the 2016 Presidential election.
  Earlier this year, the majority pushed through H.R. 1, which they 
gave the misnomer of the, ``For the People Act.'' The reality was that 
H.R. 1 was completely misnamed. It was not ``for the people,'' it was 
for the Democratic majority, by the Democratic majority in hopes of 
maintaining the Democratic majority for many years to come.
  Similarly today, we are considering H.R. 4617, yet another misnamed 
and misguided bill aimed at changing America's election laws. The 
majority has called H.R. 4617 the SHIELD Act. Unfortunately, this bill 
shields us from exactly nothing. It expands the power of the Federal 
Government, limits freedom of speech, and reduces the ability of the 
American people to participate in their own elections, all while 
failing to protect our democracy from foreign interference.
  Before I talk about the problems with the SHIELD Act, I think we 
should be clear: Republicans stand ready and willing to work with 
Democrats on bipartisan solutions to reform our election system and 
protect it from foreign influence.
  My good friend from Illinois, Ranking Member Rodney Davis, has 
proposed such a bill that would do exactly that. H.R. 4736, the Honest 
Elections Act updates existing election laws in a fair way. It 
strengthens the Foreign Agents Registration Act to combat election 
interference, modernizes online political ad disclosure, increases 
monitoring of spending by foreign nationals in our elections, and bans 
the practice of ballot harvesting.
  These are the kinds of bipartisan solutions Republicans and Democrats 
should be able to come together on. But instead, the majority is once 
again proposing a partisan bill that fails to put forward real 
solutions to these problems.
  Let's take a look at just a few of those provisions in H.R. 4617:
  First, H.R. 4617 imposes draconian limitations on online political 
advertising that will only make it harder for Americans to participate 
in our elections. It applies a model of regulation designed for TV ads 
to online ads, which are two very different media. And it requires the 
same four-second disclosures for online ads as they currently require 
for TV ads, even though online ads are generally significantly shorter.
  H.R. 4617 also attempts to add limitations on the ability of foreign 
nationals to buy online ads for electioneering communications. But I 
note this will likely have very little effect. The primary means by 
which Russia interfered in the 2016 election was through traditional 
social media posts and troll farms, which this bill will not impact.
  What is worse, the bill also expands the definition of the term 
``electioneering communication'' to include, ``issues of national 
importance.'' This term is going to become so overinclusive that it 
will become meaningless. If a company wants to take out an 
advertisement talking about the need for jobs in their community, they 
may be shocked to learn that they have actually purchased an 
electioneering communication and are now subject to new rules of 
political advertisement.
  This kind of overinclusive, ill-defined regulation will do nothing to 
protect our democracy, and will, instead, just simply make it harder 
for Americans to exercise their right to freedom of speech.
  What is worse, the bill expands the power of the United States 
Attorney General--hardly a nonpartisan figure--by allowing that 
political official to interfere in State elections, by any means 
necessary. This unprecedented intervention ability would mean that the 
Congress is once again expanding the power of Washington at the expense 
of the States.
  Madam Speaker, a bill this flawed should never have come before the 
Rules Committee and should not be coming to the floor. Republicans are 
ready and willing to work with Democrats on bipartisan solutions to 
prevent foreign interference and secure our elections, but instead, the 
majority is putting forward a deeply partisan product that will not 
secure our elections and will only make it harder for

[[Page H8400]]

Americans to participate in their own democracy.
  And, frankly, they are putting forward a product that I think they 
have every confidence the Senate will not take up, and the President, I 
would predict, would almost certainly not sign.
  We can and should do better than that. I look forward to when my 
friends decide they want to do better than that to actually working 
with them.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on House Administration, and my good friend.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the 
opportunity to come to this great institution to talk about this piece 
of legislation. I thank the ranking member and also my colleague from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) for a great spirited debate last night in the 
Rules Committee, but I still, today, have to rise in opposition to the 
rule for consideration of H.R. 4617.
  Last night at the Rules Committee meeting, there was bipartisan 
consensus that this bill has not gone through regular order. We did not 
have the opportunity to hold a single hearing addressing foreign 
political propaganda in the Committee on House Administration.
  We are focusing on paid political advertisements, when the Senate 
Intel's bipartisan report stated that ``paid advertisements were not 
key'' to Russia's activity. Out of the $1.4 billion spent on political 
advertisements in the 2016 election cycle on digital advertising, the 
Russians spent $100,000 of that over 2 years on paid political Facebook 
ads.

  This is relevant information. This should have been considered and 
discussed in a committee hearing before sidestepping process and 
rushing a bill to the floor that does not address key issues.
  None of us had a chance to ask Facebook: ``Why did you take a payment 
from Russia?''
  ``Was it in rubles?''
  ``Was it in dollars?''
  ``Why in the world did you take $100,000 from Russia and put overtly 
political ads online?''
  At some point, companies that participate in the political process, 
we need to have them in front of us to ask them why; ask them how. But 
we didn't get a chance to do that because the Committee on House 
Administration had zero hearings before rushing this bill to the floor.
  We have a process here in the House for a reason, Madam Speaker. The 
process is set up to make sure what gets to the floor will address the 
problem at hand and will not harm the rights of the American people. 
Instead, the language in this bill is so broad that it does little to 
stop foreign political propaganda and, instead, creates a chilling 
effect on America's free speech.
  If the House had held hearings on this legislation, then we could 
have appropriately tailored language to address the real problem of 
foreign interference without affecting free speech.
  In 2016, the Russians tampered in our elections and engaged in 
stunning misinformation campaigns in an effort to undermine our 
elections.

                              {time}  1245

  Much of what the Russians did was already illegal. If we want to stop 
this from happening in the future, then we should be strengthening 
existing laws and making sure law enforcement has the resources it 
needs to track down foreign nationals that are breaking the law by 
spreading propaganda.
  Instead, this bill provides zero resources to help law enforcement 
enforce existing laws and, rather, imposes new regulations that will 
harm Americans' right to free speech.
  The sweeping language in this bill will very likely silence the 
voices of honest American organizations and nonpolitical companies that 
wish to speak out on ``issues of national importance.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. SHIELD's burdensome regulations will 
make it more difficult for Americans to be heard. Isn't that the goal 
of the Russians, to shut down our free and open society and silence the 
voices of Americans?
  Madam Speaker, we should support our law enforcement to do their 
jobs, not make up new regulations that chill free speech.
  This bill is a misinformation stunt to the American people. It sends 
a message to America that something is being done to stop what happened 
in 2016 when, in reality, it fails to address the actual threat. It is 
a Trojan horse from the majority.
  Do we actually want to stop foreign interference, or do my colleagues 
simply want talking points?
  Madam Speaker, you have a bill before you that will not stop 
meddling. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I would ask my friend Mr. Davis if he 
would stand by just a minute. I have a query of him.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, our colleague Ed Perlmutter 
offered the gentleman an opportunity to come today to ask Mr. 
Zuckerberg the questions that he put here. Is the gentleman availing 
himself of that opportunity?
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Florida for reminding everybody here that I was offered a chance 
by my good friend Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat from Colorado, to actually 
ask Facebook, ask Mark Zuckerberg, a question of why they took that 
payment.
  The answer, Mr. Hastings, is yes. I went over to the Financial 
Services Committee. I specifically spoke with Mr. Perlmutter in the 
committee hearing room, where he told me that Chairwoman Waters would 
allow Members who were not on the committee, like me, to ask questions, 
but I probably have to come back in about 5 hours.
  I am hoping to do that. I am hoping to go back there later this 
afternoon and ask that question.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, in light of the process questions that 
the gentleman asked about hearings, I am proud of our Democratic 
majority's record when it comes to regular order.
  At the beginning of this Congress, we instituted a rule to require 
hearings and markups for bills that come through the Rules Committee, 
and we have followed that rule.
  In fact, the House Administration Committee, the primary committee of 
jurisdiction for this bill, held three hearings to develop the SHIELD 
Act. Those three hearings took place on February 14, May 8, and May 21, 
and they are clearly listed in the House Administration Committee's 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, I include in the Record the House 
Administration Committee's report.

                                Hearings

       For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the 
     116th Congress the following hearings were used to develop or 
     consider H.R. 2722:
       (1) On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 the Committee held a hearing 
     titled ``Election Security.'' The following witnesses 
     testified: Mr. Larry Norden, Brennan Center for Justice; Ms. 
     Marian Schneider, Verified Voting; Mr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall, 
     Center for Democracy and Technology; The Honorable Jocelyn 
     Benson, Secretary of State, State of Michigan; and The 
     Honorable John Merrill, Secretary of State, State of Alabama.
       (2) On Tuesday, May 21, 2019, the Committee held a hearing 
     titled ``Oversight of the Election Assistance Commission.'' 
     The following witnesses testified: The Honorable Christy 
     McCormick, Commissioner and Chairwoman, Election Assistance 
     Commission, accompanied by The Honorable Benjamin Hovland, 
     Commissioner and Vice Chair, Election Assistance Commission; 
     The Honorable Don Palmer, Commissioner, Election Assistance 
     Commission; and The Honorable Thomas Hicks, Commissioner, 
     Election Assistance Commission.
       (3) On Thursday, February 14, 2019, the Committee held a 
     hearing titled ``For the People: Our American Democracy.'' 
     The following witnesses testified: Mr. Chiraag Bains, 
     Director of Legal Strategies, Demos; Ms. Wendy Weiser, 
     Director, Democracy Program, Brennan Center for Justice at 
     NYU School of Law; Mr. Fred Wertheimer, President, Democracy 
     21; The Honorable Kim

[[Page H8401]]

     Wyman, Secretary of State, State of Washington; Mr. Alejandro 
     Rangel-Lopez, Senior at Dodge City High School, Dodge City 
     Kansas, and plaintiff in LULAC & Rangel-Lopez v. Cox; Mr. 
     Peter Earle, Wisconsin Civil Rights Trial Lawyer; Mr. Brandon 
     A. Jessup, Data Science and Information Systems Professional; 
     Executive Director, Michigan Forward; and David Keating, 
     President, Institute for Free Speech.

                        Committee Consideration

       On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, the Committee met in open 
     session and ordered the bill H.R. 4617 favorably reported 
     with an amendment to the House, by a roll call vote of 6 to 
     1, a quorum being present. During consideration of the bill 
     an amendment (Amendment No. 5) was offered by Mr. Davis of 
     Illinois and was agreed to by voice vote:
       An amendment (No. 5) offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois to 
     amend section 201(b) of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute to insert ``labor organization'' after ``a 
     corporation'' and after ``the corporation'' each place that 
     it appears.

  Mr. HASTINGS. In addition to those three hearings, the House 
Administration Committee held eight other election-related hearings 
this year.
  I also want to point out that while it isn't the primary committee of 
jurisdiction for this bill, the Judiciary Committee held two hearings 
on election security.
  The House Administration Committee also held a markup on H.R. 4617. 
Several amendments were offered, including an amendment by the 
gentleman who just spoke, my friend, Ranking Member Davis, that was 
adopted by the committee.
  This is how the process is supposed to work, Mr. Speaker, and I am 
hopeful that that will help clarify some aspects of what was brought up 
about process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee), my good friend.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership. I thank the House Administration Committee, both the 
chairman and ranking member. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
managing this rule.
  I want to emphasize, particularly to the gentleman from Florida, for 
his recitation of the number of hearings that were held, but I want to 
emphasize that time is of the essence.
  Right now, in many of our jurisdictions, there are local elections 
going on. In just a couple of weeks or more, many will begin to engage 
in either primaries or the signing up of candidates for the 2020 
election. We have taken an oath to protect and serve and to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Everyone knows what happened in 2016. Everywhere you go, local 
officials and State officials are asking us, the Federal Government: 
What are you doing to protect the sanctity of the 2020 election?
  There is no doubt that, in volume 1, there is clarity of the number 
of Russian operatives contacting and interacting with the Trump 
campaign in 2016. There is no conflict or disagreement with the bias of 
those that participated, Russian operatives, in this campaign, Russian 
bots.
  Time is of the essence. One of the most important elements of this 
bill that I applaud is the inclusion of my language in H.R. 2353, Duty 
to Refuse and Report Foreign Interference in American Elections.
  I don't think one American would disagree, not respecting any party 
affiliation, that if an operative from another country came to you to 
give you information, it is your responsibility to report it to the FBI 
under the Federal election laws, which was my bill, Duty to Refuse and 
Report Foreign Interference.
  We don't disagree in that. I hope we don't disagree that it is 
inappropriate to seek foreign assistance for a campaign, because one of 
the things of the Founding Fathers that I think is very clear in the 
Constitution and is very clear in the papers that surround it--the 
Federalist Papers and the comments of Benjamin Franklin when the 
audience was waiting, wondering whether we had a monarchy or a 
republic, and he said a republic, if we can keep it--that is that this 
Constitution and this process of elections was supposed to be 
unfettered, one vote, one person.
  That is why we have had to perfect it with the Voting Rights Act that 
we are trying to reauthorize, certain aspects of it. That is why we 
have written laws to protect voters and election laws wherein we 
protect voters--one vote, one person.
  So, I support the underlying bill, H.R. 4617, Stopping Harmful 
Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy.
  Remember, Benjamin Franklin said it is a republic, if we can keep it.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Rule for H.R. 4617, 
the ``Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for A Lasting 
Democracy Act,'' or SHIELD Act and the underlying legislation.
  I support this legislation introduced by my colleague, the Chairwoman 
of the Committee on House Administration, the gentlelady from 
California, Chairwoman Lofgren, because it:
  1. Creates a duty to report illicit offers of campaign assistance 
from foreign governments and their agents;
  2. Helps prevent foreign interference in future elections by 
improving transparency of online political advertisements;
  3. Closes loopholes that allow foreign nationals and foreign 
governments to spend in U.S. elections;
  4. Restricts exchange of campaign information between candidates and 
foreign governments and their agents; and
  5. Prohibits deceptive practices about voting procedures.
  Madam Speaker, earlier this year FBI Director Christopher Wray 
testified before the Congress that foreign interference in on our 
democracy is ``a 365-day-a-year threat.''
  This is outrageous; American elections are to be decided by 
Americans.
  That is why I am particularly pleased that H.R. 4617 incorporates the 
key provisions of H.R. 2353, the ``Duty To Refuse And Report Foreign 
Interference In Elections Act'' that I introduced in April of this 
year.
  Madam Speaker, our friends across the aisle voted against Republicans 
voted against H.R. 1, the ``For The People Act of 2019,'' which, inter 
alia, would secure our elections, and then against H.R. 2722, the 
``Securing America's Federal Elections Act'' or SAFE Act, which closes 
dangerous gaps in our voting security into the 21st Century.
  Today our Republican colleagues have another chance to demonstrate 
that they take seriously their oath to defend the Constitution against 
all enemies, foreign or domestic.
  Madam Speaker, on January 6, 2017, representatives of the 
Intelligence Community advised the President-Elect that the Russian 
Federation conducted a sophisticated campaign to subvert our democracy 
with the goal of electing Donald Trump and defeating Hillary Clinton.
  The Report issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on March 22, 2019 
revealed that the Russians effectuated their goals by selectively 
disseminating stolen emails, with the end of maximizing the adverse 
impact this would have on Secretary Clinton's electoral prospects.
  The Mueller Report further indicated that Russia's misinformation 
efforts also included the proliferation of fake online profiles on 
social media platforms, with the goal of echoing and amplifying 
politically divisive messages, so as to sow discord within the 
electorate and suppress the vote for Secretary Clinton.
  As the Mueller Report lays bare, the Trump Campaign knew what Russia 
was doing and welcomed that assistance, did nothing to discourage it, 
did not report it, denied its existence and knowingly and happily 
accepted the benefits of the hostile foreign interference.
  While some may tolerate this as awful but lawful conduct, none of the 
bill's sponsors or supporters do because it is deeply corrosive of our 
democracy.
  In April of this year I introduced H.R. 2353, the ``Duty to Refuse 
and Report Foreign Interference in American Elections Act of 2019,'' to 
impose an affirmative duty to refuse any offer of election campaign 
assistance from any agent or entity acting on behalf or in the interest 
of a foreign government and to report to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation any such offer of assistance from an agent or entity 
acting on behalf or in the interest of a foreign government.
  This duty to refuse and report applies to candidates and any person 
working for, or volunteering with, a candidate for election to federal 
office.
  The legislation also requires the Federal Election Commission to 
require that a candidate for election to federal office must certify 
quarterly that he or she is compliance with the above requirements on 
penalty of not more than 5 years in prison and a fine of not more than 
$250,000.
  Madam Speaker, the threat to our country is real, as documented in 
detail in the report issued by Special Counsel Mueller, confirmed by 
the unanimous assessment of our nation's Intelligence Community, and 
affirmed most recently by FBI Director Wray who testified in Congress 
that foreign interference in on our democracy is ``a 365-day-a-year 
threat.''
  It is past time to write into the books of law the sensible and self-
protective principle that

[[Page H8402]]

American elections are to be decided only by American citizens, and not 
influenced by foreign adversaries.
  I encourage all members to join me in voting to keep Americans in 
control of our electoral process and elections by voting to pass H.R. 
4716, the SHIELD Act.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just quickly, to respond to a couple of points my friends made, 
first, let's remember, in 2016, President Obama was the President of 
the United States when a lot of the activity that my friends are 
concerned about took place. In 2018, when President Trump was 
President, we don't have accusations of foreign interference. As a 
matter of fact, it was a pretty good election cycle for my friends, and 
I congratulate them on that.
  So, I suspect this administration has done a better job than the last 
administration in dealing with these issues. But I agree there are some 
things we can and should work on to improve our system, and we have 
offered--Mr. Davis chief among them--a variety of areas where we can 
cooperate and where we, frankly, agree.
  In the areas where we can't agree, let's set them aside and have our 
disagreements. But where we can, let's put things together that we all 
agree on and at least get those things passed. That would be my 
recommended choice.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to immediately suspend the House's impeachment 
inquiry until the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2020 and the Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2020 are law.
  Madam Speaker, Congress has failed to meet the deadline for one of 
our most crucial responsibilities, to pass the authorization act and 
the appropriations bill for our national defense prior to the start of 
the fiscal year. We did not succeed in getting either of these bills 
into law by September 30, and now the Department of Defense is 
operating under a continuing resolution, which in no way adequately 
supports and funds our military.
  Instead of pushing forward, the House is distracted by an 
unprecedented and unauthorized impeachment inquiry, which is remarkable 
mostly for the complete lack of transparency the majority has adopted. 
Republicans have been repeatedly denied their reasonable requests to 
attend depositions with witnesses and even to review transcripts and 
other documents. Moreover, the House is proceeding in this inquiry 
without ever taking a vote to authorize it or establish the parameters 
and ensure due process.
  At a time when threats are continuing to emerge around the world, and 
our constituents want us to tackle important issues impacting their 
everyday lives, the House can ill afford the distraction this inquiry 
is causing.
  Consequently, my amendment will require us to suspend the impeachment 
inquiry until such time as both the NDAA and the Defense Appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 2020 have been enacted.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my good friend, the distinguished ranking 
member of the House Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
join him in opposing the previous question so that Congress can meet 
its most fundamental responsibilities under the Constitution.
  Article I, Section 8 says that it is Congress' responsibility to 
``raise and support,'' ``provide and maintain'' for the military forces 
of the United States.
  Congress is failing in that responsibility. Not only have we missed 
the October 1 deadline, but we are currently operating under a stopgap 
funding measure that prevents our military from adapting to a volatile 
world, and even that expires in less than a month.
  In this debate today, we have heard a lot about Russian attempts to 
interfere in our elections. Well, who is on the front lines of 
protecting the country in cyberspace as well as the other domains? It 
is the American military. It is the Cyber Command that is funded for 
less than a month.
  It seems to me that we ought to start with the first responsibility 
of providing for our military, which is on the front lines of defending 
us, yes, in cyberspace as well as all the other domains of warfare.
  While this House and Washington in general are consumed by secret 
impeachment proceedings, adversaries are looking to take advantage of 
this Washington dysfunction.
  Who gets caught in the middle of all this political squabbling? It is 
our troops, the very men and women who volunteer to risk their lives to 
protect us. They are the ones who suffer the most.
  There are dozens of programs in every military service that cannot 
begin under the current stopgap funding measure. There are dozens of 
programs in every service where we need to do more of something, but we 
can't do more under the current continuing resolution.
  There are many programs we need to hire good people to work on. You 
can't do that under the current stopgap funding measure.
  Instead, what we get is political squabbling.
  Now, I know there will be people who say: Well, the House has passed 
these bills. It is the Senate's fault. It is Trump's fault. It is 
somebody else's fault.
  We have enough of that squabbling, finger-pointing, and blame. What 
we need are results. Results will require the leadership of this House 
to focus on getting first things done first, and that means we need to 
get these essential defense bills signed into law. To get them signed 
into law, they have to be done in a bipartisan way.
  Madam Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that, given the chaos and 
volatility of this world, the United States is going to be tested 
severely in the weeks to come. The best thing this Congress can do is 
put aside the political squabbling and focus on support for those 
people who are defending us, the American military.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, through you, I would advise my friend 
that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close if he is.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger), the distinguished ranking Republican Member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, my good friend.
  Ms. GRANGER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question.
  The House should focus on our constitutional responsibility to fund 
the government and provide for our national defense.
  Current government funding runs out in 29 days. But instead of 
finalizing the National Defense Authorization Act or Defense 
appropriations bill, we are debating partisan messaging bills and 
distracted by an impeachment process that lacks any semblance of 
transparency.
  Last year, Republicans made defense their highest priority. The 
Defense appropriations bill was law before the end of the fiscal year, 
and the NDAA was signed in August. This year, the NDAA has been in 
conference for more than a month, and the House last acted on Defense 
appropriations in June.
  China and Russia aren't slowing down their defense buildup. Why 
should we handicap our own military and allow our enemies to take 
advantage of our distraction? This is dangerous and shortsighted.
  Our highest priority must be keeping the government functioning and 
the Defense Department fully funded. This House must focus on providing 
for our national defense and work with our colleagues in the Senate and 
the White House.
  In order to achieve this goal, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question, a ``no'' vote on the rule, and a ``no'' vote on the 
underlying measure.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H8403]]

  Madam Speaker, very briefly, the last three speakers, including my 
good friend from Oklahoma, have mentioned the ongoing impeachment 
inquiry here in the House of Representatives, and they speak of it as 
being a lack of transparency. It is almost as if the Republicans are 
not in the hearings that are going on in this inquiry.
  In my understanding, although I am not a member of either of the 
committees of jurisdiction, I have spoken with and have heard publicly 
the person who is the responsible person for ongoing matters at this 
time say that the other side is there. Their lawyers are asking 
questions. Members, if they choose, are asking questions.
  So I don't understand what they are talking about about a lack of 
transparency, particularly when the previous impeachments that were 
done were done by special prosecutors. This is a solemn process.
  And while I agree with my colleagues about the National Defense 
Authorization measure, the simple fact of the matter is that we also 
have a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the executive 
branch of this government functions in an appropriate manner and does 
not do as they are doing: failing to respond to the oversight 
responsibilities of the Article I House of Representatives.
  I rather suspect that that is just talk when they say that there is 
no transparency. I suggest to them to stick around. They are going to 
see some transparency real soon.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to begin by thanking my very good friend from Florida for what 
we always get, which is always a thoughtful debate, always 
professional, always civil. And even when we disagree, I always enjoy 
the exchange, so I thank my friend for that.
  I will disagree vehemently, though, that the process in terms of 
impeachment that we are going through right now is remotely 
transparent. The American people can't get in there. And, frankly, I 
can tell you, Members, under the rules of the Intelligence Committee, 
all of us, as long as it is not classified, are supposed to be able to 
get transcripts. We haven't been able to get those things. So we will 
watch as this unfolds.
  But my friends would have been far better to do what has been done in 
previous impeachments; that is, to hold a formal vote, to set up a 
process.
  I do remind my friend, when we went through this during the Clinton 
years, the President, President Clinton, had the right to have counsel 
there, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to subpoena 
witnesses. Our friends who were then in the minority had the right to 
subpoena witnesses.
  None of that exists now. There is no process. It is very one-sided, 
very opaque, very obscure, and extremely partisan.
  But back to the legislation at hand.
  The tragedy here is that we could work together on a variety of 
things that we both agree would make good law. My good friend, the 
ranking--excuse me--the chairwoman on the House Administration 
Committee, Ms. Lofgren, mentioned that last night.
  There are actually elements in this bill which, I agree with my 
friend, are things we could work on together. There are other things 
that, whether we are right or wrong, my friend knows we will disagree 
with and we will not accept and, frankly, the United States Senate will 
not accept and the President will not accept.
  So it is a classic legislative dilemma: What do you want to do? Do 
you want to make a point or do you want to make law?
  If you want to make law, you get to the things that you agree on and 
that can pass the other Chamber and be signed by the President. So far 
in this area of election security, I think my friends have been more 
interested in making a point than actually in making law.
  So I urge opposition to the rule on H.R. 4617 because it is deeply 
flawed and a partisan bill that will not solve the underlying problems. 
It will not prevent foreign interference in our elections. It will only 
make it harder for Americans to participate in their own democracy.
  It applies inappropriate regulatory schemes to online advertisement. 
It applies overly inclusive definitions that could make almost any 
advertisement a political advertisement and expands the power of the 
Attorney General at the expense of the States.
  My friends seemed, over and over, to want to federalize State 
elections. We don't want to do that. That is a big mistake. One of the 
best securities we have is that we have multiple jurisdictions, and the 
people close to the people make the laws under which our elections 
occur.
  We can work together in a bipartisan manner and find real solutions 
to real problems, and I hope and I believe some day we will, Madam 
Speaker. But in the interim, I urge the House to reject both this rule 
and this bill so that we can actually advance, together, on something 
that can pass and become law.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I do agree with my good friend from Oklahoma that our 
exchanges are civil; and although we have respectable disagreement, the 
simple fact of the matter is that each of us discharges our 
responsibilities in a responsible way.
  Madam Speaker, after exiting the Constitutional Convention in 1787, 
Benjamin Franklin, when approached, was asked what form of government 
had been agreed upon; his response: ``A Republic, if you can keep it.''
  We come here today to keep it, to not only keep it, but make more 
perfect that Union which we have all taken an oath to protect, not just 
for us and our children, but for generations unborn, so that they may 
know and benefit from the greatest experiment ever known to humankind, 
the democratic Republic we call the United States of America.
  To do this, to protect our democracy from enemies foreign and 
domestic, we must put country over party. Indeed, there have been more 
than a few times in our history when it was imperative that the 
partisan give way to the patriotic. This is undoubtedly one of those 
times and one of those paramount issues.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote 
on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 650

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution, the Committees on 
     the Judiciary, Ways and Means, Financial Services, Oversight 
     and Reform, and Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence shall suspend pursuing matters 
     referred to by the Speaker in her announcement of September 
     24, 2019, until such time as the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 and the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2020 are signed 
     into law.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________