[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 168 (Wednesday, October 23, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8410-H8442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 STOPPING HARMFUL INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS FOR A LASTING DEMOCRACY ACT


                             General Leave

  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 4617.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 650 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4617.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1432


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with 
Mr. Cuellar in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
Administration.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4617 is comprehensive legislation to strengthen 
the resilience of our democracy and protect against foreign 
interference in our elections, including by foreign governments.
  These concerns go back to the earliest days of our country. In his 
farewell address to the people of the United States, our first 
President, George Washington, warned that ``Against the insidious wiles 
of foreign influence . . . the jealousy of a free people ought to be 
constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign 
influence is one of the most baneful foes of the republican 
government.''
  Mr. Chair, the 2020 Federal elections are fast-approaching. Public 
confidence and trust in our elections is of the utmost importance. We 
know that foreign adversaries are working to undermine that trust 
today. To quote former Special Counsel Mueller in July, ``They are 
doing it as we sit here.''
  Our adversaries have a variety of tools to interfere in our 
democracy. These tools sow disinformation to provoke discord. Their 
goal is to divide us and attack our values of equality and freedom. 
Their tactics are calculated to undermine confidence in our democratic 
institutions so that they will collapse under the pressure of the 
division and distrust. The need to act is urgent.
  We have been warned repeatedly about this. The former Director of 
National Intelligence, Dan Coats, wrote earlier this year in his 
Worldwide Threat Assessment, that as the 2020 elections advance, our 
``adversaries and strategic competitors almost certainly will use 
online influence operations to try to weaken democratic institutions, 
undermine U.S. alliances and partnerships, and shape policy outcomes in 
the United States and elsewhere.''
  He also wrote that their tactics will include spreading 
disinformation, conducting hack-and-leak operations, or manipulating 
data in a more targeted

[[Page H8411]]

fashion to influence U.S. policy, actions, and elections.
  Earlier this month, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 
released a report showing how the Kremlin's ``information warfare 
campaign was broad in scope and entailed objectives beyond the result 
of the 2016 presidential election.'' This included using content to 
``push Americans further away from one another and to foment distrust 
in government institutions.'' The Senate report also found that ``no 
single group of Americans was targeted by IRA''--that is the Russian 
group--``information operatives more than African Americans.''
  Among the bipartisan Senate report's recommendations, are for 
Congress to ``examine legislative approaches to ensuring Americans know 
the sources of online political advertisements,'' and to harmonize the 
rules that apply online with television, radio, and satellite 
communications.
  H.R. 4617 does just that. It builds on two other bills that 
strengthen the integrity of our democracy. In March, the House passed 
H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which included strong standards for 
ballot box election security, as well as provisions to shut down 
loopholes that allow foreign money, including from foreign governments, 
to influence elections here.
  In June, the House passed H.R. 2722, the SAFE Act, which sets strong 
cybersecurity standards for election infrastructure and provides 
resources to States to replace paperless and other outdated systems 
with voter-verified paper ballot systems.

  Now we are turning to another element of election security. H.R. 4617 
closes gaps in the law that allow foreign nationals and foreign 
governments to launder money into our elections. It promotes full 
transparency of the sources behind online campaign advertising, and it 
codifies a basic norm that political committees should report offers of 
illicit campaign assistance from foreign governments, both to the FBI 
and the FEC, rather than welcome interference from foreign governments.
  Title I of the bill enhances reporting requirements and advances 
transparency and accountability. It establishes a duty upon political 
committees to report to the FBI and the FEC illicit offers of campaign 
assistance from foreign governments, foreign political parties, and 
their agents. This provision of the bill was informed by various 
proposals that were introduced in the House, including by 
Representative Jackson Lee, Representative Swalwell, Representative 
Malinowski, and Representative Slotkin. The bill also includes the 
Honest Ads Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that takes an 
important step to provide more transparency to digital political 
advertising, including the ads that the Russians targeted to Americans 
to build followers and the engagement of unwitting American citizens.
  Title II closes loopholes and gaps in the law that permit foreign 
nationals and foreign governments to influence elections. It codifies 
existing FEC regulations prohibiting foreign nationals from influencing 
decisions about campaign spending. It requires the FEC to conduct an 
audit of illicit money in elections and report its recommendations to 
Congress after every election cycle. It prohibits foreign spending in 
connection with ballot initiatives and referenda; and it prohibits 
foreign spending and political advertising that promotes, attacks, 
supports, or opposes the election of candidates--or in the case of 
foreign governments, political advertising during an election year 
about national legislative issues of public importance.
  I will note that some of these elements received bipartisan support 
when similar provisions were included in H.R. 1.
  Title III deters foreign interference in elections. For example, it 
restricts campaigns from sharing nonpublic campaign materials, like 
internal opposition research and internal polling data with foreign 
governments and their agents, or those on the sanctions list, which can 
include oligarchs.
  It also includes the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation 
Prevention Act--this was also part of H.R. 1--and prohibits knowingly 
false statements about voting and elections that are made with the 
intent to impede someone from exercising their franchise. It also 
provides mechanisms to ensure that state and local officials and the 
attorney general, as necessary, disseminate correct information in the 
wake of false information that might spread.
  Mr. Chair, free and fair elections are the core of what it means to 
live in a democracy like ours. Free and fair elections are at the heart 
of what it means to be a citizen of the United States. It is our solemn 
duty to defend them.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I said many times since becoming the ranking member of 
the Committee on House Administration, the committee with leading 
jurisdiction over election legislation in the House, that the greatest 
threat to our Nation's election system is partisanship.
  Why is partisanship the greatest threat?
  Because when you have one side drafting partisan legislation to 
further their own political agenda, it causes inaction. When it comes 
to securing our Nation's elections, we cannot afford inaction. That is 
why it is imperative that our colleagues across the aisle work with us 
to find a bipartisan solution to preventing foreign interference in 
elections.
  Unfortunately, that is not the route that the majority party chose to 
take this Congress. We saw this pattern first begin with the majority's 
H.R. 1. Over 700 pages of political initiatives to help them Federalize 
elections, then again, for the SAVE Act, a partisan election security 
bill, again attempting to Federalize elections and take power away from 
States. Both bills were drafted without bipartisan input and rushed 
through the House.
  Back then, I told my colleagues if they were serious about reforming 
elections and making them more secure, we needed to work together. But 
here we are again with another partisan election bill that has no 
chance--zero chance--of becoming law. This time it is the SHIELD Act, a 
bill aimed at preventing foreign interference in our elections, like 
what we saw with Russia's misinformation campaign through social media 
in the 2016 Presidential election.

  Look, it is safe to say that no one on either side of the aisle wants 
foreign meddling in our elections. Let me repeat that: I don't believe 
a single Republican or Democrat in this House wants foreign meddling in 
our elections.
  And I want to be clear that there is bipartisan agreement on some of 
the intended goals of SHIELD. We should have increased transparency and 
political digital advertising, and we should close the loopholes that 
allow for foreign nationals to meddle in our elections.
  But this bill isn't a serious attempt to address the type of 
interference that we saw in 2016, Mr. Chairman. It is jammed full of 
poison pills that the Democrats knew would make SHIELD a nonstarter. 
The SHIELD Act contains provisions that would Federalize elections, 
which as I have already pointed out, is the favorite solution of our 
majority for any issue.
  This bill expands the powers of the Department of Justice to allow 
the Attorney General to insert himself or herself into individual races 
at the Federal, State, and local level. That is a complete Federal 
overreach of States' constitutional rights to maintain their own 
elections.
  Think about it: The AG can come in to your race, every State and 
local race if they--he or she--wants to ``correct the record.'' There 
are also provisions of this bill that I believe are unconstitutional 
and will have a chilling effect on our freedom of speech. For instance, 
we should not be proposing broad, vague regulations for disclosing 
online political ads that create unworkable standards for the American 
public.
  Out of the $1.4 billion spent on political digital ads in 2016, 
Russia spent $100,000 over 2 years on Facebook ads. The majority of 
those were not even election ads, so it wouldn't have even been 
regulated by the Honest Ads Act.
  Why would we then overreach and threaten American's free speech with 
this bill when it doesn't even address

[[Page H8412]]

what Russia did? We need serious election security legislation that 
will protect Americans' First Amendment rights. That is why I 
introduced the Honest Elections Act, which, if passed, would actually 
address the type of foreign meddling we saw in 2016 and highlighted in 
the Senate intel report.

                              {time}  1445

  The Honest Elections Act would strengthen existing laws, such as the 
Foreign Agents Registration Act, FARA; the Federal Election Campaign 
Act; and the Help America Vote Act. And it would modernize online 
political ad disclosure without infringing on free speech or requiring 
unworkable standards for Americans.
  Our bill also increases monitoring of spending by foreign nationals 
in elections and addresses domestic interference in our elections, 
something the SHIELD Act fails to accomplish.
  We may never be able to prevent criminal activity, whether that is in 
our elections or in our day-to-day lives, but we can provide our law 
enforcement with the best tools and resources available.
  The Honest Elections Act is simply a better solution to preventing 
foreign interference in our elections than the SHIELD Act and its 
unintended consequences on Americans.
  Again, I will say the greatest threat to our Nation's election system 
is partisanship because it is the partisanship we are seeing from the 
majority today that is keeping the American people from having 
bipartisan legislation right now that will prevent any potential 
foreign interference in our elections.
  I keep hearing my Democratic colleagues talk about urgency, but this 
is the third time we have been here with a partisan election bill in 
the House that has yet to become law or make any real change 
whatsoever. If Democrats are serious about this urgency in protecting 
our Nation's elections in the 2020 cycle, prove it. Stop with the 
political games. Come back to the table and work with us on something 
that actually stands a chance at becoming law and protecting our 
Nation's elections.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would note that it was Justice Kavanaugh, 
in the Bluman v. Federal Election Commission case, who wrote the 
opinion that ``it is fundamental to the definition of our national 
political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional 
right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of 
democratic self-government.''
  The idea that we are going to infringe on foreign governments' rights 
to participate is simply not legally supported.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Davis), a valued member of our committee.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we know that there have been 
foreign attacks on our election infrastructure. That is a fact.
  Knowing there are those out there who seek to rob us of our 
democracy, why would we leave our door wide open? Why would we not 
create a shield when our democracy is under attack?
  The SHIELD Act, carefully drafted by my colleague and chair, Ms. 
Lofgren, requires that political campaigns report any information they 
receive from foreign agents to the FBI so we can centralize information 
and stop attacks. Why would we not want to do that?
  The SHIELD Act establishes strong penalties for online voter 
intimidation by foreign actors. Why would we not want to do that?
  The SHIELD Act closes loopholes that allow foreigners to spend their 
money in our elections. Why would we not want to do that?
  There are enemies out there every day trying to cast doubt on our 
elections. We have no excuse--no excuse--for not doing all we can to 
make ourselves less vulnerable.
  This should be a bipartisan no-brainer, Mr. Chairman. I urge my 
colleagues to support the SHIELD Act to protect our democracy.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), my good friend and a very 
well-respected member of the House Administration Committee.
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend, colleague, and the 
ranking member for yielding this time.
  I also want to say how thankful I am that we are in this body, in 
public, in front of the American people debating something that is very 
important to this Nation, that at least this process isn't held in the 
basement of this building, behind closed doors, away from the American 
people like some other issues are being held right now. I am at least 
still thankful for that.
  But here we go again. It is another attempt by our friends on the 
other side to bring a bad idea to fix a bad situation. This is the 
third attempt for a Federal takeover of our election system.
  It kind of reminds me of a popular commercial that is on television 
right now about these young people in a horror show. There is something 
evil after them, and they are outside of this spooky, old house and are 
like: ``We have to go somewhere to hide.''
  One of the young people says: ``Why don't we get in the running 
car?''
  The others say: ``That is a dumb idea. Let's go hide in the spooky 
shed behind the chainsaws.''
  Here we go, running to chainsaws again, running to chainsaws, getting 
ourselves in a worse situation. This would have done nothing to 
prohibit the Russian meddling in the 2016 election--nothing.
  What would have made a difference is the Obama administration, which 
was advised that the Russians were attempting to hack into our system, 
that they were meddling. The Obama cybersecurity czar, he brought it to 
their attention and proposed countermeasures, and he was told to stand 
down.
  We did nothing within the power that we already have to try to stop 
foreign influence in our elections. That is where we need to be 
focused.
  This goes further than needs to happen by giving the Federal 
Government more power, more authority to take away the authority that 
has been given to the States to oversee their elections.
  If these weren't enough concerns, this thing has been rushed to the 
floor with zero hearings. Let me repeat that: There have been no 
hearings, no fact-findings to get to the bottom of what would be 
the best solution to this problem. None.

  It was a quickly scheduled markup that was rushed to the floor. And 
here we are again, working on a piece of legislation that would do 
nothing to fix the problem and has no chance of going anywhere in the 
Senate.
  I suggest that we work together on a bipartisan basis to actually 
come up with a solution that works for the American people.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would note that I think this bill would 
have done a lot to save us from the Russian attacks in 2016.
  I will tell you one thing. The chairman of the Trump campaign, Mr. 
Manafort, gave internal polling and target data to a Russian agent 
multiple times while the Russians were buying ads. That would be 
prohibited under this act.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin), a much-valued member of the House Administration Committee.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, I thank Madam Chair for her exceptional work 
on the SHIELD Act, which is long overdue.
  For 2 years, our colleagues across the aisle had control over the 
Judiciary Committee, the Rules Committee, and the House Administration 
Committee. They had no hearings about the sweeping and systematic 
campaign by the Russians to subvert and undermine our election.
  The Democrats have brought forth the SHIELD Act. There is not a 
single partisan word in this act. We hear our colleagues declaring it 
is partisan. Name me one provision in this act that is partisan. There 
is nothing partisan about it, except that their response to it is 
partisan.
  Now, some of our colleagues said that this is unconstitutional. A 
takeover, a Federal takeover, I think we just heard the words uttered 
by our distinguished colleague from Georgia.
  Do you know who engineered the Federal takeover of the American 
elections? The Founders of America did, the Framers of our 
Constitution. In Article IV, they were the ones who said

[[Page H8413]]

that Congress may make or alter regulations governing the time, place, 
and manner of elections for the House of Representatives and the U.S. 
Senate.
  It was the Framers of the Constitution who put in Article IV that 
Congress must guarantee to the people of every State a republican form 
of government.
  So, this is in the Constitution. We are doing our job to protect our 
elections, the sovereignty of our country, and the integrity of the 
democracy against foreign attack.
  We should all be together on it, and I deplore the partisan response 
to this excellent legislation.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy), my good and new friend, our 
newest Member of this institution.
  Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to serve 
beside Mr. Davis.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my adamant opposition to H.R. 4617, 
otherwise known as the SHIELD Act.
  I think my Republican colleagues would agree that this bill is 
misleading at best and should be more effectively monikered as the 
First Amendment suppression act.
  Simply put, this bill is an extension of House Democrats' efforts to 
federalize the election process away from the States by substantially 
restricting free speech through governmental overreach. Furthermore, it 
does not actually do anything further to secure our elections from 
foreign interference.
  In the buildup to the 2016 election, Russian operatives broke many 
existing U.S. laws in their attempt to spread misinformation. Nothing 
in SHIELD would provide additional resources to law enforcement 
officials to pursue these foreign actors.
  Additionally, this bill will create a chilling effect on free speech 
by punishing organizations that have nothing to do with politics, and 
it mandates Federal overreach on a substantial scale.
  The SHIELD Act even gives the Federal Government the duty of 
determining what qualifies as a legitimate news source.
  To combat this recklessness, I actually offered a commonsense 
amendment that Democratic leadership would not consider for debate. It, 
simply enough, would have struck the word ``legitimate'' from the 
section because it is vague, overbroad, and open to subjective 
interpretation. Do we really want the Federal Government deciding on 
what is or is not a legitimate news outlet?
  Two minutes is not enough time to fully detail the unintended 
consequences of the SHIELD Act, which I intend to vote against later on 
today on the floor.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would note that the legitimate press 
function referred to is part of the FEC analysis that has been 
longstanding. It is nothing new in this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Butterfield), a respected and valued member of the committee.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I 
rise today in strong support of H.R. 4617, the SHIELD Act.
  Mr. Chairman, the world knows that our democracy was attacked in 2016 
by foreign actors. We have a responsibility as a Congress to fight back 
against foreign cyber intrusions into our democracy and protect the 
sanctity of our elections. The SHIELD Act does just that.
  Mr. Chair, right now, our country is facing an existential crisis. 
The question for each of us is: What are we going to do? What are we 
going to do to defend the principles and the Constitution upon which 
this country was founded?
  The vote today on the SHIELD Act will be one of those moments that, 
some years from now, we will all look back on, and each of us will have 
to give an account for what we did. We must take a vote to defend our 
democracy from foreign interference and ensure that every American vote 
counts.

  The words of my good friend and our dear colleague, Congressman 
Cummings, are swirling around this Chamber today. He said the 
following: ``When we are dancing with the angels, the question will be 
asked: In 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy 
intact? Did we stand on the sidelines and say nothing? Did we play 
games?''
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, before I yield to my good 
friend from California, I do want to respond.
  My great friend and colleague from the great State of Maryland 
mentioned that Republicans said that this bill is unconstitutional. 
Well, it wasn't just us.
  Americans for Prosperity says this bill is unconstitutional. Heritage 
Action says the bill is unconstitutional. Even the ACLU said this bill 
is unconstitutional.
  It is not every day, Mr. Chair, that you get those three 
organizations together on the same issue, but it is here. The 
unconstitutionality of this bill is from them and their remarks, adding 
to what we are saying here and debating on the floor.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock), my good friend.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I fervently agree with the premise of 
this bill. American political campaigns should remain among Americans.
  In California, it is now common for admitted noncitizens, some of 
them here illegally, to inject themselves into campaigns and attempt to 
influence voters.
  Perhaps we can all agree: You are either a citizen or you are not. If 
you are not a citizen, you are a guest. If you are a guest, you are not 
entitled to participate in our elections or in the debate that 
influences them.

                              {time}  1500

  That is especially important in a nation where sovereignty is vested 
not with the government, but with the people. In most countries, the 
government is the sovereign. Here in America, the people are sovereign. 
But in America, our sovereign doesn't govern. It hires help. That is 
what all of us are. We are hired help.
  And once we are hired, the sovereign people then discuss among 
themselves the job we are doing, and every 2 years this discussion 
informs their decision over whether to keep us or to hire somebody 
else. That is a unique exercise of American sovereignty, and it ought 
to be off limits to all others.
  But where I fervently disagree is with this bill's use of 
governmental power to interfere with freedom of speech and association 
that is absolutely essential to the preservation of our liberty. Except 
for incitement to commit crimes, every person must be free to speak 
their minds.
  If a foreign national inserts himself into an American political 
discussion, the remedy is to call him out, tell him to butt out, and 
denounce such conduct for the meddling that it is. The remedy is not to 
insert the government into the discussion over how the government is 
doing.
  Once government seizes the power to tell the people what they can say 
or who they can talk to, we will have cracked the touchstone of our 
Bill of Rights, and that crack will grow until it shatters the bedrock 
of our freedom.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time remains.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 19 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Illinois has 18 minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to note that it was eight Justices who said, in the 
Citizens United case, that, while the First Amendment protects 
political speech, disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react 
to the speech. They were the ones, in the Citizens United case, who 
urged transparency. And it was Justice Kavanaugh himself who pointed 
out that foreign citizens don't have a First Amendment right to meddle 
in our elections.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Sarbanes), who has done so much on our ethics and election reform 
effort.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Lofgren for her 
incredible work. Nobody has done more in this Congress to protect our 
democracy and lift up the voices of everyday Americans than Zoe 
Lofgren, so I thank her for yielding.
  The measure of partisanship here is not whether the Republicans have 
refused to get on this and it is a Democratic bill. That is not how you 
measure partisanship, because that is an

[[Page H8414]]

easy maneuver. You decide: None of us will get on the bill. It will be 
all Democrats that are supporting it or voting for it, and then we can 
say it is a partisan bill.
  The measure of whether something is partisan or not is to go out and 
talk to the people in the country. And this is one of the most 
bipartisan bills you could possibly put together, judged by what people 
out in the country want to see.
  Republicans, Independents, Democrats coming off of the 2016 election 
said to this Congress: ``Protect our house.'' Not this House, the 
United States of America. ``Protect our elections from foreign 
interference.''
  That wasn't just coming from Democrats. That wasn't a partisan voice 
out in the wilderness. That was everybody saying it, including 
Republicans and Independents.
  So the fact that the Republicans don't want to get on a bill that 
Americans want to see doesn't make the bill partisan. It means that 
Republicans are not listening carefully enough to what the American 
people want to see.
  We have tried now, three times--three times--to get our Republican 
colleagues to support these basic measures that would safeguard the 
integrity of our elections. H.R. 1, the For the People Act, contained 
many of the same provisions.
  I get it. I heard what you said: Oh, the bill is too big. It does 
these other things. We love the election security stuff--we can go get 
those quotes from the H.R. 1 debate--oh, if you would just do the 
election security or the ballot box security measures to protect our 
elections, we would be on that in a minute.
  Well, you got a second chance, a second bite at the apple with the 
SAFE Act. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for 
shepherding that through the committee, the SAFE Act, that would 
protect the ballot box.
  But did Republicans vote for that to protect our democracy? No, they 
missed the second. Strike two.
  So now we have the SHIELD Act to protect us against foreign 
interference, foreign money coming into our elections and trying to 
influence the outcome, misinformation campaigns coming from overseas, 
all this interference that we have to push back on, that the American 
people are concerned about.
  So here you get a third chance to show that you want to protect our 
elections and safeguard our elections. This is the opportunity to stand 
up, support what the American people want to see, which is us 
protecting our democracy.
  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, there are too many comments 
I would like to make, so I will reserve them until we have a few less 
speakers. I am sure we will have a chance to debate some of the issues 
that my good friend and colleague from Maryland brought up.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the 
great State of Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman so much for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that, if I were in a court of law, I would 
tell you in advance that I am about to make an argument that is 
conditionally relevant, meaning: Bear with me. It will make sense when 
I get to the point.
  So this morning, in committee--and I serve on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee--we were having a hearing and ObamaCare came up. About five 
or six times, people said, on the Democrat side of the aisle, ObamaCare 
is being sabotaged by the Trump administration.
  Well, I started thinking about that, and I realized that that wasn't 
really fair, that the problem was that this Congress and the Democrats 
in this House voted for a bill that mentioned the Secretary, HHS 
Secretary, 3,033 times; 974 times it said the ``Secretary shall'' and 
then went on to say something else.
  According to Dr. Burgess, he estimated that there were actually 262 
different action items in ObamaCare voted on by the Democrats. None of 
the Republicans in the House at the time--I was not here, but none of 
the Republicans voted for it. 262 action items were given over to the 
Secretary.
  So now we have the SHIELD Act, and you are saying: All right, Morgan, 
what does this have to do with the SHIELD Act?
  I direct you to page 49, lines 10 to 25, Corrective Action: ``If the 
Attorney General receives a credible report that materially false 
information has been or is being communicated in violation'' of this 
bill, ``and if the Attorney General determines that the State and local 
officials have not taken adequate steps to promptly communicate 
accurate information to correct the materially false information, the 
Attorney General shall, pursuant to the written procedures and 
standards under subsection (b)''--which, by the way, the Attorney 
General determines--``communicate to the public, by any means''--any 
means--``including by means of written, electronic, or telephonic 
communications, accurate information designed to correct the materially 
false information.''
  What we are about to do in this bill, Mr. Chairman, is we are about 
to give the Attorney General the power to come into our congressional 
elections and to come into any election and start running ads, to run 
robocalls, to get involved in the election process, because I wouldn't 
want Attorney General Holder making decisions on my ads, and I don't 
think my friends, Mr. Chairman, on the other side of the aisle would 
want Attorney General Barr making decisions on their ads.
  But that is what this bill does. It creates a situation where the 
Attorney General is going to come into our districts if they think that 
one of us has issued a materially false ad and, instead of letting the 
voters make a decision as to whether or not I have done something wrong 
or my opponent has done something wrong or you have done something 
wrong or your opponent has done something wrong, the Attorney General 
is going to make that decision all by himself.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from 
Virginia an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chair, when you don't like it, you are going to 
come back and say: Oh, my gosh, they are sabotaging the intent of the 
bill.
  Well, forget the intent. Read the bill. Read the bill.
  This bill has significant problems. It needs to go back to committee 
and be worked on some more. I appreciate it, but until this is 
corrected, I must vote ``no'' to try to protect our election system 
from having it being taken over by whomever the Attorney General might 
be.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just note that the provision referred to relates only to the 
time, place, or manner of holding an election. So if you have a digital 
ad that says Democrats vote Tuesday, Republicans vote Wednesday, you 
can send out an ad saying everybody votes on Tuesday.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership.
  Maybe my friends have gotten a little bit of absentmindedness. This 
is volume I and II of the Mueller report, a distinguished veteran of 
the Vietnam war.
  Page 174, volume I, it says specifically, well-documented: ``On 
February 16, 2018, a Federal grand jury in the District of Columbia 
returned an indictment against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian 
entities--including the Internet Research Agency, IRA, and Concord 
Management and Consulting LLC, Concord--with violating U.S. criminal 
laws in order to interfere with U.S. elections and political processes. 
The indictment charges all of the defendants with conspiracy to defraud 
the United States . . . three defendants with conspiracy to commit wire 
fraud and bank fraud . . . and five defendants with aggravated identity 
theft, Counts Three through Eight. Internet Research Agency Indictment. 
Concord, which is one of the entities charged in the Count One 
conspiracy, entered an appearance through U.S. counsel and moved to 
dismiss. . . . `'
  They were indicted on the basis of their interference in the 2016 
election.
  Let me be very clear. I rise to support this legislation, grateful 
that in

[[Page H8415]]

this bill is H.R. 2353. Duty to refuse or report foreign interference 
was language that I had that said that you cannot accept information 
from a foreign operative.
  With that in mind, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her 
leadership.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4617, the ``Stopping 
Harmful Interference in Elections for A Lasting Democracy Act,'' or 
SHIELD Act and the underlying legislation.
  I support this legislation introduced by my colleague, the Chairwoman 
of the Committee on House Administration, the gentlelady from 
California, Chairwoman Lofgren, because it:
   1. Creates a duty to report illicit offers of campaign assistance 
from foreign governments and their agents;
   2. Helps prevent foreign interference in future elections by 
improving transparency of online political advertisements;
   3. Closes loopholes that allow foreign nationals and foreign 
governments to spend in U.S. elections;
   4. Restricts exchange of campaign information between candidates and 
foreign governments and their agents; and
   5. Prohibits deceptive practices about voting procedures.
  Mr. Chair, earlier this year FBI Director Christopher Wray testified 
before the Congress that foreign interference in on our democracy is 
``a 365-day-a-year threat.''
  This is outrageous; American elections are to be decided by 
Americans.
  That is why I am particularly pleased that H.R. 4617 incorporates the 
key provisions of H.R. 2353, the ``Duty To Refuse And Report Foreign 
Interference In Elections Act'' that I introduced in April of this 
year.
  Mr. Chair, our friends across the aisle voted against Republicans 
voted against H.R. 1, the ``For The People Act of 2019,'' which, inter 
alia, would secure our elections, and then against H.R. 2722, the 
``Securing America's Federal Elections Act'' or SAFE Act, which closes 
dangerous gaps in our voting security into the 21st Century.
  Today our Republican colleagues have another chance to demonstrate 
that they take seriously their oath to defend the Constitution against 
all enemies, foreign or domestic.
  Mr. Chair, on January 6, 2017, representatives of the Intelligence 
Community advised the President-Elect that the Russian Federation 
conducted a sophisticated campaign to subvert our democracy with the 
goal of electing Donald Trump and defeating Hillary Clinton.
  The Report issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on March 22, 2019 
revealed that the Russians effectuated their goals by selectively 
disseminating stolen emails, with the end of maximizing the adverse 
impact this would have on Secretary Clinton's electoral prospects.
  The Mueller Report further indicated that Russia's misinformation 
efforts also included the proliferation of fake online profiles on 
social media platforms, with the goal of echoing and amplifying 
politically divisive messages, so as to sow discord within the 
electorate and suppress the vote for Secretary Clinton.
  As the Mueller Report lays bare, the Trump Campaign knew what Russia 
was doing and welcomed that assistance, did nothing to discourage it, 
did not report it, denied its existence and knowingly and happily 
accepted the benefits of the hostile foreign interference.
  While some may tolerate this as awful but lawful conduct, none of the 
bill's sponsors or supporters do because it is deeply corrosive of our 
democracy.
  In April of this year I introduced H.R. 2353, the ``Duty to Refuse 
and Report Foreign Interference in American Elections Act of 2019,'' to 
impose an affirmative duty to refuse any offer of election campaign 
assistance from any agent or entity acting on behalf or in the interest 
of a foreign government and to report to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation any such offer of assistance from an agent or entity 
acting on behalf or in the interest of a foreign government.
  This duty to refuse and report applies to candidates and any person 
working for, or volunteering with, a candidate for election to federal 
office.
  The legislation also requires the Federal Election Commission to 
require that a candidate for election to federal office must certify 
quarterly that he or she is compliance with the above requirements on 
penalty of not more than 5 years in prison and a fine of not more than 
$250,000.
  Mr. Chair, the threat to our country is real, as documented in detail 
in the report issued by Special Counsel Mueller, confirmed by the 
unanimous assessment of our nation's Intelligence Community, and 
affirmed most recently by FBI Director Wray who testified in Congress 
that foreign interference in on our democracy is ``a 365-day-a-year 
threat.''
  It is past time to write into the books of law the sensible and self-
protective principle that American elections are to be decided only by 
American citizens, and not influenced by foreign adversaries.
  I encourage all members to join me in voting to keep Americans in 
control of our electoral process and elections by voting to pass H.R. 
4716, the SHIELD Act.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I have some folks who are on their way here to offer some more 
remarks, so, while we are waiting, I will offer my remarks on some of 
the comments that were made by my colleagues.
  One of my colleagues talked about bipartisanship, that this is a 
bipartisan bill. It is not a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the majority party clearly had an opportunity to put 
through our committee and onto the floor a bill that had Republican and 
Democrat cosponsors. Instead of doing that, they chose to follow the 
exact same path that they followed in the past through other committees 
and other pieces of legislation: They don't want to put real solutions 
forward; they want to put political talking points forward.
  They decided to combine what my colleague from Virginia just talked 
about, allowing an Attorney General to participate, possibly, in 
Federal campaigns. That should scare every American, regardless of 
whether you are Republican or Democrat. Let's keep our elections run in 
the most safe and effective way possible: at the State and local level.
  So it is not bipartisan. This bill is not bipartisan. There are 187 
cosponsors of the SHIELD Act, and not a single Republican.
  And that is a ploy? That is how we run away from bipartisanship? No, 
bipartisanship was taken away from us.
  Now, how do you get bipartisanship? Well, you have hearings.
  Not a single hearing was held in the House Administration Committee 
where we could ask questions to the social media platforms that are 
going to be affected by this piece of legislation if it becomes law. I 
certainly would have loved to have asked Mark Zuckerberg.
  I tried to go over, today, to the Committee on Financial Services to 
ask Mr. Zuckerberg why in the world did Facebook or anybody at Facebook 
take a payment from Russia for overtly political ads. They took 
$100,000 in payment out of $1.4 billion in digital ads that were bought 
during the 2016 cycle. That check was cashed.
  I don't know if they wrote a check; I don't know if they paid cash; I 
don't know if they paid rubles; but we ought to be able to get to the 
bottom of it.
  I didn't even have a chance to ask before this bill was rushed to the 
floor. Too many questions.

                              {time}  1515

  If you want bipartisanship, you have got to earn bipartisanship by 
allowing us to have a seat at the table.
  Now, it is not too hard to have discussions. It is not too hard to 
sit down and work out bipartisan solutions. There are only nine members 
of the House Administration Committee. We didn't have a chance to do 
that, to sit down and talk about our priorities. It was great H.R. 1 
was brought up. That is the bill that was written in secret by special 
interests before we were all even sworn in. H.R. 1 had every single 
Member of the majority party signed on as a cosponsor before they even 
had a chance to read it. It wasn't even introduced yet.
  And let's talk about what H.R. 1 did, what my colleague called strike 
one. H.R. 1. Every single Member of this institution who voted for that 
bill voted to put either your taxpayer dollars or corporate money for 
the first time ever in our Nation's history into their own political 
campaign coffers. That is not a strike to vote against that bill. That 
is a freaking home run. That is terrible. Nobody thinks getting more 
money out of politics would be solved by those provisions.
  The SAFE Act, well, when the majority decided to write their bill 
after we had one hearing, they didn't even listen to their own witness 
about the efficacy of certain types of voting machines and the safety 
capabilities. They didn't listen to their own witness. They still tried 
to create a process that would have made safe election machines with a 
voter verified paper backup mechanism which would have made them 
essentially illegal after the year 2021 or 2022.

[[Page H8416]]

  We know counties upon counties and election authorities in this 
Nation that have purchased these machines that their own witness said 
was safe, but that would be a waste of their own taxpayer dollars now 
because somebody in Washington that didn't consult with us, didn't 
allow us a chance to work in a bipartisan way, they would have wasted 
hundreds of thousands of dollars on voting machines.
  My local Democratic election official in my home county of Christian 
County, Illinois, they worked with their local Republican county board 
to purchase almost $300,000 in election machines that if the SAFE Act 
was signed into law, that expense would have lit 300 grand up with a 
match. That is wrong. Let's talk to our local election officials. I do. 
That is certainly not strike two. I think that is another home run, 
too.
  Now the SHIELD Act. Again, I said it is not bipartisan. 137 
cosponsors, all Democrats. We want to talk about bipartisanship, Mr. 
Chair, we can talk all we want. I want to see some action. I haven't 
seen some action. We talked in the Rules Committee last night about no 
hearings, no ability to question witnesses. We can come together. 
Nobody, and I mean nobody, in this institution, no one wants foreign 
interference. You want a bipartisan bill? Our next colleague who is 
going to talk was a cosponsor of a bipartisan bill that could have come 
to the floor, but we weren't given the chance.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Kilmer), who is a leader in the Honest Ads Act.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congresswoman Lofgren for yielding 
and for her leadership on this critical election security package.
  Mr. Chairman, foreign interests shouldn't be able to influence 
American elections, period. That is not a Democratic notion. It is not 
a Republican notion. That is an American notion. We know that there is 
an election just a year away, and we know that just this week one of 
the world's most prominent social media companies acknowledged that 
Russia, Iran, China, and other adversaries are actively working to 
interfere in our next elections.
  This is a no-brainer. It is time to take real action to fix loopholes 
and protect our elections from foreign interference. That is why the 
SHIELD Act is so important. There is a ton in this bill, and I am proud 
that many of the components of the SHIELD Act are based on bills the 
New Democratic Coalition endorsed, among them the Honest Ads Act.
  Right now if a candidate or a group runs political ads on television 
that is publicly available information. The public and the press are 
able to access that information on who is buying the ad, how much they 
are paying. Same thing on radio. But that is not true on social media. 
If an entity buys ads on social media, there are no disclosure 
requirements under the law, even though we know foreign adversaries are 
seeking to buy online ads.
  The Honest Ads Act would change that, and that is why it is a 
bipartisan bill; 18 Democratic sponsors, 18 Republican sponsors, the 
chair of Senate Judiciary, the vice chair of the Intelligence 
Committee.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, they see this as a way to strengthen our 
democracy and our national security. To enable law enforcement and the 
press and others to better detect and investigate foreign involvement 
in our elections.
  The House has a choice to make, a choice to keep loopholes open and 
continue to see threats against our democracy or a choice to take 
action and pass the SHIELD Act. I am proud to be a sponsor of this 
bill.
  I thank Chair Lofgren and her team for their hard work on this, and I 
am confident the House will make the right choice and pass this bill.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, my 
colleague from the great State of Washington, you can't get much more 
bipartisan than Mr. Kilmer. I certainly wish we would have been able to 
have the bill on the floor that my colleague spoke about that had an 
even number of Republican and Democratic cosponsors, but unfortunately, 
we don't have the opportunity to do that, Mr. Chairman.
  Unfortunately, we are watching poison pills like the one that my 
colleague from Virginia spoke about where an attorney general can come 
in and decide to correct the record on Federal elections. I think that 
is scary for any American. That is not a solution.
  I do believe that we will see this bill passed. I am not proud that 
this bill is going to pass, because this bill is not going to be signed 
into law.
  And I know my good friend and colleague, the chairperson of the House 
Administration Committee, have discussed a couple of times about 
Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. I think her and I agree with Justice 
Kavanaugh, that foreign bad actors, they don't have freedom of speech 
protections in the United States of America. But the sad fact, Mr. 
Chairman, is that if this bill were to pass into law, it would do 
nothing to affect the bad actors who interfered in our 2016 elections. 
Nothing.
  Our bill, the Honest Elections Act would. We will positively affect 
those bad actors, and we will make sure they are held accountable.
  If this bill passes, I believe the majority party would give more 
free speech protections to those foreign bad actors.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert), my good friend.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The bill under consideration is an attempt to protect our elections 
from foreign interference. That is a goal that I certainly share, and I 
think all of us share.
  In fact, I tried to offer an amendment to the bill that would have 
closed a gaping hole in the security of our election system. It is a 
weakness that basically rolls out the red carpet to foreign 
interference. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle blocked my amendment.
  My proposal would have prohibited the practice known as ballot 
harvesting, which is something that is only legal in a few states, 
where literally anyone can collect absentee ballots. In California 
where ballot harvesting is legal, anyone, including paid campaign 
workers and foreign nationals, are allowed to collect an unlimited 
number of ballots.
  California Democrats have refused to put any guard rails on ballot 
collection, leaving it wide open to fraud and abuse by both foreign and 
domestic bad actors.
  Every time I voice my concern about ballot harvesting, my friends on 
the other side of the aisle and the media keep asking for evidence of 
abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason there is no evidence of ballot harvesting 
fraud is because California Democrats have designed a system that 
doesn't collect evidence. If you collect ballots in California, you 
aren't required to give your name to the voter whose ballot you are 
collecting, and when you turn in that ballot to election officials, you 
are not required to give your name at that point either. There is no 
requirement to document the chain of custody of ballots. And there is 
nothing in the State law prohibiting foreign nationals from collecting 
and handling ballots. Let me repeat that. There is nothing in 
California law prohibiting foreign nationals from collecting and 
handling ballots.
  You know, in reality, the only rule is there are no rules. Mr. 
Chairman, this isn't the Wild West. We shouldn't wait for fraud and 
abuse to occur before we act. By rejecting my amendment, Democrats have 
not only left a door open to foreign involvement in our elections, they 
have laid out the welcome mat.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb), a star in our caucus.
  Mr. LAMB. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I am proud to stand up in support of the SHIELD Act, which 
incorporates my bill, H.R. 4703, The DEFEND Act. The DEFEND Act, as 
incorporated here, would forbid paid internet activity by foreign 
actors, foreign political parties, foreign intelligence services and 
the like.
  This is a problem because in 2016 across Pennsylvania users of social

[[Page H8417]]

media saw this image over and over again. It is the real image of a 
coal miner suggesting that miners were supporting the Republican 
nominee and getting together in huge rallies in places like Pittsburgh 
and Philadelphia.
  But the problem is, there were no rallies. And the truth is, the 
actual opinions of coal miners were much more mixed. They know, in 
fact, that they have been let down on issues like healthcare and 
pensions, by both Republicans and Democrats, and they have been 
supported and protected on those same issues by Members of both 
parties.
  In fact, just today, the House Natural Resources Committee passed the 
Miners Pension Protection Act, and I was proud to stand with members of 
both parties in support of that.

  Mr. Chair, the man in this image died in 1987 at the age of 57--too 
young--like most miners, of black lung. These miners have given a lot. 
We cannot allow the Russians or anyone else to take anything else from 
them and affect our elections.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), a new Member of Congress from Michigan, who had 
a distinguished career in the intelligence community.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and 
thank her for all the work she has done on the SHIELD Act.
  As a former CIA officer and Pentagon official, as the wife of a 30-
year Army officer and the stepmom of a current Army officer, I know 
that when our country sees a threat, we have the responsibility to act 
and to consider ways to protect our country.
  I think we have all said it many times here today, no matter who you 
are, what political party you are from, we can all agree that 
foreigners have no role in our political process.
  I am incredibly proud to be supporting the SHIELD Act. Certain 
portions of it are modeled off legislation I have been working on since 
I first started in Congress in January, the PAID AD Act, in particular. 
It is the very basic idea that foreigners should not be able to buy an 
ad for or against a candidate in an American political election. That 
should be illegal, plain and simple.
  Michigan was particularly targeted by these ads. They are divisive. 
They are hateful. They are meant to split us apart and stoke fears in 
our community. It is a classic in the playbook the Russians have used 
in Eastern Europe, and now they are using it here in the United States.
  The SHIELD Act closes these loopholes that currently allow foreign 
entities to purchase campaign ads. I am thrilled to support it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Phillips), a valued new Member of Congress.
  Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, people in small towns and cities in my home State of 
Minnesota and in neighborhoods all across the Nation are being targeted 
for manipulation.

                              {time}  1530

  Foreign governments have found a weakness in our national security. 
They are exploiting it by using social media platforms to influence 
Americans, with the hope that they will vote for foreign interests, not 
American interests.
  Democrats and Republicans need to come together now--today--to do 
something about it. It is what our Founders--Washington, Adams, 
Jefferson, Madison, and others--would have demanded.
  That is why I am proud to support the SHIELD Act, an important 
legislative package that includes my bill, the Firewall Act, that 
simply prevents foreign nationals from paying for online political 
advertisements, something to which my distinguished colleague from 
Illinois referred to just moments ago.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this historic and 
necessary package and help us build a wall, a digital wall, to protect 
Americans from foreign interference in our elections.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their comments today.
  Look, there is a lot of activity and the opportunity to come to this 
floor and debate very important issues, and there are no more important 
issues than protecting the validity and safety of our election system 
here in this institution in the great United States of America.
  You know what? We heard a lot about this process not being 
bipartisan, Mr. Chairman. Well, let's talk about what we have done in a 
bipartisan manner to protect our elections.
  When Republicans were in charge of this institution, we worked in a 
bipartisan fashion to actually appropriate over $300 million to go to 
our States, to work with our local officials, to partner with the 
Department of Homeland Security to ensure that our election 
infrastructure is safer than it was in 2016.
  We all learned the lessons of 2016, and we worked together to put 
solutions on the table.
  That is exactly what we should be doing here. But on the SHIELD Act, 
unfortunately, the Democratic majority did not allow us a seat at the 
table.
  You know, you go to my home State of Illinois, where they have been 
raving about their partnership with this administration's Department of 
Homeland Security, and look at the 2018 election cycle. We had record 
turnout in a midterm election, and not one instance of foreign 
interference has been brought forth, So it looks like we have done 
something good together in a bipartisan fashion in the past.
  I certainly hope, Mr. Chair, we could do that in the future.
  Many of the provisions that my colleagues talked about and that I 
spoke about are just simply too egregious for us to support. We want to 
support a bill that has proper hearings, goes through regular order, 
and provides an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to work 
together, just like we did to protect America's election systems for 
the 2018 election cycle.
  I want to see results, Mr. Chair. I am not seeing results with the 
SHIELD Act.
  Let's come together. Let's take another swing, take another crack at 
the bat. Let's hit another home run together. Because according to my 
count right now, that bipartisan investment of $300-plus million that 
we worked together on, that is a grand slam. Let's start working on 
some more grand slams together.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I am disappointed that, apparently, we are not going to 
get support for this important bill from at least the ranking member 
and some of the Members who have spoken today on the other side of the 
aisle.
  There are no poison pills in this bill, and much of the bill is made 
up of bills that had bipartisan support.
  It is interesting to hear that somehow this is partisan because the 
Republican leadership refuses to step forward to confront the danger 
that we face from Russian interference in our elections and the 
possible interference from other nations. We have been told by the FBI 
that might include Iran as well as Turkey.
  I listened carefully to my friend, the ranking member, about the 
money that was appropriated--and that was bipartisan; we supported 
that--in the last Congress for election security. Democrats included 
$600 million this year for election security. We sent it to the Senate, 
and unlike last year, they now are refusing to act.
  I remember back in law school that I was told by one of my 
professors, who I liked so much, that if you can't argue the law and 
you can't argue the facts, argue a lot. I think that is some of what we 
heard today.
  We have had some hearings on these issues, three in the House 
Administration Committee. Although the Elections Subcommittee, which 
has been so active, did not focus entirely on these issues, it did 
touch also on these issues, in fact, just earlier this week. In the 
House Administration Committee, there have been 11 of these hearings.
  To say that this bill threatens First Amendment rights is certainly 
incorrect. Now, I value the ACLU. We work with them very closely on a 
variety of issues, including the role of due process in immigration, 
and they have an important role in American society. But when it comes 
to campaign finance reform, they have a long history of opposing laws 
that regulate the raising

[[Page H8418]]

and spending of money to influence elections.
  The ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the Citizens United 
case. They opposed the effort by the Congress to get rid of the dark 
money in our elections. They, I think, misunderstand the issue of free 
speech when it comes to foreign governments.
  I will quote the entire thing again that Justice Kavanaugh wrote: 
``The United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First 
Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in 
activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby 
preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.''

  We don't have to worry about whether the Russian trolls' rights to 
free speech are being violated when we keep them from interfering in 
our elections because we have a compelling interest to keep the 
Russians and others from trying to subvert our elections, to hurt our 
country. We have a right to defend ourselves from them, and the SHIELD 
Act does that.
  I would like to note also that elements in this bill would have 
prevented some of the misconduct or problems that occurred in the 2016 
election.
  I was interested that my colleague expressed concern that we didn't 
hear from some of the platforms, that we didn't hear from Mark 
Zuckerberg. He is correct. We did not call Facebook into the House 
Administration Committee. Frankly, if they had said, ``We don't want to 
do this,'' I would have said, ``Too bad.''
  We need to set some rules that prevent the lack of responsibility on 
the part of some of these platforms. They accepted money from Russian 
influencers to place ads to harm our democracy. This bill requires them 
to make a reasonable effort to find out that the ads that are being 
placed are not actually coming from our foreign adversaries.
  We, as I mentioned earlier, in this bill directly prohibit the 
sharing of sensitive campaign information by American campaigns with 
foreign actors. That happened in the 2016 election. We had the chairman 
of the Trump campaign, Mr. Manafort, sharing internal polling data with 
a Russian agent, sharing the playbook for the States at play with a 
Russian agent.
  I have wondered a lot about what was going on there. I didn't get an 
answer to that, but this bill makes that impermissible. This bill makes 
that a crime.
  It also requires campaigns to report to the FBI when they have been 
contacted by a foreign campaign. We all know now that the Russians 
contacted the Trump campaign, and the President's son said: ``If it is 
what you say, I love it.'' They supposedly had dirt on the Democratic 
opponent. They were going to funnel information into the campaign. Did 
the campaign tell the FBI? No, they did not.
  Well, if this bill had passed, there would have been a requirement to 
notify the FEC and the FBI that the Russians were trying to interfere 
in the campaign.
  Now, I would think that would be something that most people would 
think you would do anyway, that we shouldn't need a law to require it. 
But, apparently, we do, and this bill would include that.
  I want to mention the Honest Ads Act because the Honest Ads Act has 
been introduced with a broad bipartisan group to make sure that there 
is disclosure.
  We have had a disclosure regime when it comes to broadcast TV and 
radio for a long time, but it did not extend to the digital advertising 
environment. That is a mistake because as information migrates to the 
digital world, we need to have disclosure there, too. The Honest Ads 
Act does that. It is incorporated in the SHIELD Act.
  It is important. It requires the platforms to maintain copies of the 
ads for 4 years. It requires that there be a disclosure of who is 
paying for it. The American people have a right to know who is trying 
to influence them online, just as they do in TV broadcasting.
  Does it make a difference? Yes, it does. I remember in my State of 
California, a number of years ago, there was an initiative to control 
smoking in restaurants. It was polling at, like, 80 percent, something 
of that nature. Then it came out that the backers of the initiative 
were the tobacco companies. They were doing it to undercut local 
ordinances that were stricter than what they were trying to put into 
place at the State level.
  Support for the initiative dropped like a stone because people aren't 
stupid. They know that they have to consider the source of the 
information when information is sent to them.
  The American voters have a right to know who is spending money to 
influence them.
  I would like to say that this measure deserves the support of every 
Member of this body. To say that the Senate will take it up--I would 
hate to think that the Senate cares so little about protecting our 
country from foreign influence that they would simply say no.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this bill. I think it is important for 
our country. I think it is essential for our democracy.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on House Administration, printed in the bill, it shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-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 House Report 116-253. That amendment in 
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 4617

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Stopping 
     Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy 
     Act'' or the ``SHIELD Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                TITLE I--ENHANCED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

 Subtitle A--Establishing Duty to Report Foreign Election Interference

Sec. 101. Federal campaign reporting of foreign contacts.
Sec. 102. Federal campaign foreign contact reporting compliance system.
Sec. 103. Criminal penalties.
Sec. 104. Rule of construction.

  Subtitle B--Strengthening Oversight of Online Political Advertising

Sec. 111. Short title.
Sec. 112. Purpose.
Sec. 113. Expansion of definition of public communication.
Sec. 114. Expansion of definition of electioneering communication.
Sec. 115. Application of disclaimer statements to online 
              communications.
Sec. 116. Political record requirements for online platforms.
Sec. 117. Preventing contributions, expenditures, independent 
              expenditures, and disbursements for electioneering 
              communications by foreign nationals in the form of online 
              advertising.

 TITLE II--CLOSING LOOPHOLES ALLOWING SPENDING BY FOREIGN NATIONALS IN 
                               ELECTIONS

Sec. 201. Clarification of prohibition on participation by foreign 
              nationals in election-related activities.
Sec. 202. Clarification of application of foreign money ban to certain 
              disbursements and activities.
Sec. 203. Audit and report on illicit foreign money in Federal 
              elections.
Sec. 204. Prohibition on contributions and donations by foreign 
              nationals in connections with ballot initiatives and 
              referenda.
Sec. 205. Expansion of limitations on foreign nationals participating 
              in political advertising.

         TITLE III--DETERRING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS

   Subtitle A--Deterrence Under Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

Sec. 301. Restrictions on exchange of campaign information between 
              candidates and foreign powers.
Sec. 302. Clarification of standard for determining existence of 
              coordination between campaigns and outside interests.

   Subtitle B--Prohibiting Deceptive Practices and Preventing Voter 
                              Intimidation

Sec. 311. Short title.
Sec. 312. Prohibition on deceptive practices in Federal elections.

[[Page H8419]]

Sec. 313. Corrective action.
Sec. 314. Reports to Congress.

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Effective dates of provisions.
Sec. 402. Severability.

                TITLE I--ENHANCED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

 Subtitle A--Establishing Duty to Report Foreign Election Interference

     SEC. 101. FEDERAL CAMPAIGN REPORTING OF FOREIGN CONTACTS.

       (a) Initial Notice.--
       (1) In general.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30104) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Disclosure of Reportable Foreign Contacts.--
       ``(1) Committee obligation to notify.--Not later than 1 
     week after a reportable foreign contact, each political 
     committee shall notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     and the Commission of the reportable foreign contact and 
     provide a summary of the circumstances with respect to such 
     reportable foreign contact.
       ``(2) Individual obligation to notify.--Not later than 3 
     days after a reportable foreign contact--
       ``(A) each candidate shall notify the treasurer or other 
     designated official of the principal campaign committee of 
     such candidate of the reportable foreign contact and provide 
     a summary of the circumstances with respect to such 
     reportable foreign contact; and
       ``(B) each official, employee, or agent of a political 
     committee shall notify the treasurer or other designated 
     official of the committee of the reportable foreign contact 
     and provide a summary of the circumstances with respect to 
     such reportable foreign contact.
       ``(3) Reportable foreign contact.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) In general.--The term `reportable foreign contact' 
     means any direct or indirect contact or communication that--
       ``(i) is between--

       ``(I) a candidate, a political committee, or any official, 
     employee, or agent of such committee; and
       ``(II) an individual that the person described in subclause 
     (I) knows, has reason to know, or reasonably believes is a 
     covered foreign national; and

       ``(ii) the person described in clause (i)(I) knows, has 
     reason to know, or reasonably believes involves--

       ``(I) an offer or other proposal for a contribution, 
     donation, expenditure, disbursement, or solicitation 
     described in section 319; or
       ``(II) coordination or collaboration with, an offer or 
     provision of information or services to or from, or 
     persistent and repeated contact with, a covered foreign 
     national in connection with an election.

       ``(B) Exceptions.--
       ``(i) Contacts in official capacity as elected official.--
     The term `reportable foreign contact' shall not include any 
     contact or communication with a covered foreign national by 
     an elected official or an employee of an elected official 
     solely in an official capacity as such an official or 
     employee.
       (ii) Contacts for purposes of enabling observation of 
     elections by international observers.--The term `reportable 
     foreign contact' shall not include any contact or 
     communication with a covered foreign national by any person 
     which is made for purposes of enabling the observation of 
     elections in the United States by a foreign national or 
     observation of elections outside of the United States by a 
     candidate, political committee, or any official, employee, or 
     agent of such committee.
       (iii) Exceptions not applicable if contacts or 
     communications involve prohibited disbursements.--A contact 
     or communication by an elected official or an employee of an 
     elected official shall not be considered to be made solely in 
     an official capacity for purposes of clause (i), and a 
     contact or communication shall not be considered to be made 
     for purposes of enabling the observation of elections for 
     purposes of clause (ii), if the contact or communication 
     involves a contribution, donation, expenditure, disbursement, 
     or solicitation described in section 319.
       ``(C) Covered foreign national defined.--
       ``(i) In general.--In this paragraph, the term `covered 
     foreign national' means--

       ``(I) a foreign principal (as defined in section 1(b) of 
     the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (22 U.S.C. 
     611(b)) that is a government of a foreign country or a 
     foreign political party;
       ``(II) any person who acts as an agent, representative, 
     employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other 
     capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or 
     control, of a foreign principal described in subclause (I) or 
     of a person any of whose activities are directly or 
     indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or 
     subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal 
     described in subclause (I); or
       ``(III) any person included in the list of specially 
     designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the 
     Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the 
     Treasury pursuant to authorities relating to the imposition 
     of sanctions relating to the conduct of a foreign principal 
     described in subclause (I).

       ``(ii) Clarification regarding application to citizens of 
     the united states.--In the case of a citizen of the United 
     States, subclause (II) of clause (i) applies only to the 
     extent that the person involved acts within the scope of that 
     person's status as the agent of a foreign principal described 
     in subclause (I) of clause (i).''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to reportable foreign contacts which 
     occur on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Information Included on Report.--
       (1) In general.--Section 304(b) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 
     30104(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) for any reportable foreign contact (as defined in 
     subsection (j)(3))--
       ``(A) the date, time, and location of the contact;
       ``(B) the date and time of when a designated official of 
     the committee was notified of the contact;
       ``(C) the identity of individuals involved; and
       ``(D) a description of the contact, including the nature of 
     any contribution, donation, expenditure, disbursement, or 
     solicitation involved and the nature of any activity 
     described in subsection (j)(3)(A)(ii)(II) involved.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to reports filed on or after the 
     expiration of the 60-day period which begins on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 102. FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FOREIGN CONTACT REPORTING 
                   COMPLIANCE SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Section 302 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30102) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Reportable Foreign Contacts Compliance Policy.--
       ``(1) Reporting.--Each political committee shall establish 
     a policy that requires all officials, employees, and agents 
     of such committee to notify the treasurer or other 
     appropriate designated official of the committee of any 
     reportable foreign contact (as defined in section 304(j)) not 
     later than 3 days after such contact was made.
       ``(2) Retention and preservation of records.--Each 
     political committee shall establish a policy that provides 
     for the retention and preservation of records and information 
     related to reportable foreign contacts (as so defined) for a 
     period of not less than 3 years.
       ``(3) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon filing its statement of 
     organization under section 303(a), and with each report filed 
     under section 304(a), the treasurer of each political 
     committee (other than an authorized committee) shall certify 
     that--
       ``(i) the committee has in place policies that meet the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2);
       ``(ii) the committee has designated an official to monitor 
     compliance with such policies; and
       ``(iii) not later than 1 week after the beginning of any 
     formal or informal affiliation with the committee, all 
     officials, employees, and agents of such committee will--

       ``(I) receive notice of such policies;
       ``(II) be informed of the prohibitions under section 319; 
     and
       ``(III) sign a certification affirming their understanding 
     of such policies and prohibitions.

       ``(B) Authorized committees.--With respect to an authorized 
     committee, the candidate shall make the certification 
     required under subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
     apply with respect to political committees which file a 
     statement of organization under section 303(a) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30103(a)) on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Transition rule for existing committees.--Not later 
     than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     each political committee under the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 shall file a certification with the Federal 
     Election Commission that the committee is in compliance with 
     the requirements of section 302(j) of such Act (as added by 
     subsection (a)).

     SEC. 103. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

       Section 309(d)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (52 U.S.C. 30109(d)(1)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(E) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a 
     violation of subsection (j) or (b)(9) of section 304 or 
     section 302(j) shall be fined not more than $500,000, 
     imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(F) Any person who knowingly and willfully conceals or 
     destroys any materials relating to a reportable foreign 
     contact (as defined in section 304(j)) shall be fined not 
     more than $1,000,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or 
     both.''.

     SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this subtitle or the amendments made by this 
     subtitle shall be construed--
       (1) to impede legitimate journalistic activities; or
       (2) to impose any additional limitation on the right to 
     express political views or to participate in public discourse 
     of any individual who--
       (A) resides in the United States;
       (B) is not a citizen of the United States or a national of 
     the United States, as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)); and
       (C) is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as 
     defined by section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)).

  Subtitle B--Strengthening Oversight of Online Political Advertising

     SEC. 111. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Honest Ads Act''.

     SEC. 112. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this subtitle is to enhance the integrity of 
     American democracy and national security by improving 
     disclosure requirements for online political advertisements 
     in order to

[[Page H8420]]

     uphold the Supreme Court's well-established standard that the 
     electorate bears the right to be fully informed.

     SEC. 113. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101(22)) 
     is amended by striking ``or satellite communication'' and 
     inserting ``satellite, paid internet, or paid digital 
     communication''.
       (b) Treatment of Contributions and Expenditures.--Section 
     301 of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30101) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (8)(B)(v), by striking ``on broadcasting 
     stations, or in newspapers, magazines, or similar types of 
     general public political advertising'' and inserting ``in any 
     public communication''; and
       (2) in paragraph (9)(B)--
       (A) by amending clause (i) to read as follows:
       ``(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed 
     through the facilities of any broadcasting station or any 
     print, online, or digital newspaper, magazine, blog, 
     publication, or periodical, unless such broadcasting, print, 
     online, or digital facilities are owned or controlled by any 
     political party, political committee, or candidate;''; and
       (B) in clause (iv), by striking ``on broadcasting stations, 
     or in newspapers, magazines, or similar types of general 
     public political advertising'' and inserting ``in any public 
     communication''.
       (c) Disclosure and Disclaimer Statements.--Subsection (a) 
     of section 318 of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30120) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``financing any communication through any 
     broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor 
     advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general 
     public political advertising'' and inserting ``financing any 
     public communication''; and
       (2) by striking ``solicits any contribution through any 
     broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, outdoor 
     advertising facility, mailing, or any other type of general 
     public political advertising'' and inserting ``solicits any 
     contribution through any public communication''.

     SEC. 114. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ELECTIONEERING 
                   COMMUNICATION.

       (a) Expansion to Online Communications.--
       (1) Application to qualified internet and digital 
     communications.--
       (A) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 304(f)(3) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 
     30104(f)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``or satellite 
     communication'' each place it appears in clauses (i) and (ii) 
     and inserting ``satellite, or qualified internet or digital 
     communication''.
       (B) Qualified internet or digital communication.--Paragraph 
     (3) of section 304(f) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30104(f)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Qualified internet or digital communication.--The 
     term `qualified internet or digital communication' means any 
     communication which is placed or promoted for a fee on an 
     online platform (as defined in subsection (k)(3)).''.
       (2) Nonapplication of relevant electorate to online 
     communications.--Section 304(f)(3)(A)(i)(III) of such Act (52 
     U.S.C. 30104(f)(3)(A)(i)(III)) is amended by inserting ``any 
     broadcast, cable, or satellite'' before ``communication''.
       (3) News exemption.--Section 304(f)(3)(B)(i) of such Act 
     (52 U.S.C. 30104(f)(3)(B)(i)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) a communication appearing in a news story, 
     commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities 
     of any broadcasting station or any online or digital 
     newspaper, magazine, blog, publication, or periodical, unless 
     such broadcasting, online, or digital facilities are owned or 
     controlled by any political party, political committee, or 
     candidate;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to communications made on or after 
     January 1, 2020.

     SEC. 115. APPLICATION OF DISCLAIMER STATEMENTS TO ONLINE 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       (a) Clear and Conspicuous Manner Requirement.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (52 U.S.C. 30120(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``shall clearly state'' each place it 
     appears in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and inserting ``shall 
     state in a clear and conspicuous manner''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following flush sentence: 
     ``For purposes of this section, a communication does not make 
     a statement in a clear and conspicuous manner if it is 
     difficult to read or hear or if the placement is easily 
     overlooked.''.
       (b) Special Rules for Qualified Internet or Digital 
     Communications.--
       (1) In general.--Section 318 of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30120) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Special Rules for Qualified Internet or Digital 
     Communications.--
       ``(1) Special rules with respect to statements.--In the 
     case of any communication to which this section applies which 
     is a qualified internet or digital communication (as defined 
     in section 304(f)(3)(D)) which is disseminated through a 
     medium in which the provision of all of the information 
     specified in this section is not possible, the communication 
     shall, in a clear and conspicuous manner--
       ``(A) state the name of the person who paid for the 
     communication; and
       ``(B) provide a means for the recipient of the 
     communication to obtain the remainder of the information 
     required under this section with minimal effort and without 
     receiving or viewing any additional material other than such 
     required information.
       ``(2) Safe harbor for determining clear and conspicuous 
     manner.--A statement in a qualified internet or digital 
     communication (as defined in section 304(f)(3)(D)) shall be 
     considered to be made in a clear and conspicuous manner as 
     provided in subsection (a) if the communication meets the 
     following requirements:
       ``(A) Text or graphic communications.--In the case of a 
     text or graphic communication, the statement--
       ``(i) appears in letters at least as large as the majority 
     of the text in the communication; and
       ``(ii) meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     subsection (c).
       ``(B) Audio communications.--In the case of an audio 
     communication, the statement is spoken in a clearly audible 
     and intelligible manner at the beginning or end of the 
     communication and lasts at least 3 seconds.
       ``(C) Video communications.--In the case of a video 
     communication which also includes audio, the statement--
       ``(i) is included at either the beginning or the end of the 
     communication; and
       ``(ii) is made both in--

       ``(I) a written format that meets the requirements of 
     subparagraph (A) and appears for at least 4 seconds; and
       ``(II) an audible format that meets the requirements of 
     subparagraph (B).

       ``(D) Other communications.--In the case of any other type 
     of communication, the statement is at least as clear and 
     conspicuous as the statement specified in subparagraph (A), 
     (B), or (C).''.
       (2) Nonapplication of certain exceptions.--The exceptions 
     provided in section 110.11(f)(1)(i) and (ii) of title 11, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor to such rules, 
     shall have no application to qualified internet or digital 
     communications (as defined in section 304(f)(3)(D) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as added by this Act).
       (c) Modification of Additional Requirements for Certain 
     Communications.--Section 318(d) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 
     30120(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``which is transmitted through radio'' and 
     inserting ``which is in an audio format''; and
       (B) by striking ``By radio'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``Audio format'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``which is transmitted through television'' 
     and inserting ``which is in video format''; and
       (B) by striking ``By television'' in the heading and 
     inserting ``Video format''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``transmitted through radio or television'' 
     and inserting ``made in audio or video format''; and
       (B) by striking ``through television'' in the second 
     sentence and inserting ``in video format''.

     SEC. 116. POLITICAL RECORD REQUIREMENTS FOR ONLINE PLATFORMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 304 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30104), as amended by section 
     101(a), is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(k) Disclosure of Certain Online Advertisements.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Requirements for online platforms.--An online 
     platform shall maintain, and make available for online public 
     inspection in machine readable format, a complete record of 
     any request to purchase on such online platform a qualified 
     political advertisement which is made by a person whose 
     aggregate requests to purchase qualified political 
     advertisements on such online platform during the calendar 
     year exceeds $500.
       ``(B) Requirements for advertisers.--Any person who 
     requests to purchase a qualified political advertisement on 
     an online platform shall provide the online platform with 
     such information as is necessary for the online platform to 
     comply with the requirements of subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Contents of record.--A record maintained under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall contain--
       ``(A) a digital copy of the qualified political 
     advertisement;
       ``(B) a description of the audience targeted by the 
     advertisement, the number of views generated from the 
     advertisement, and the date and time that the advertisement 
     is first displayed and last displayed; and
       ``(C) information regarding--
       ``(i) the average rate charged for the advertisement;
       ``(ii) the name of the candidate to which the advertisement 
     refers and the office to which the candidate is seeking 
     election, the election to which the advertisement refers, or 
     the national legislative issue to which the advertisement 
     refers (as applicable);
       ``(iii) in the case of a request made by, or on behalf of, 
     a candidate, the name of the candidate, the authorized 
     committee of the candidate, and the treasurer of such 
     committee; and
       ``(iv) in the case of any request not described in clause 
     (iii), the name of the person purchasing the advertisement, 
     the name and address of a contact person for such person, and 
     a list of the chief executive officers or members of the 
     executive committee or of the board of directors of such 
     person.
       ``(3) Online platform.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `online platform' means any public-facing website, 
     web application, or digital application (including a social 
     network, ad network, or search engine) which--
       ``(A) sells qualified political advertisements; and
       ``(B) has 50,000,000 or more unique monthly United States 
     visitors or users for a majority of months during the 
     preceding 12 months.

[[Page H8421]]

       ``(4) Qualified political advertisement.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `qualified political advertisement' 
     means any advertisement (including search engine marketing, 
     display advertisements, video advertisements, native 
     advertisements, and sponsorships) that--
       ``(A) is made by or on behalf of a candidate; or
       ``(B) communicates a message relating to any political 
     matter of national importance, including--
       ``(i) a candidate;
       ``(ii) any election to Federal office; or
       ``(iii) a national legislative issue of public importance.
       ``(5) Time to maintain file.--The information required 
     under this subsection shall be made available as soon as 
     possible and shall be retained by the online platform for a 
     period of not less than 4 years.
       ``(6) Safe harbor for platforms making best efforts to 
     identify requests which are subject to record maintenance 
     requirements.--In accordance with rules established by the 
     Commission, if an online platform shows that the platform 
     used best efforts to determine whether or not a request to 
     purchase a qualified political advertisement was subject to 
     the requirements of this subsection, the online platform 
     shall not be considered to be in violation of such 
     requirements.
       ``(7) Penalties.--For penalties for failure by online 
     platforms, and persons requesting to purchase a qualified 
     political advertisement on online platforms, to comply with 
     the requirements of this subsection, see section 309.''.
       (b) Rulemaking.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Federal Election Commission 
     shall establish rules--
       (1) requiring common data formats for the record required 
     to be maintained under section 304(k) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by subsection (a)) so that all 
     online platforms submit and maintain data online in a common, 
     machine-readable and publicly accessible format;
       (2) establishing search interface requirements relating to 
     such record, including searches by candidate name, issue, 
     purchaser, and date; and
       (3) establishing the criteria for the safe harbor exception 
     provided under paragraph (6) of section 304(k) of such Act 
     (as added by subsection (a)).
       (c) Reporting.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and biannually thereafter, the 
     Chairman of the Federal Election Commission shall submit a 
     report to Congress on--
       (1) matters relating to compliance with and the enforcement 
     of the requirements of section 304(k) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971, as added by subsection (a);
       (2) recommendations for any modifications to such section 
     to assist in carrying out its purposes; and
       (3) identifying ways to bring transparency and 
     accountability to political advertisements distributed online 
     for free.

     SEC. 117. PREVENTING CONTRIBUTIONS, EXPENDITURES, INDEPENDENT 
                   EXPENDITURES, AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR 
                   ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS BY FOREIGN 
                   NATIONALS IN THE FORM OF ONLINE ADVERTISING.

       Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (52 U.S.C. 30121) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Responsibilities of Broadcast Stations, Providers of 
     Cable and Satellite Television, and Online Platforms.--
       ``(1) Responsibilities described.--Each television or radio 
     broadcast station, provider of cable or satellite television, 
     or online platform (as defined in section 304(k)(3)) shall 
     make reasonable efforts to ensure that communications 
     described in section 318(a) and made available by such 
     station, provider, or platform are not purchased by a foreign 
     national, directly or indirectly. For purposes of the 
     previous sentence, a station, provider, or online platform 
     shall not be considered to have made reasonable efforts under 
     this paragraph in the case of the availability of a 
     communication unless the station, provider, or online 
     platform directly inquires from the individual or entity 
     making such purchase whether the purchase is to be made by a 
     foreign national, directly or indirectly.
       ``(2) Special rules for disbursement paid with credit 
     card.--For purposes of paragraph (1), a television or radio 
     broadcast station, provider of cable or satellite television, 
     or online platform shall be considered to have made 
     reasonable efforts under such paragraph in the case of a 
     purchase of the availability of a communication which is made 
     with a credit card if--
       ``(A) the individual or entity making such purchase is 
     required, at the time of making such purchase, to disclose 
     the credit verification value of such credit card; and
       ``(B) the billing address associated with such credit card 
     is located in the United States or, in the case of a purchase 
     made by an individual who is a United States citizen living 
     outside of the United States, the individual provides the 
     television or radio broadcast station, provider of cable or 
     satellite television, or online platform with the United 
     States mailing address the individual uses for voter 
     registration purposes.''.

 TITLE II--CLOSING LOOPHOLES ALLOWING SPENDING BY FOREIGN NATIONALS IN 
                               ELECTIONS

     SEC. 201. CLARIFICATION OF PROHIBITION ON PARTICIPATION BY 
                   FOREIGN NATIONALS IN ELECTION-RELATED 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Clarification of Prohibition.--Section 319(a) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) a foreign national to direct, dictate, control, or 
     directly or indirectly participate in the decision making 
     process of any person (including a corporation, labor 
     organization, political committee, or political organization) 
     with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-
     related activity, including any decision concerning the 
     making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or 
     disbursements in connection with an election for any Federal, 
     State, or local office or any decision concerning the 
     administration of a political committee.''.
       (b) Certification of Compliance.--Section 319 of such Act 
     (52 U.S.C. 30121), as amended by section 117, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Certification of Compliance Required Prior to 
     Carrying Out Activity.--Prior to the making in connection 
     with an election for Federal office of any contribution, 
     donation, expenditure, independent expenditure, or 
     disbursement for an electioneering communication by a 
     corporation, labor organization (as defined in section 
     316(b)), limited liability corporation, or partnership during 
     a year, the chief executive officer of the corporation, labor 
     organization, limited liability corporation, or partnership 
     (or, if the corporation, labor organization, limited 
     liability corporation, or partnership does not have a chief 
     executive officer, the highest ranking official of the 
     corporation, labor organization, limited liability 
     corporation, or partnership), shall file a certification with 
     the Commission, under penalty of perjury, that a foreign 
     national did not direct, dictate, control, or directly or 
     indirectly participate in the decision making process 
     relating to such activity in violation of subsection (a)(3), 
     unless the chief executive officer has previously filed such 
     a certification during that calendar year.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect upon the expiration of the 180-day period 
     which begins on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 202. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF FOREIGN MONEY BAN 
                   TO CERTAIN DISBURSEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Application to Disbursements to Super PACs.--Section 
     319(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 
     U.S.C. 30121(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking the semicolon 
     and inserting the following: ``, including any disbursement 
     to a political committee which accepts donations or 
     contributions that do not comply with the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act (or any 
     disbursement to or on behalf of any account of a political 
     committee which is established for the purpose of accepting 
     such donations or contributions);''.
       (b) Conditions Under Which Corporate PACs May Make 
     Contributions and Expenditures.--Section 316(b) of such Act 
     (52 U.S.C. 30118(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(8) A separate segregated fund established by a 
     corporation may not make a contribution or expenditure during 
     a year unless the fund has certified to the Commission the 
     following during the year:
       ``(A) Each individual who manages the fund, and who is 
     responsible for exercising decisionmaking authority for the 
     fund, is a citizen of the United States or is lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence in the United States.
       ``(B) No foreign national under section 319 participates in 
     any way in the decisionmaking processes of the fund with 
     regard to contributions or expenditures under this Act.
       ``(C) The fund does not solicit or accept recommendations 
     from any foreign national under section 319 with respect to 
     the contributions or expenditures made by the fund.
       ``(D) Any member of the board of directors of the 
     corporation who is a foreign national under section 319 
     abstains from voting on matters concerning the fund or its 
     activities.''.

     SEC. 203. AUDIT AND REPORT ON ILLICIT FOREIGN MONEY IN 
                   FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 319 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 319A. AUDIT AND REPORT ON DISBURSEMENTS BY FOREIGN 
                   NATIONALS.

       ``(a) Audit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct an audit 
     after each Federal election cycle to determine the incidence 
     of illicit foreign money in such Federal election cycle.
       ``(2) Procedures.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the 
     Commission shall conduct random audits of any disbursements 
     required to be reported under this Act, in accordance with 
     procedures established by the Commission.
       ``(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the end of 
     each Federal election cycle, the Commission shall submit to 
     Congress a report containing--
       ``(1) results of the audit required by subsection (a)(1); 
     and
       ``(2) recommendations to address the presence of illicit 
     foreign money in elections, as appropriate.
       ``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) The term `Federal election cycle' means the period 
     which begins on the day after the date of a regularly 
     scheduled general election for Federal office and which ends 
     on the date of the first regularly scheduled general election 
     for Federal office held after such date.
       ``(2) The term `illicit foreign money' means any 
     disbursement by a foreign national (as defined in section 
     319(b)) prohibited under such section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to the

[[Page H8422]]

     Federal election cycle that began during November 2018, and 
     each succeeding Federal election cycle.

     SEC. 204. PROHIBITION ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS BY 
                   FOREIGN NATIONALS IN CONNECTIONS WITH BALLOT 
                   INITIATIVES AND REFERENDA.

       (a) In General.--Section 319(a)(1)(A) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(1)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``election'' and inserting the following: 
     ``election, including a State or local ballot initiative or 
     referendum''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to elections held in 2020 or any 
     succeeding year.

     SEC. 205. EXPANSION OF LIMITATIONS ON FOREIGN NATIONALS 
                   PARTICIPATING IN POLITICAL ADVERTISING.

       (a) Disbursements Described.--Section 319(a)(1) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(1)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) an expenditure;
       ``(D) an independent expenditure;
       ``(E) a disbursement for an electioneering communication 
     (within the meaning of section 304(f)(3));
       ``(F) a disbursement for a communication which is placed or 
     promoted for a fee on a website, web application, or digital 
     application that refers to a clearly identified candidate for 
     election for Federal office and is disseminated within 60 
     days before a general, special or runoff election for the 
     office sought by the candidate or 30 days before a primary or 
     preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political 
     party that has authority to nominate a candidate for the 
     office sought by the candidate;
       ``(G) a disbursement for a broadcast, cable or satellite 
     communication, or for a communication which is placed or 
     promoted for a fee on a website, web application, or digital 
     application, that promotes, supports, attacks or opposes the 
     election of a clearly identified candidate for Federal, 
     State, or local office (regardless of whether the 
     communication contains express advocacy or the functional 
     equivalent of express advocacy);
       ``(H) a disbursement for a broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communication, or for any communication which is placed or 
     promoted for a fee on an online platform (as defined in 
     section 304(k)(3)), that discusses a national legislative 
     issue of public importance in a year in which a regularly 
     scheduled general election for Federal office is held, but 
     only if the disbursement is made by a covered foreign 
     national described in section 304(j)(3)(C); or
       ``(I) a disbursement by a covered foreign national 
     described in section 304(j)(3)(C) to compensate any person 
     for internet activity that promotes, supports, attacks or 
     opposes the election of a clearly identified candidate for 
     Federal, State, or local office (regardless of whether the 
     activity communication contains express advocacy or the 
     functional equivalent of express advocacy);''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to disbursements made on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

         TITLE III--DETERRING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS

   Subtitle A--Deterrence Under Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

     SEC. 301. RESTRICTIONS ON EXCHANGE OF CAMPAIGN INFORMATION 
                   BETWEEN CANDIDATES AND FOREIGN POWERS.

       Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (52 U.S.C. 30121), as amended by section 117 and section 
     201(b), is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(e) Restrictions on Exchange of Information Between 
     Candidates and Foreign Powers.--
       ``(1) Treatment of offer to share nonpublic campaign 
     material as solicitation of contribution from foreign 
     national.--If a candidate or an individual affiliated with 
     the campaign of a candidate, or if a political committee or 
     an individual affiliated with a political committee, provides 
     or offers to provide nonpublic campaign material to a covered 
     foreign national or to another person whom the candidate, 
     committee, or individual knows or has reason to know will 
     provide the material to a covered foreign national, the 
     candidate, committee, or individual (as the case may be) 
     shall be considered for purposes of this section to have 
     solicited a contribution or donation described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) from a foreign national.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) The term `candidate' means an individual who seeks 
     nomination for, or election to, any Federal, State, or local 
     public office.
       ``(B) The term `covered foreign national' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 304(j)(3)(C).
       ``(C) The term `individual affiliated with a campaign' 
     means, with respect to a candidate, an employee of any 
     organization legally authorized under Federal, State, or 
     local law to support the candidate's campaign for nomination 
     for, or election to, any Federal, State, or local public 
     office, as well as any independent contractor of such an 
     organization and any individual who performs services on 
     behalf of the organization, whether paid or unpaid.
       ``(D) The term `individual affiliated with a political 
     committee' means, with respect to a political committee, an 
     employee of the committee as well as any independent 
     contractor of the committee and any individual who performs 
     services on behalf of the committee, whether paid or unpaid.
       ``(E) The term `nonpublic campaign material' means, with 
     respect to a candidate or a political committee, campaign 
     material that is produced by the candidate or the committee 
     or produced at the candidate or committee's expense or 
     request which is not distributed or made available to the 
     general public or otherwise in the public domain, including 
     polling and focus group data and opposition research, except 
     that such term does not include material produced for 
     purposes of consultations relating solely to the candidate's 
     or committee's position on a legislative or policy matter.''.

     SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION OF STANDARD FOR DETERMINING EXISTENCE 
                   OF COORDINATION BETWEEN CAMPAIGNS AND OUTSIDE 
                   INTERESTS.

       Section 315(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (52 U.S.C. 30116(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(10) For purposes of paragraph (7), an expenditure or 
     disbursement may be considered to have been made in 
     cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or coordinated 
     with, a person without regard to whether or not the 
     cooperation, consultation, or coordination is carried out 
     pursuant to agreement or formal collaboration.''.

   Subtitle B--Prohibiting Deceptive Practices and Preventing Voter 
                              Intimidation

     SEC. 311. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Deceptive Practices and 
     Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 312. PROHIBITION ON DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN FEDERAL 
                   ELECTIONS.

       (a) Prohibition.--Subsection (b) of section 2004 of the 
     Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10101(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No person'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--No person''; and
       (2) by inserting at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) False statements regarding federal elections.--
       ``(A) Prohibition.--No person, whether acting under color 
     of law or otherwise, shall, within 60 days before an election 
     described in paragraph (5), by any means, including by means 
     of written, electronic, or telephonic communications, 
     communicate or cause to be communicated information described 
     in subparagraph (B), or produce information described in 
     subparagraph (B) with the intent that such information be 
     communicated, if such person--
       ``(i) knows such information to be materially false; and
       ``(ii) has the intent to impede or prevent another person 
     from exercising the right to vote in an election described in 
     paragraph (5).
       ``(B) Information described.--Information is described in 
     this subparagraph if such information is regarding--
       ``(i) the time, place, or manner of holding any election 
     described in paragraph (5); or
       ``(ii) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter 
     eligibility for any such election, including--

       ``(I) any criminal penalties associated with voting in any 
     such election; or
       ``(II) information regarding a voter's registration status 
     or eligibility.

       ``(3) False statements regarding public endorsements.--
       ``(A) Prohibition.--No person, whether acting under color 
     of law or otherwise, shall, within 60 days before an election 
     described in paragraph (5), by any means, including by means 
     of written, electronic, or telephonic communications, 
     communicate, or cause to be communicated, a materially false 
     statement about an endorsement, if such person--
       ``(i) knows such statement to be false; and
       ``(ii) has the intent to impede or prevent another person 
     from exercising the right to vote in an election described in 
     paragraph (5).
       ``(B) Definition of `materially false'.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), a statement about an endorsement is 
     `materially false' if, with respect to an upcoming election 
     described in paragraph (5)--
       ``(i) the statement states that a specifically named 
     person, political party, or organization has endorsed the 
     election of a specific candidate for a Federal office 
     described in such paragraph; and
       ``(ii) such person, political party, or organization has 
     not endorsed the election of such candidate.
       ``(4) Hindering, interfering with, or preventing voting or 
     registering to vote.--No person, whether acting under color 
     of law or otherwise, shall intentionally hinder, interfere 
     with, or prevent another person from voting, registering to 
     vote, or aiding another person to vote or register to vote in 
     an election described in paragraph (5).
       ``(5) Election described.--An election described in this 
     paragraph is any general, primary, run-off, or special 
     election held solely or in part for the purpose of nominating 
     or electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice 
     President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member 
     of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner 
     from a Territory or possession.''.
       (b) Private Right of Action.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 2004 of the 
     Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10101(c)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Whenever any person'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Whenever any person''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection 
     (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) may institute a civil action for 
     preventive relief, including an

[[Page H8423]]

     application in a United States district court for a permanent 
     or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order. 
     In any such action, the court, in its discretion, may allow 
     the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of 
     the costs.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subsection (e) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes 
     (52 U.S.C. 10101(e)) is amended by striking ``subsection 
     (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(1)''.
       (B) Subsection (g) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes 
     (52 U.S.C. 10101(g)) is amended by striking ``subsection 
     (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(1)''.
       (c) Criminal Penalties.--
       (1) Deceptive acts.--Section 594 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Intimidation.--Whoever'';
       (B) in subsection (a), as inserted by subparagraph (A), by 
     striking ``at any election'' and inserting ``at any general, 
     primary, run-off, or special election''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(b) Deceptive Acts.--
       ``(1) False statements regarding federal elections.--
       ``(A) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person, 
     whether acting under color of law or otherwise, within 60 
     days before an election described in subsection (e), by any 
     means, including by means of written, electronic, or 
     telephonic communications, to communicate or cause to be 
     communicated information described in subparagraph (B), or 
     produce information described in subparagraph (B) with the 
     intent that such information be communicated, if such 
     person--
       ``(i) knows such information to be materially false; and
       ``(ii) has the intent to mislead voters, or the intent to 
     impede or prevent another person from exercising the right to 
     vote in an election described in subsection (e).
       ``(B) Information described.--Information is described in 
     this subparagraph if such information is regarding--
       ``(i) the time or place of holding any election described 
     in subsection (e); or
       ``(ii) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter 
     eligibility for any such election, including--

       ``(I) any criminal penalties associated with voting in any 
     such election; or
       ``(II) information regarding a voter's registration status 
     or eligibility.

       ``(2) Penalty.--Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall 
     be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 
     5 years, or both.
       ``(c) Hindering, Interfering With, or Preventing Voting or 
     Registering To Vote.--
       ``(1) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person, 
     whether acting under color of law or otherwise, to 
     intentionally hinder, interfere with, or prevent another 
     person from voting, registering to vote, or aiding another 
     person to vote or register to vote in an election described 
     in subsection (e).
       ``(2) Penalty.--Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall 
     be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 
     5 years, or both.
       ``(d) Attempt.--Any person who attempts to commit any 
     offense described in subsection (a), (b)(1), or (c)(1) shall 
     be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the 
     offense that the person attempted to commit.
       ``(e) Election Described.--An election described in this 
     subsection is any general, primary, run-off, or special 
     election held solely or in part for the purpose of nominating 
     or electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice 
     President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member 
     of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner 
     from a Territory or possession.''.
       (2) Modification of penalty for voter intimidation.--
     Section 594(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by 
     paragraph (1), is amended by striking ``fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than one year'' and inserting 
     ``fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 
     5 years''.
       (3) Sentencing guidelines.--
       (A) Review and amendment.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission, pursuant to its authority under 
     section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in 
     accordance with this section, shall review and, if 
     appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and 
     policy statements applicable to persons convicted of any 
     offense under section 594 of title 18, United States Code, as 
     amended by this section.
       (B) Authorization.--The United States Sentencing Commission 
     may amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in accordance 
     with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of the 
     Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 U.S.C. 994 note) as though the 
     authority under that section had not expired.
       (4) Payments for refraining from voting.--Subsection (c) of 
     section 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10307) 
     is amended by striking ``either for registration to vote or 
     for voting'' and inserting ``for registration to vote, for 
     voting, or for not voting''.

     SEC. 313. CORRECTIVE ACTION.

       (a) Corrective Action.--
       (1) In general.--If the Attorney General receives a 
     credible report that materially false information has been or 
     is being communicated in violation of paragraphs (2) and (3) 
     of section 2004(b) of the Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 
     10101(b)), as added by section 312(a), and if the Attorney 
     General determines that State and local election officials 
     have not taken adequate steps to promptly communicate 
     accurate information to correct the materially false 
     information, the Attorney General shall, pursuant to the 
     written procedures and standards under subsection (b), 
     communicate to the public, by any means, including by means 
     of written, electronic, or telephonic communications, 
     accurate information designed to correct the materially false 
     information.
       (2) Communication of corrective information.--Any 
     information communicated by the Attorney General under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) shall--
       (i) be accurate and objective;
       (ii) consist of only the information necessary to correct 
     the materially false information that has been or is being 
     communicated; and
       (iii) to the extent practicable, be by a means that the 
     Attorney General determines will reach the persons to whom 
     the materially false information has been or is being 
     communicated; and
       (B) shall not be designed to favor or disfavor any 
     particular candidate, organization, or political party.
       (b) Written Procedures and Standards for Taking Corrective 
     Action.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall publish 
     written procedures and standards for determining when and how 
     corrective action will be taken under this section.
       (2) Inclusion of appropriate deadlines.--The procedures and 
     standards under paragraph (1) shall include appropriate 
     deadlines, based in part on the number of days remaining 
     before the upcoming election.
       (3) Consultation.--In developing the procedures and 
     standards under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall 
     consult with the Election Assistance Commission, State and 
     local election officials, civil rights organizations, voting 
     rights groups, voter protection groups, and other interested 
     community organizations.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Attorney General such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out this subtitle.

     SEC. 314. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after each general 
     election for Federal office, the Attorney General shall 
     submit to Congress a report compiling all allegations 
     received by the Attorney General of deceptive practices 
     described in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of section 2004(b) 
     of the Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10101(b)), as added by 
     section 312(a), relating to the general election for Federal 
     office and any primary, run-off, or a special election for 
     Federal office held in the 2 years preceding the general 
     election.
       (b) Contents.--
       (1) In general.--Each report submitted under subsection (a) 
     shall include--
       (A) a description of each allegation of a deceptive 
     practice described in subsection (a), including the 
     geographic location, racial and ethnic composition, and 
     language minority-group membership of the persons toward whom 
     the alleged deceptive practice was directed;
       (B) the status of the investigation of each allegation 
     described in subparagraph (A);
       (C) a description of each corrective action taken by the 
     Attorney General under section 4(a) in response to an 
     allegation described in subparagraph (A);
       (D) a description of each referral of an allegation 
     described in subparagraph (A) to other Federal, State, or 
     local agencies;
       (E) to the extent information is available, a description 
     of any civil action instituted under section 2004(c)(2) of 
     the Revised Statutes (52 U.S.C. 10101(c)(2)), as added by 
     section 312(b), in connection with an allegation described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (F) a description of any criminal prosecution instituted 
     under section 594 of title 18, United States Code, as amended 
     by section 3(c), in connection with the receipt of an 
     allegation described in subparagraph (A) by the Attorney 
     General.
       (2) Exclusion of certain information.--
       (A) In general.--The Attorney General shall not include in 
     a report submitted under subsection (a) any information 
     protected from disclosure by rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules 
     of Criminal Procedure or any Federal criminal statute.
       (B) Exclusion of certain other information.--The Attorney 
     General may determine that the following information shall 
     not be included in a report submitted under subsection (a):
       (i) Any information that is privileged.
       (ii) Any information concerning an ongoing investigation.
       (iii) Any information concerning a criminal or civil 
     proceeding conducted under seal.
       (iv) Any other nonpublic information that the Attorney 
     General determines the disclosure of which could reasonably 
     be expected to infringe on the rights of any individual or 
     adversely affect the integrity of a pending or future 
     criminal investigation.
       (c) Report Made Public.--On the date that the Attorney 
     General submits the report under subsection (a), the Attorney 
     General shall also make the report publicly available through 
     the Internet and other appropriate means.

  Subtitle C--Inadmissibility and Deportability of Aliens Engaging in 
                     Improper Election Interference

     SEC. 321. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS 
                   ENGAGING IN IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN UNITED 
                   STATES ELECTIONS.

       (a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) Improper interference in a united states election.--
     Any alien who a consular

[[Page H8424]]

     officer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of 
     State, or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable 
     grounds to believe, is seeking admission to the United States 
     to engage in improper interference in a United States 
     election, or has engaged in improper interference in a United 
     States election, is inadmissible.''.
       (b) Deportability.--Section 237(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1227(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Improper interference in a united states election.--
     Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after 
     admission engages in improper interference in a United States 
     election is deportable.''.
       (c) Definition.--Section 101(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(53) The term `improper interference in a United States 
     election' means conduct by an alien that--
       ``(A)(i) violates Federal criminal, voting rights, or 
     campaign finance law, or
       ``(ii) is performed by any person acting as an agent of or 
     on behalf of a foreign government or criminal enterprise; and
       ``(B) includes any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or 
     unlawful act or attempted act, undertaken with the purpose or 
     effect of undermining public confidence in election processes 
     or institutions, or influencing, undermining confidence in, 
     or altering the result or reported result of, a general or 
     primary Federal, State, or local election or caucus, 
     including--

       ``(i) the campaign of a candidate; or
       ``(ii) a ballot measure, including an amendment, a bond 
     issue, an initiative, a recall, a referral or a 
     referendum.'',

                   TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROVISIONS.

       Each provision of this Act and each amendment made by a 
     provision of this Act shall take effect on the effective date 
     provided under this Act for such provision or such amendment 
     without regard to whether or not the Federal Election 
     Commission, the Attorney General, or any other person has 
     promulgated regulations to carry out such provision or such 
     amendment.

     SEC. 402. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of a provision of this Act or an 
     amendment made by this Act to any person or circumstance, is 
     held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions to any person or 
     circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 116-253. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered 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.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-253.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 54, insert after line 14 the following:

 Subtitle C -- Notifying States of Disinformation Campaigns by Foreign 
                               Nationals

     SEC. 321. NOTIFYING STATES OF DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS BY 
                   FOREIGN NATIONALS.

       (a) Requiring Disclosure.--If the Federal Election 
     Commission makes a determination that a foreign national has 
     initiated or has attempted to initiate a disinformation 
     campaign targeted at an election for public office held in a 
     State, the Commission shall notify the State involved of the 
     determination not later than 30 days after making the 
     determination.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section the term ``foreign 
     national'' has the meaning given such term in section 319(b) 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 
     30121(b)).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, as the first amendment, I don't want to 
belabor many of the points that have been brought up in the general 
debate by my friend from Illinois and my very good friend from the Bay 
Area. I do want to say, as someone who has been in elected office in 
the San Francisco Bay Area for a long time, where so many of the 
innovations around social platforms and communications have taken 
place--much of it in Ms. Lofgren's district--how proud I have been of 
them. But how now--appropriately I think--skeptical I am of their 
ability to unilaterally, or merely by themselves, enforce the proper 
protections for American democracy. That is why I think this bill and 
this discussion are so very important.
  We know from the Mueller report that 126 million Americans were 
contacted, either directly or indirectly, just on Facebook by the 
Russians. We also know the outcome of the Presidential election was 
based on less than 80,000 votes in three key States in the electoral 
college. We know that Mr. Mueller said that this was a systematic 
attempt by the Russians. And we know also that the President's 
appointed FBI director has said recently, ``Russia attempted to 
interfere with the last election and continues to engage in malign 
influence operations to this day. This is a threat we need to take 
extremely seriously and to tackle and respond to with fierce 
determination and focus.''
  Mr. Chairman, we also have talked a lot, in the last few years, about 
the role of the Federal Government, State governments, and local 
communities, and I agree with how diffused our historic relationships 
are. But here is an instance in my amendment. It is a simple one. It is 
to give the States and local jurisdictions the information they need to 
be aware of some of these influences that are afforded by this bill.
  My amendment is very simple. It requires that when the FEC is made 
aware of credible targeted disinformation campaigns, that affected 
States must be notified within 30 days. I think that is a fairly simple 
amendment. I would hope, in the spirit of bipartisanship, my colleagues 
would agree with that.
  Thomas Jefferson famously said that, ``We in America do not have 
government by the majority. We have government by the majority who 
participate.''
  We know that disinformation hurts participation when done 
effectively, as it was just a short time ago in the recent Presidential 
election. And we also know that effective oversight and this 
government's engagement of both parties at the Federal level, the State 
level, and the local level, when we are open, honest, and afford 
transparency to American voters, they will participate at a higher rate 
and also at a more knowledgeable rate.
  It is our responsibility to recognize that disinformation is a threat 
to the participation that is vital to our continued success as a 
democracy, and it is our responsibility to act.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the core function of the 
Federal Election Commission is to be the independent regulatory agency 
charged with administering and enforcing Federal campaign finance law. 
The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. 
House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Vice Presidency.
  We do think States should be notified of disinformation by foreign 
actors. The FEC is not equipped to investigate, much less make a final 
determination, that foreign nationals have meddled in an election. This 
is better left to law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
  In one way that they are not equipped is that FEC commissioners do 
not have the authority to obtain clearances to access certain 
classified information, which would make it impossible for any 
commissioner or the FEC to make such a notification to States, not to 
mention the fact that the FEC chair is too busy attacking the President 
to spend time on additional notification requirements.
  It is also worth noting that the majority of the committee's position 
has been that the FEC is dysfunctional, even to the point that they 
voted to make it a five-member partisan commission in H.R. 1.
  The Department of Justice, FBI, DHS, and other national security 
agencies are better suited to address the problem of foreign meddling 
in our elections, which is exactly what we allow them to do in the 
Honest Elections Act--my bill--that I would certainly hope some on the 
other side of the aisle would cosponsor.

[[Page H8425]]

  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from Illinois' 
baseball metaphor earlier, and I would say that for this metaphor, I 
disagree. I think his call is wrong.
  I think this amendment is a simple strike. As he knows, the bill 
requires other agencies to give the information to the FEC. They are 
merely a collector, in many instances, of the information, so they are 
the appropriate body to disseminate that information.
  That is what my amendment does. I don't disagree or think that it is 
appropriate to debate the gentleman's other aspects, which may be true 
or not, based on his perspective. The amendment is basically consistent 
with the bill that the information goes here, and it should be 
disseminated to the States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
from California offering an amendment and participating in this 
process. It is not every time that we have disagreements on not only 
legislation, but amendments like this.
  I believe that this amendment needs to be clarified before it should 
be put into law. And just as with the SHIELD Act, I believe it should 
go back to the drawing board and we ought to be able to have more 
hearings to find out the effect on free speech in the United States of 
America, but also give us a chance in a bipartisan way to question the 
social media platforms that we want to work with us to protect this 
Nation from foreign meddling.
  For the reasons I mentioned above and for the reasons that I stated 
just now, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Lesko

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-253.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 313 (and redesignate the succeeding sections 
     accordingly).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
4617, which would strike from the bill a section that gives the U.S. 
Attorney General unprecedented power to involve him or herself in State 
and local elections. This should be a concern for all Americans as it 
says Washington knows best when it comes to our local elections.
  Not only does this section represent a massive Federal overreach, it 
is also vague.
  For example, the section requires the Attorney General to determine 
whether State and local election officials have taken ``adequate 
steps'' to communicate information to address misinformation.
  What are adequate steps? It doesn't say.
  What is misinformation? This bill turns the United States Attorney 
General into a fact-checker.
  This section also requires the Attorney General to communicate to the 
public ``by any means'' to address misinformation.
  Taken together, this language would grant the United States Attorney 
General power without guardrails and we, as Congress, should find this 
concerning.
  In addition to the troublesome substance of this section, it also 
arrived on the floor through a deficient process.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have an interest in 
ensuring legislation under my committee's jurisdiction is considered in 
the Judiciary Committee. This did not happen here.
  Despite the request from Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Collins, 
this section of the legislation was not afforded the opportunity of a 
markup by the Judiciary Committee, despite it having jurisdiction. In 
fact, this is at least the fourth piece of legislation this year that 
Ranking Member Collins requested to markup but was denied an 
opportunity by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Because this section is a Federal intrusion into State and local 
elections and came to the floor through a deficient process, I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment to strike this section, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I think the 
amendment strikes what is really a commonsense section of the 
underlying bill.
  Section 313, beginning on page 49, line 11, comes from the Deceptive 
Practices and Voter Intimidation Act. It first gives deference to State 
and local officials to combat deceptive practices in their localities 
if there is a credible report made that materially false information 
has been communicated to the public regarding Federal elections such as 
the time, place, or manner of holding an election.
  Section 313 provides that the responsibility first falls on State and 
local officials to correct the materially false information. It is only 
if State and local election officials fall short of making a correction 
that the Attorney General would ensure that voters do not fall victim 
to deceptive practices.
  I don't believe this is an example of Federal interference or 
overreach. It is an example of putting to use all levels of government 
to protect voters in our democracy.
  Let's be clear, section 313 is, at its core, about enhancing 
transparency and disclosure. The sort of activity we are talking about 
here is merely providing factual information to voters to ensure they 
are not deceived, that they are adequately informed, and that they have 
a fair chance of participating in their democracy.
  Section 313, page 51, directs the U.S. Attorney General to work in 
partnership with the Election Assistance Commission, State and local 
officials, and others to come up with procedures and standards for how 
to take corrective action if there is an instance of materially false 
information regarding voting. It is not just whatever he or she thinks 
at the time. This is going to be said in advance.
  The procedures in the partnership determines exactly how the AG could 
step in when there is materially false information being spread. The 
information communicated by the AG also should be designed not to favor 
or disfavor any particular candidate, organization, or political party.
  I think this is an example of how local, State, and Federal levels of 
government could work together to protect voters in our democracy. This 
is not an academic issue. We have seen situations where online, or 
elsewhere, information has been spread to people that certain people--
for example, one party or the other--would be allowed to vote on a day 
that wasn't election day. Well, that needs to be corrected or people 
will be disenfranchised if they believe it because they saw it on the 
internet.
  Mr. Chairman, I think, though I am sure well-intended, this amendment 
is a mistake. I urge its defeat, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my good friend.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend 
from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very well-intended amendment. I 
agree with my colleague from California that it is a very well-intended 
amendment that is going to actually correct, I believe, what would be 
an unintended consequence if this bill were to ever become law.

                              {time}  1600

  This section that is being amended today provides unprecedented power 
to the Attorney General to intercede in Federal races when he or she 
believes State and local officials have not taken

[[Page H8426]]

``adequate steps'' to correct ``misinformation.''
  Madam Chair, the Attorney General is a partisan official. They are 
not a nonpartisan official. Imagine if Attorney General Barr was given 
broad authority to take ``adequate steps.'' This is the language in the 
bill.
  These are the facts, Madam Chair. If Attorney General Barr was given 
broad authority to take adequate steps in correcting the record in any 
Democratic districts, imagine that. Imagine the uproar. There would be 
a public uproar. The same could be said for a Democratic Attorney 
General.
  The section not only gives broad authority to the AG, but it is 
extremely vague and will also leave State and local election officials 
struggling to comply with this section.
  To make matters worse, we have not heard from a single State or local 
election official about how this might impact their ability to conduct 
elections. This is the reason why we have hearings. This is the reason 
why we call people into Congress to listen to them about the impact of 
legislation that we are debating in this House.
  And we did not have a single hearing before this bill was rushed to 
the floor. This is not regular order. This is not what the Democratic 
majority promised when they were given the majority by the American 
people to run this institution. This is a broken promise that they made 
to the American people, and I think we need to pass this amendment.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I would note that this bill is supported by 
a broad spectrum of civil rights groups, including the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, as well as the Brennan 
Center for Justice. And there is a reason for that.
  A lot of the mischief that goes on to try and prevent people from 
voting has a racial impact. We have seen the suppression of the vote, 
the efforts that have been undertaken to suppress the vote through 
confusion and through lies, where a piece of information would go into 
a minority community--``the vote is now on Wednesday, not on 
Tuesday''--so that people will be confused and not show up to vote.
  That is simply wrong. We need to take steps that are reasonable, as 
this is, to confront that.
  This bill will help. That is why so many groups support it.
  I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Chair, I agree that it is wrong if somebody pulls 
out false information about an election, like the date or time, but I 
certainly don't agree that the United States Attorney General should 
get involved in local elections.
  On this bill and other bills, I think there is a fundamental 
difference between the way some of my Democratic colleagues believe and 
what fellow Republicans and I believe. They believe the U.S. Government 
should know everything and should do everything. I think local control 
is better, that they know better what is going on.
  Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. DeGette). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Lynch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 54, insert after line 14 the following:

     Subtitle C--Prohibiting Use of Deepfakes in Election Campaigns

     SEC. 321. PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALLY DECEPTIVE 
                   AUDIO OR VISUAL MEDIA PRIOR TO ELECTION.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), as amended by section 
     203, is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 325. PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALLY 
                   DECEPTIVE MEDIA PRIOR TO ELECTION.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) 
     and (c), a person, political committee, or other entity shall 
     not, within 60 days of a election for Federal office at which 
     a candidate for elective office will appear on the ballot, 
     distribute, with actual malice, materially deceptive audio or 
     visual media of the candidate with the intent to injure the 
     candidate's reputation or to deceive a voter into voting for 
     or against the candidate.
       ``(b) Exception.--
       ``(1) Required language.--The prohibition in subsection (a) 
     does not apply if the audio or visual media includes--
       ``(A) a disclosure stating: ``This _____ has been 
     manipulated.''; and
       ``(B) filled in the blank in the disclosure under 
     subparagraph (A), the term `image', `video', or `audio', as 
     most accurately describes the media.
       ``(2) Visual media.--For visual media, the text of the 
     disclosure shall appear in a size that is easily readable by 
     the average viewer and no smaller than the largest font size 
     of other text appearing in the visual media. If the visual 
     media does not include any other text, the disclosure shall 
     appear in a size that is easily readable by the average 
     viewer. For visual media that is video, the disclosure shall 
     appear for the duration of the video.
       ``(3) Audio-only media.--If the media consists of audio 
     only, the disclosure shall be read in a clearly spoken manner 
     and in a pitch that can be easily heard by the average 
     listener, at the beginning of the audio, at the end of the 
     audio, and, if the audio is greater than two minutes in 
     length, interspersed within the audio at intervals of not 
     greater than two minutes each.
       ``(c) Inapplicability to Certain Entities.--This section 
     does not apply to the following:
       ``(1) A radio or television broadcasting station, including 
     a cable or satellite television operator, programmer, or 
     producer, that broadcasts materially deceptive audio or 
     visual media prohibited by this section as part of a bona 
     fide newscast, news interview, news documentary, or on-the-
     spot coverage of bona fide news events, if the broadcast 
     clearly acknowledges through content or a disclosure, in a 
     manner that can be easily heard or read by the average 
     listener or viewer, that there are questions about the 
     authenticity of the materially deceptive audio or visual 
     media.
       ``(2) A radio or television broadcasting station, including 
     a cable or satellite television operator, programmer, or 
     producer, when it is paid to broadcast materially deceptive 
     audio or visual media.
       ``(3) An internet website, or a regularly published 
     newspaper, magazine, or other periodical of general 
     circulation, including an internet or electronic publication, 
     that routinely carries news and commentary of general 
     interest, and that publishes materially deceptive audio or 
     visual media prohibited by this section, if the publication 
     clearly states that the materially deceptive audio or visual 
     media does not accurately represent the speech or conduct of 
     the candidate.
       ``(4) Materially deceptive audio or visual media that 
     constitutes satire or parody.
       ``(d) Civil Action.--
       ``(1) Injunctive or other equitable relief.--A candidate 
     for elective office whose voice or likeness appears in a 
     materially deceptive audio or visual media distributed in 
     violation of this section may seek injunctive or other 
     equitable relief prohibiting the distribution of audio or 
     visual media in violation of this section. An action under 
     this paragraph shall be entitled to precedence in accordance 
     with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(2) Damages.--A candidate for elective office whose voice 
     or likeness appears in a materially deceptive audio or visual 
     media distributed in violation of this section may bring an 
     action for general or special damages against the person, 
     committee, or other entity that distributed the materially 
     deceptive audio or visual media. The court may also award a 
     prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs. This 
     paragraph shall not be construed to limit or preclude a 
     plaintiff from securing or recovering any other available 
     remedy.
       ``(3) Burden of proof.--In any civil action alleging a 
     violation of this section, the plaintiff shall bear the 
     burden of establishing the violation through clear and 
     convincing evidence.
       ``(e) Rule of Construction.--This section shall not be 
     construed to alter or negate any rights, obligations, or 
     immunities of an interactive service provider under section 
     230 of title 47, United States Code.
       ``(f) Materially Deceptive Audio or Visual Media Defined.--
     In this section, the term `materially deceptive audio or 
     visual media' means an image or an audio or video recording 
     of a candidate's appearance, speech, or conduct that has been 
     intentionally manipulated in a manner such that both of the 
     following conditions are met:
       ``(1) The image or audio or video recording would falsely 
     appear to a reasonable person to be authentic.
       ``(2) The image or audio or video recording would cause a 
     reasonable person to have a fundamentally different 
     understanding or impression of the expressive content of the 
     image or audio or video recording than that

[[Page H8427]]

     person would have if the person were hearing or seeing the 
     unaltered, original version of the image or audio or video 
     recording.''.
       (b) Criminal Penalties.--Section 309(d)(1) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30109(d)(1)), as 
     amended by section 103, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a 
     violation of section 325 shall be fined not more than 
     $100,000, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.
       (c) Effect on Defamation Action.--For purposes of an action 
     for defamation, a violation of section 325 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971, as added by subsection (a), 
     shall constitute defamation per se.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I thank Ms. Lofgren for her leadership and her courage 
and hard work in bringing this important bill to the floor.
  My amendment to H.R. 4617, the SHIELD Act, would generally prohibit 
the use of so-called deepfakes within 60 days of a Federal election.
  These digital photo, audio, and video forgeries are generated using 
artificial intelligence. They appear realistic and are intended to 
manipulate or deceive their audience.
  This amendment also establishes criminal and civil penalties for the 
malicious use of deepfakes in Federal elections while providing 
necessary exemptions for broadcasting or publication of deepfake 
content by news media organizations in satire or parity and other 
appropriate cases.
  As chairman of the National Security Subcommittee of the Oversight 
and Reform Committee, I can attest to the escalating warnings that we 
have received from U.S. intelligence community officials and national 
security experts regarding the use of these deepfake technologies as an 
emerging tool of foreign election interference.
  During our recent hearing to examine election security, government 
and private-sector panelists testified about the capacity of deepfake 
technologies to ``weaponize'' false information on a massive scale. 
That is because it is already widely accessible, easy to use, low cost, 
and rapidly evolving.
  In reference to the security of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, 
FBI Director Christopher Wray has stated that deepfake content is a 
``topic of great concern,'' as Federal intelligence agencies combat the 
threat of election meddling by foreign adversaries that are intent on 
developing new ways to perpetuate malign influence operations.
  According to the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations, deepfakes 
present ``disinformation on steroids'' and could easily be deployed to 
influence an election, spark violence, exacerbate societal divisions, 
and undermine other democratic institutions.
  The Congressional Research Service similarly warns that hostile state 
actors could release digitally altered videos of government officials 
or candidates making incendiary comments or engaged in inappropriate 
behavior to erode public trust, degrade our public discourse, defame 
particular candidates, and sway elections.
  The proliferation of deepfake technologies presents a serious threat 
to the integrity of U.S. elections, considering that our Nation's 17 
intelligence agencies already determined that our most fundamental 
democratic process has come under attack by foreign adversaries. With 
high confidence, the U.S. intelligence community found that Russian 
President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at the 
2016 election that included clandestine intelligence operations and 
blatant meddling by state-owned agencies, state-funded media outlets, 
third-party intermediaries, and paid social media trolls. The final 
report issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller augmented this 
assessment.
  According to the ``2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. 
Intelligence Community,'' our adversaries will continue refining their 
interference capabilities and add new tactics to dramatically alter the 
threat landscape for 2020 and future elections.
  In the interest of enhancing election security, campaign law must 
adapt to these evolving technologies. A prohibition on the use of 
deepfakes in Federal elections is a great first step in the right 
direction.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment, although I am not necessarily opposed it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, this is a problem. 
Misinformation, false representation, digitally manipulated images, 
that is a problem.
  What we do in this institution, and the political nature of our jobs, 
I think we have all been victims of videos that try to provide false 
information. This has to be addressed.
  I believe we need to have some hearings on this issue because it is 
pretty complicated. And we haven't had a single hearing with any of the 
platforms, where many of these videos would be published, before this 
bill was rushed to the floor.
  I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) that 
deepfakes present a unique challenge for Congress to address. I would 
hate to see a potential solution that is being offered by my good 
friend put on a partisan bill.
  An additional problem I see is that I am not aware of any technology 
that can identify which images or video are deepfakes. Perhaps the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology should hold a hearing on 
this issue as well.
  In dealing with this issue, Congress needs to appropriately weigh the 
First Amendment protections afforded to public speech with the 
dangerous potential of deepfakes to add further damage to our already 
polarized climate.
  This amendment, like many of these amendments, would be better served 
to pass through regular order and give the American public a chance to 
learn about these very important and, at times, recent and troubling 
issues.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I do appreciate the gentleman from Illinois' 
thoughtful support for this amendment.
  I thank Chair Lofgren for her leadership again in bringing the SHIELD 
Act to the floor and working with me on this amendment.
  I again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Levin of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 36, insert after line 22 the following:

     SEC. 206. PROHIBITING ESTABLISHMENT OF CORPORATION TO CONCEAL 
                   ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS BY FOREIGN 
                   NATIONALS.

       (a) Prohibition.--Chapter 29 of title 18, United States 
     Code is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 612. Establishment of corporation to conceal election 
       contributions and donations by foreign nationals

       ``(a) Offense.--It shall be unlawful for an owner, officer, 
     attorney, or incorporation agent of a corporation, company, 
     or other entity to establish or use the corporation, company, 
     or other entity with the intent to conceal an activity of a 
     foreign national (as defined in section 319 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121)) prohibited 
     under such section 319.
       ``(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a) 
     shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined under 
     this title, or both.''.
       (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     29 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 611 the following:

``612. Establishment of corporation to conceal election contributions 
              and donations by foreign nationals.''.


[[Page H8428]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, my bipartisan amendment cracks 
down on foreign influence in our elections.
  I would like to begin by thanking my friend and coauthor of this 
amendment, Ranking Member McCaul, with whom I have the great privilege 
of serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as my 
colleagues cosponsoring this amendment, especially Representatives 
Rouda, Slotkin, and Speier.
  I also thank Chairwoman Lofgren for her inspiring leadership and for 
working with me on this provision.
  I came to Congress to strengthen our democracy, and that is the 
fundamental purpose of this truly bipartisan amendment that I am 
proposing today.
  Current campaign finance laws prohibit foreign nationals from making 
campaign contributions or conducting political activity. But because of 
a loophole, there is no law specifically preventing foreign nationals 
from setting up a shell corporation or company to hide illegal 
political activity.
  Our bipartisan amendment will nail that loophole shut by prohibiting 
foreign nationals from funneling money through shell companies to 
engage in political activity in America.
  We must keep our democratic process safe from all bad actors, 
including foreign actors, and strengthen the integrity of our 
elections. That is what this amendment does.
  Specifically, this amendment will make it a felony for an owner, 
officer, attorney, or incorporated agent of a corporation, company, or 
other entity to establish or use the corporation, company, or other 
entity with the intent to conceal the political activities of foreign 
actors.
  Put simply, passing our amendment will ensure serious consequences 
for anyone who starts or operates a shell company, or anyone who helps 
start or operate a shell company, for the purpose of concealing 
political activities of bad foreign actors.
  I am proud to partner with the gentleman from Texas in proposing this 
bipartisan amendment to defend our elections against foreign 
interference. Our elections are a sacred cornerstone of our democracy, 
and we must do everything in our power to protect them.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I am particularly pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rouda), my good friend.
  Mr. ROUDA. Madam Chair, I thank my friend from Michigan, 
Representative Levin, for yielding.
  Madam Chair, preventing foreign election interference is a bipartisan 
issue. This amendment is proof of that statement. I am proud to support 
this amendment, a commonsense measure to close a loophole that is 
allowing illegal political spending by foreign nationals in United 
States elections.
  In the 2016 election, millions of Americans saw and engaged with 
political advertisements paid for by foreign nationals. Last year, 
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg confirmed in sworn testimony before 
Congress that foreign nationals were purchasing campaign ads and issue 
ads through American shell companies.
  As elected officials, we took an oath to defend the Constitution of 
the United States of America against both foreign and domestic 
adversaries and threats. That includes the cornerstone of our 
democracy, free and fair elections.

                              {time}  1615

  This amendment and the underlying bill seek to end a dangerous and 
well-documented form of foreign election interference.
  I thank Representatives Levin and McCaul for offering this important 
amendment, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to 
address this critical issue.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition, although I am not opposed to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I support this amendment.
  I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Levin, Ranking Member McCaul, Mr. 
Rouda, Ms. Speier, and Ms. Slotkin, for offering this very thoughtful 
amendment. I would like to note that, even though the issue of using 
shell corporations to make contributions is covered under the existing 
straw donor prohibition, I do believe more clarity is needed on this 
issue.
  Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleagues. I am prepared to close, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Chair, I will close by thanking the 
gentleman from Illinois for his kinds words on this. We really have 
worked hard as a team. It is a truly bipartisan effort.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank, again, my good 
friend from the great State of Michigan for offering this amendment.
  The only thing that I wish could have happened is I wish we could 
have had some hearings on this bill so that we could have brought 
experts in on shell corporations that are making straw donor donations 
to Federal campaigns that are already prohibited so we could find out 
the best way to ensure that doesn't happen in the future, especially 
from nefarious foreign actors.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Langevin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 28, insert after line 12 the following:

     SEC. 118. INDEPENDENT STUDY ON MEDIA LITERACY AND ONLINE 
                   POLITICAL CONTENT CONSUMPTION.

       (a) Independent Study.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Election 
     Commission shall commission an independent study and report 
     on media literacy with respect to online political content 
     consumption among voting-age Americans.
       (b) Elements.--The study and report under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following:
       (1) An evaluation of media literacy skills, such as the 
     ability to evaluate sources, synthesize multiple accounts 
     into a coherent understanding of an issue, understand the 
     context of communications, and responsibly create and share 
     information, among voting-age Americans.
       (2) An analysis of the effects of media literacy education 
     and particular media literacy skills on the ability to 
     critically consume online political content, including 
     political advertising.
       (3) Recommendations for improving voting-age Americans' 
     ability to critically consume online political content, 
     including political advertising.
       (c) Deadline.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the entity conducting the study and 
     report under subsection (a) shall submit the report to the 
     Commission.
       (d) Submission to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after 
     receiving the report under subsection (c), the Commission 
     shall submit the report to the Committee on House 
     Administration of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, together 
     with such comments on the report as the Commission considers 
     appropriate.
       (e) Definition of Media Literacy.--The term ``media 
     literacy'' means the ability to--
       (1) access relevant and accurate information through media;
       (2) critically analyze media content and the influences of 
     media;
       (3) evaluate the comprehensiveness, relevance, credibility, 
     authority, and accuracy of information;
       (4) make educated decisions based on information obtained 
     from media and digital sources;
       (5) operate various forms of technology and digital tools; 
     and
       (6) reflect on how the use of media and technology may 
     affect private and public life.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.

[[Page H8429]]

  

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, it is quite evident that our democracy is under attack 
from concerted foreign influence campaigns, and online disinformation 
is one of our enemies' most potent weapons.
  Starting in 2013, Russian operatives associated with the Internet 
Research Agency waged a robust and systematic influence campaign on 
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter that reached millions of users in the 
United States.
  These operatives used political advertisements and falsified news 
articles and other content in an attempt to deceive social media users, 
widen our political and social divisions, and weaken our confidence and 
participation in the democratic process.
  Their efforts, particularly surrounding the 2016 election, were 
disturbingly successful.
  About 60 percent of Americans who prefer getting their news through 
social media say they have shared false information. Additionally, 
public confidence in our democracy is low, and we are perhaps more 
polarized than ever before.
  With the 2020 elections right around the corner, we must act now to 
build up our resilience to these efforts and ensure Americans are 
informed, critical consumers of online content. Voters must view online 
political advertising with a discerning eye and be able to make 
educated decisions based on the content that they consume.
  This amendment, Madam Chair, to the SHIELD Act would direct the FEC 
to commission a study on Americans' media literacy skills, including 
the ability to critically evaluate sources and responsibly share 
information. It would require a report on the impact of media literacy 
education on how Americans consume and understand online political 
content, with a focus on political advertisements. The study would also 
include recommendations to improve voters' resilience to 
disinformation.
  A functioning democracy depends on informed citizens who can 
responsibly participate in the political process, and the unquestioning 
consumption and sharing of disinformation online undermines the 
integrity of this system. My amendment will help shed light on the 
skills Americans need to resist these malicious campaigns.
  Renee Hobbs, the director of Media Education Lab in Rhode Island and 
a professor at the University of Rhode Island, puts it plainly:
  ``Learning to recognize and resist propaganda and disinformation is 
an essential dimension of education in a digital age. After all, it is 
the only long-term strategy that embodies our country's vital 
democratic traditions of robust dialogue and debate in the marketplace 
of ideas.''
  Professor Hobbs is right, and as more and more Americans rely on 
social media to get their news, media literacy is becoming ever more 
important.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment so we can 
explore how best to build up our citizens' resilience to foreign online 
influence campaigns.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Langevin, for offering this 
amendment. As good a friend as he is, it somewhat pains me to have to 
stand up and be opposed to it.
  Again, the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, is the independent 
regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the Federal 
campaign finance law. They have jurisdiction over the financing of 
campaigns for us here in the House, our colleagues in the Senate, the 
President, and the Vice President. They are not the fake news police, 
much to the chagrin of the current FEC Chair.
  This amendment requires an independent report from the FEC, and I am 
not convinced that the FEC Chair is capable of issuing any independent 
report, any independent guidance, or any independent legal 
interpretations; and, frankly, I don't think she is capable of offering 
any independent tweets.
  I think it is worth noting that every single House Democrat voted to 
make the FEC a partisan agency earlier this Congress in H.R. 1 and has 
lamented how dysfunctional they believe the FEC is. If the FEC were a 
partisan agency, would we want them determining which news was fake 
news and which news was legitimate?
  I agree we need to understand and improve media literacy with respect 
to political content in this country, but the FEC is not the entity to 
lead that endeavor.
  Let's take a look at the danger of overregulating online ads and 
misinterpreting political content. The ad I have behind me and the ones 
behind it are already being labeled as political ads on Facebook. These 
came straight from the Facebook ad library.
  First off, we have my favorite. As the proud dad of two Yorkies at 
home in Taylorville, Illinois, this political ad for hotdogcollars.com 
would allow me to get my two Yorkies some new dog collars. I don't 
know--except maybe the American flag dog collar--how political that is.
  Next up is the very political ad Facebook is now categorizing under 
current law and under their current regulations as a political ad--
Pizza Crave. Hey, it is Halloween season, it is almost upon us, $10 
pizza pies. I don't know why that is categorized as political, but it 
is.
  Do we really want the FEC to figure out that they are the agency to 
correct that? No. Facebook ought to correct it.

  Lastly, Stone Bridge Pizza & Salad: We always crave the classic--
obviously a political ad. I don't know anybody who would eat pizza like 
that, but clearly this is not a political ad.
  I think we need to take a step back. We need to realize that the 
current FEC that is dysfunctional is the last place for independent 
review of anything. We need to make sure that the FEC does its job in a 
nonpartisan way.
  Madam Chair, we need to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, if only my colleague had actually read and 
understood the bill, he would know that it is an independent study. I 
think that would make a difference in how, perhaps, he felt about the 
bill.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Slotkin).
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment 
to the SHIELD Act, the digital citizenship and media literacy 
amendment.
  We have said it before. No matter who we are, Democrats, Republicans, 
or Independents, we should all agree that we don't want foreigners 
manipulating our citizens, sowing discord in our society, and playing 
in our political process.
  We know that foreign entities continue to target social media ads and 
disinformation at voters, particularly in swing States like mine, 
Michigan. These ads are horrible. They seek to divide us and influence 
our political process.
  The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a bipartisan 
report late last month and said that the public needs to be informed 
and both understand and identify disinformation that is critical to 
preventing foreign influence. This means our citizens, and especially 
our kids, need to have the tools to spot this disinformation.
  In this new age of digital warfare, we need education. Education is 
critical. This study helps us get at this so that we can all understand 
how to identify propaganda and flag it.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments from my good friend from 
Michigan. I, too, am in a swing district. We don't want misinformation.
  To address comments made by my good friend from Rhode Island, I 
understand that what the gentleman is asking for is an independent 
report. I don't believe the FEC can offer an independent assessment of 
anything right now.
  Madam Chair, you have an FEC that is completely dysfunctional. You 
have a Chair of the FEC who is doing nothing but taking partisan shots 
at our

[[Page H8430]]

President. That is not what the FEC should be.
  The FEC is incapable of offering any independent review of anything. 
That is my concern. That is why I believe if we could work together and 
come up with a more viable solution to get a true independent study, I 
think we could do that.
  Madam Chair, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Madam Chair, to address my colleague's point, again, it is not the 
FEC that is going to do the study. It is an independent study that will 
be done, be commissioned to be concluded, and that would be the final 
product, not the FEC.
  So, with that, Russia's election interference efforts in 2016 were 
sweeping and damaging, and we know that social media was one of their 
greatest weapons. As the 2020 elections approach, and for future 
elections, we must ensure that our citizens are resilient to foreign 
influence companies by arming them with the skills to be critical 
consumers of online political content.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to study media literacy 
and its impact on American voters--again, an independent study that 
will be commissioned.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, to clarify, I don't think 
the FEC is capable of actually commissioning an independent study. I 
would be happy to work with the gentleman from Rhode Island to find 
another agency that we believe could offer a fair assessment.
  Madam Chair, I will urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment for those 
reasons, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1630


         Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk, No. 6, made in order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 15, insert ``and each immediate family member 
     of a candidate'' after ``each candidate''.
       Page 4, line 9, insert ``an immediate family member of the 
     candidate,'' after ``a candidate,''.
       Page 7, line 9, strike the closing quotation mark and the 
     second period.
       Page 7, insert after line 9 the following:
       ``(4) Immediate family member.--In this subsection, the 
     term `immediate family member' means, with respect to a 
     candidate, a parent, parent-in-law, spouse, adult child, or 
     sibling.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Swalwell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in support of the underlying bill and my 
amendment, which would include a candidate's immediate family members 
to those whose direct or indirect contacts or communications with a 
foreign national may amount to a reportable foreign contact.
  I also think it is very fitting that we are doing this legislation in 
the same week that we will honor Oversight and Reform Committee 
Chairman, Elijah Cummings, someone who I have had the privilege of not 
only working with but being represented by when I was a law student in 
Baltimore.
  But Elijah, the gentleman from Maryland, and I worked to write the 
Protecting Our Democracy Act immediately after the Russian interference 
campaign.
  Every member of the Democrat Caucus and members from the Republican 
Caucus signed on to that. I still believe that is the best way to 
address what the Russians did in 2016 and to harden our systems so they 
don't do it again.
  But I believe that this effort, the SHIELD Act, led by Chairwoman Zoe 
Lofgren will go a very, very long way in protecting our elections, and 
I thank the chairwoman for her leadership in this effort.
  American elections should be decided by Americans. Ms. Lofgren's bill 
will go a long way to stopping secret foreign attempts to influence our 
democracy, as we saw in 2016.
  We know that as a part of Russia's attack on us, it purchased social 
media advertisements.
  Madam Chair, 3,500 advertisements on political or public policy 
topics were purchased using rubles. To combat this conduct, I had 
introduced in May, H.R. 2853, the Corporate Duty to Report Act. Part of 
my bill would require companies distributing political communications, 
including social media companies, to take the small but important step 
in at least asking if the purchaser is a foreign national. I thank 
Chairwoman Lofgren for including this concept in the SHIELD Act.
  We also learned in June 2016 that Donald Trump, Jr., was told over 
email that the Russian Government was offering ``official documents and 
information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with 
Russia,'' which was, ``part of Russia and its government support for 
Mr. Trump.''
  Don Jr., replied in part, ``If it's what you say, I love it, 
especially later in the summer.'' Then he accepted the offer of 
assistance. He told a lot of people about the offer, including his 
brother-in-law and the chairman of the campaign, he had a meeting 
around the offer, but he never told law enforcement.
  This is the part of the honor code that most candidates in America 
follow. It is just the right thing to do. Unfortunately, Donald Trump, 
Jr.'s conduct highlights that we have to take parts of the honor code 
that good people usually just follow and codify them into law.
  I wrote the Duty to Report Act last Congress with Senator Richard 
Blumenthal, who sponsored it in the Senate, that also would include 
immediate family members, not just the candidate to tell law 
enforcement, but the parent, parent-in-law, spouse, adult child, or 
sibling.
  I am afraid that someone like Don Jr., who didn't have an official 
role in the Trump campaign, would not be included in the SHIELD Act as 
written, and that is the reason I am offering this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I ask for support on my amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, this amendment amends the 
underlying duty to report section.
  The goal of this underlying section is something I share with my 
friend across the aisle. If a foreign national would approach me with 
an offer of assistance in my campaign, I would absolutely alert the 
FBI.
  My colleague from California mentions an instance with the 
President's son. I mean, clearly, I know that he and my Democratic 
colleagues, they look at this, this is not about what is going to 
happen to many of the colleagues here, because, likely, we are never 
going to be approached by a foreign national. But if we are, I think we 
all agree, it is a pretty bipartisan consensus, we would call the FBI.
  This is a partisan attack on the President. But rarely are instances 
as blatant as what I mentioned before about being contacted and I would 
call the FBI. What this underlying section is asking of political 
committees is for them to serve as immigration officials, where they 
will be in a position to determine the citizenship of anyone that their 
campaign comes into contact with.
  But, again, I believe through bipartisan negotiations, we could make 
this work. The underlying duty to report section was already vague to 
begin with, and adding in additional parties, as this amendment does, 
that must comply only adds to our concern that we are setting up 
campaign committees, as well as their families, we are setting them up 
for failure.

[[Page H8431]]

  It is also worth noting that this amendment would affect family 
members the candidate has no control over. My family members own fast 
food restaurants. So are they going to have to ask--if this becomes 
law--every customer if they are a foreign national representing a 
foreign government?
  Do they have a duty to report?
  That is something that needs to be clarified.
  We have to do a little bit more work. I think we can work this out, 
but again, the secretive nature of how this bill was written and forced 
onto the floor with zero hearings doesn't give us a chance, or frankly, 
the majority a chance to ask these questions and address our concerns.
  Madam Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.

  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I appreciate the gentleman's concerns and I accept that the gentleman 
would report, if he was contacted by a foreign national. And I want to 
clarify, in the legislation under section (c)(1), the term is covered, 
``foreign national,'' which means a foreign principal who would fall 
subject to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. So it is not an 
immigrant. It is not any person born outside the United States. It is 
someone acting on behalf of a foreign agent.
  And it also has a ``knowing standard,'' meaning that you would have 
to have some knowledge that this person is acting on behalf of a 
foreign agent. And the Donald Trump, Jr., example, it was represented 
that the individuals were working with the prosecutor general of 
Russia, so clearly, that would be notice that this is on behalf of a 
foreign agent.
  Now, I also want to just point out that, yes, there is an honor code 
that we all follow, and I believe most of my colleagues would tell the 
FBI. And, of course, in 2000, when the Gore campaign received debate 
prep materials for the Bush campaign, the Gore campaign went to the FBI 
because it was provided by a foreign national.
  However, what we learned in 2016 is not everyone is as honorable, and 
so we have to codify this. And I do believe that we will be judged by 
what we do as our democracy has been tested. And not only what we do, 
but what we learn from the vulnerabilities that have been exposed.
  And that is why I think it is so important that Ms. Lofgren's 
legislation is voted for and passed on this floor, and that we include 
this amendment to make sure it is not just candidates, but also the 
family members.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague 
from California. We will be judged on how we actually impact foreign 
interference in our elections. We will be judged on the chilling effect 
to free speech that this legislation, if put into law, would have on 
our system that is so much different from those nefarious countries and 
leaders who want to meddle in our election process.
  But my point earlier still stands. I agree that somebody who would 
fall under FARA, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, would be the ones 
that we would have a duty to report, if they came to our campaign. But 
at the same time, how do we know? Are they going to wear a badge that 
says, Hey, I am a FARA-registered individual from another country, and 
I am coming to talk to you since you are a Member of Congress in a 
political campaign?
  I mean, am I going to have my kids who are in college, am I going to 
have to have them ask everyone they come into contact with, ``Are you 
registered under the Foreign Agent Registration Act in Washington, 
D.C., because I have a duty to report.''
  How are we going to know? That is why we have to take a step back. We 
have to sit down. We have to work this together. There are too many 
unintended consequences that, yes, Madam Chair, we will be judged by in 
this country. We will be judged by the freedoms and the freedom of 
speech that many in this country take for granted, that we should stand 
together, Republicans and Democrats, to protect, or we will be judged 
by bad legislation that could be turned into law that could have a 
chilling effect on these freedoms, on these liberties that our 
adversaries that meddle in our elections want to use to take them away 
from every single American.
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment. Vote to protect free speech and vote 
to take a step back to clarify how we work to ensure that no foreign 
entity can interfere with our elections again.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 11, insert after ``foreign contact.'' the 
     following: ``The Federal Bureau of Investigation, not later 
     than 1 week after receiving a notification from a political 
     committee under this paragraph, shall submit to the political 
     committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate written or electronic confirmation 
     of receipt of the notification.''
       Page 11, insert after line 23 the following (and 
     redesignate the succeeding section):

     SEC. 104. REPORT TO CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Director 
     of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit to the 
     congressional intelligence committees a report relating to 
     notifications received by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     under section 304(j)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (as added by section 101(a) of this Act).
       (b) Elements.--Each report under subsection (a) shall 
     include, at a minimum, the following with respect to 
     notifications described in subsection (a):
       (1) The number of such notifications received from 
     political committees during the year covered by the report.
       (2) A description of protocols and procedures developed by 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to receipt and 
     maintenance of records relating to such notifications.
       (3) With respect to such notifications received during the 
     year covered by the report, a description of any subsequent 
     actions taken by the Director resulting from the receipt of 
     such notifications.
       (c) Congressional Intelligence Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``congressional intelligence committees'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the National 
     Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I want to recognize, first, the hard work of Chairwoman 
Lofgren. Your hard work and your leadership on this important issue and 
the underlying bill. It is clear that our foreign adversaries have and 
will continue to interfere and influence our elections and attempt to 
erode confidence in our government and destroy our democratic system.
  The Mueller report made clear that the Russian Government interfered 
in the 2016 Presidential election in a sweeping and systematic fashion. 
And Mr. Mueller testified earlier this year that many more countries 
have developed misinformation campaigns since 2016 targeted at the 
United States, our democracy, and our system of elections.
  Facebook on Monday disclosed that it had taken down four new foreign 
interference operations originating from Iran and Russia. Soliciting or 
accepting foreign interference doesn't just violate our democratic 
norms; it clearly violates our laws.
  Yet, in June, President Trump said there would be nothing wrong with 
accepting from a foreign government incriminating information about an 
opponent and saw no reason--the President saw no reason--to call the 
FBI if it were to happen.
  He went one step further and said it was wrong for FBI Director Chris 
Wray to say that public officials or campaigns should contact the FBI 
if they

[[Page H8432]]

are contacted by other nations seeking to influence or interfere with 
our elections.
  The President's remarks mirrored one given by his son-in-law, Jared 
Kushner, who also said he was not sure he would call the FBI if a 
foreign government offered damaging information about a political foe.
  That is why it is critical that we pass this legislation, to protect 
the integrity of our elections.
  The underlying bill requires public officials, candidates, and 
campaigns to report to the FBI when foreign governments and their 
agents contact them and holds them responsible when they fail to 
report.
  Madam Chair, my amendment strengthens this legislation by requiring 
the FBI to confirm receipt of any notification of possible foreign 
interference operations.
  Additionally, the FBI must also notify both the House and Senate 
Intelligence Committees guaranteeing that Congress, as a coequal branch 
of government, is made aware when foreign agents and hostile nations 
are attempting to undermine our democracy.
  Finally, my amendment would require the FBI to submit an annual 
report to Congress related to all the notifications it has received and 
the corresponding actions the Bureau has taken in response.
  The FBI cannot be passive to these threats to our national security 
but must take decisive action to respond to election interference.
  Madam Chair, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment and this underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, the provision this section 
seeks to amend has problems in and of itself. I object to this 
amendment because I object to the underlying premise of the bill. It is 
unreasonable to require candidates to vet every foreign national they 
come into contact with.
  I understand that this bill requires that candidates know or have 
reason to know that foreign nationals are covered. My question is: 
Would not any government employee, such as those that work at an 
embassy, be covered under this bill? Wouldn't a conversation with a 
traffic officer or embassy clerk be subject to penalties under this 
section?
  I absolutely believe that campaigns should have to report offers of 
assistance from foreign nationals. The issue with this bill and, thus, 
this amendment, is that it is overbroad and puts the responsibility on 
campaigns. Campaigns are ill-prepared to interpret this language.
  I am also concerned that requiring the FBI to not only notify 
Congress, but detail how they are managing and responding to 
notifications from political committees will inevitably lead to 
selective leaks and will politicize the well-intended goal of 
preventing foreign influence.
  Madam Chair, for those reasons, I oppose this bill. And since my 
colleague yielded back, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Delgado

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 33, line 7, strike ``and''
       Page 33, insert after line 7 the following (and redesignate 
     the succeeding provision accordingly):
       ``(2) an analysis of the extent to which illicit foreign 
     money was used to carry out disinformation and propaganda 
     campaigns focused on depressing turnout among rural 
     communities and the success or failure of these efforts, 
     together with recommendations to address these efforts in 
     future elections; and''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Delgado) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, I rise in support of my amendment to the SHIELD Act, which is 
meant to keep foreign influences from depressing voter turnout in rural 
communities.
  Protecting our democracy and upholding the sanctity of our elections 
is of critical importance.
  Madam Chair, the SHIELD Act is urgently needed legislation. Americans 
will go to the polls in a matter of weeks, and every day, we are 
presented with more data that our foreign adversaries are working to 
influence our elections and undermine our democracy.
  These destructive tactics, as we have seen in previous election 
cycles, continue to get more sophisticated, with outside parties now 
manipulating our elections through the ballot box, social media, and 
spreading misinformation.
  My amendment fights against these tactics and requires an analysis, 
following each Federal election, into whether or not illicit foreign 
money was used to carry out disinformation or propaganda campaigns 
focused on depressing turnout among rural communities.
  The amendment also requires a breakdown of the successes or failures 
of these efforts and recommendations for how we can address these 
tactics in future elections.
  Americans in rural communities face many hurdles to exercising the 
right to vote, including the distance to the nearest poll. We cannot 
add additional hurdles of foreign disinformation and its influence on 
voter turnout.
  There is nothing more important than protecting our democracy and 
ensuring every American has the ability to vote and the opportunity to 
make their voices heard.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I, too, like my colleague 
from New York, represent a district with a very large rural population. 
I want to see rural turnout as high as possible.
  But the mission of the FEC is to administer and enforce Federal 
campaign finance law. I mean, if this becomes law, along with some of 
the other previous amendments and amendments after this, I don't know 
when the FEC is going to have any time to actually enforce campaign 
finance violations that are happening right now. The FEC is not 
equipped to receive all these mandates from Congress.
  This is an extremely important job, a job some on the Commission, 
including the Chair, are ignoring by spending all their time attacking 
the President. I think we need to let the FEC focus on their day job.
  There are many groups, within and outside government, that could 
produce a report on misinformation, such as the U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights, maybe even the Brennan Center. Let's let them do it.
  Help us help the FEC to be able to do the job that we have required 
it to do.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I would note to my friend that in order for 
the FEC to enforce the law as you suggest, which I certainly believe 
they ought to, it would help if they would have the data and the 
information to do so and to be able to track down attempts to break the 
law.
  This would be exactly what we are trying to do with this amendment. 
To speculate on who might--when, where, and how--be able to do this is 
a waste of time when we know at this point that we are under siege.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I look forward to working 
with my colleague from New York to address many issues regarding rural 
America. I would love to be able to sit down and find a workable 
solution.

[[Page H8433]]

  The problem is, the solution that is being offered in this amendment 
is going to be tacked on to a bill that is never going to become law. 
So we are either going to talk about amendments that are going to 
remain talking points or we can sit down together and work in a 
bipartisan fashion to get a law passed that is going to have the impact 
that my colleague from New York and I want it to have.
  Let's sit down, without having to write the rules that the FEC would 
have to follow. Let's work together and send a letter to the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights. Let's send a letter to the Brennan Center 
and see if they can study it.
  Why do we have to wait so long? This is a much easier way to address 
the problem that I think he and I agree ought to be addressed. Let's do 
that.
  When this bill passes on a partisan rollcall today and goes nowhere 
when it moves into the Senate, let's commit to working together to see 
what we can do to get this done because rural America is too important 
to be affected by partisanship here in Washington, D.C.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I would be more than happy to work with my 
colleague to do whatever we can to deal with protecting our elections 
and ensuring that they remain free and fair.
  As I am sure the gentleman understands, representing a rural 
district, too many folks in our communities are being left behind, and 
they should not be left behind in the least bit when it comes to the 
sanctity of our elections.
  While we might be in a position where, unfortunately, partisanship 
gets in the way of these issues, I will note that to simply say these 
things won't become law is part of the problem. I think it is also 
important to deconstruct why these things are not making their way into 
law in the first place.
  When people become overly partisan in this environment, we are at an 
impasse, unfortunately. I am here to work beyond that.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, again, I agree with my 
colleague. This place becomes overly partisan. This entire process, 
this bill, with zero hearings in the House Administration Committee 
before it was forced to markup through our committee, without us to 
have a chance to ask experts what they can and cannot do to address 
many of the problems that my colleague from New York actually offers 
solutions for, that is the problem of partisanship.
  We can't just blame the Senate. I was told by many of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle when we were in the majority, ``So what 
if the Senate is not going to pass it? We ought to work together in the 
House.'' I agreed then, and I agree now. We ought to find solutions.
  Unfortunately, partisanship has overtaken this process. The 
unfortunate result of that is that good ideas like the one my colleague 
has are going to stop in their tracks when this amendment passes on a 
partisan rollcall vote for this amendment, and then it is not going to 
be signed into law.
  Again, I can't wait to work with my colleague on finding a way to get 
this information into the right hands and have those who can study it 
without having to go through a dysfunctional Federal Election 
Commission and also have them study why we had historic turnout not 
just in urban America but in rural America during the 2018 midterms. 
Let's talk about what we have done right to make sure that voters have 
a chance to get to the polls at historic turnout numbers like we saw 
during the 2018 election cycle, which allowed many of my colleagues to 
get elected to this institution.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I look forward 
to working with my colleague in the future to address the problem of 
access and voter access in rural America, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. DELGADO. Madam Chair, I would like to note, to bring the 
discussion back full circle, when my friend says that the FEC is 
dysfunctional but began this conversation saying that it has the 
responsibility to enforce election laws, those two points don't really 
go hand in hand.
  I think it is important that if we are going to make the FEC able and 
capable of enforcing the laws that we know are critical to protecting 
our democracy, then we should operate on the assumption of how we could 
make the FEC as functional as possible and give the FEC data and 
information to achieve its stated purpose.
  I thank Chairwoman Lofgren for her leadership on this issue and urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put the protection of our 
democracy over partisan division and pass both my amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Delgado).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Houlahan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 40, insert after line 6 the following:

     SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE 
                   RELATING TO CONTRIBUTION OR DONATION BY FOREIGN 
                   NATIONALS.

       Section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (52 U.S.C. 30121), as amended by section 117, section 201(a), 
     section 201(b), and section 301, is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) a person to knowingly provide substantial assistance 
     to another person in carrying out an activity described in 
     paragraph (1), (2), or (3).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(f) Knowingly Described.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(4), the 
     term `knowingly' means actual knowledge, constructive 
     knowledge, awareness of pertinent facts that would lead a 
     reasonable person to conclude there is a substantial 
     probability, or awareness of pertinent facts that would lead 
     a reasonable person to conduct a reasonable inquiry to 
     establish--
       ``(A) with respect to an activity described in subsection 
     (a)(1), that the contribution, donation, expenditure, 
     independent expenditure, or disbursement is from a foreign 
     national;
       ``(B) with respect to an activity described in subsection 
     (a)(2), that the contribution or donation solicited, 
     accepted, or received is from a foreign national; and
       ``(C) with respect to an activity described in subsection 
     (a)(3), that the person directing, dictating, controlling, or 
     directly or indirectly participating in the decision making 
     process is a foreign national.
       ``(2) Pertinent facts.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     pertinent facts include, but are not limited to, that the 
     person making the contribution, donation, expenditure, 
     independent expenditure, or disbursement, or that the person 
     from whom the contribution or donation is solicited, 
     accepted, or received, or that the person directing, 
     dictating, controlling, or directly or indirectly 
     participating in the decision making process--
       ``(A) uses a foreign passport or passport number for 
     identification purposes;
       ``(B) provides a foreign address;
       ``(C) uses a check or other written instrument drawn on a 
     foreign bank, or by a wire transfer from a foreign bank, in 
     carrying out the activity; or
       ``(D) resides abroad.
       ``(g) Substantial Assistance Defined.--As used in this 
     section, the term `substantial assistance' means, with 
     respect to an activity prohibited by paragraph (1), (2), or 
     (3) of subsection (a), involvement with an intent to 
     facilitate successful completion of the activity.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank Chairwoman Lofgren today for having supported such an amazing 
body of work and for also supporting this amendment.
  I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 4617, which helps 
secure our elections by holding Americans who help foreigners funnel 
money into our elections more accountable.
  Throughout our history, people have fought for the right to vote, and 
our men and women in uniform have died to protect that right. Being an 
American is a privilege, and the right for

[[Page H8434]]

every American to cast their ballot is sacred. It is part of our duty, 
and it is part of our duty in Congress, to protect that right. That is 
why I am encouraging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support my amendment.
  Foreign money in our elections is an assault on the American 
electorate and on the democracy that our forefathers built. Americans 
who help foreign actors meddle in our elections must be held 
accountable under the law.
  To vote against my amendment is, therefore, to condone the actions of 
Americans who act against the interests of our country and who help 
foreigners undermine our elections.
  I believe I speak for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle when I 
say this body is committed to defending our country's democratic 
processes. This need not be partisan because there is nothing more 
fundamentally American than protecting our most sacred right, the right 
to vote, from all foreign interference.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, 
although I am not opposed to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my good friend 
from the great State of Pennsylvania for offering this amendment.
  However, I would like to add, this is an incredibly wonky amendment 
to an already complicated, convoluted, and confusing bill. I don't 
think you should have to be a high-powered campaign finance attorney to 
understand what is at stake in terms of election security.
  The issue of foreign nationals meddling in elections can be resolved 
more simply by passing my bill, the Honest Elections Act. My bill does 
not have to empower the FEC, an already--I have said, and I hope my 
colleagues agree--pretty dysfunctional agency.
  If they didn't believe it was dysfunctional, they wouldn't have 
voted, in H.R. 1, to make it a partisan agency. If they think it is 
great now, why did they try to make it into an even more partisan 
agency?
  So, I think we all agree it is dysfunctional. We may have different 
reasons why.
  But my bill doesn't empower a dysfunctional FEC to address the 
problem of foreign nationals meddling in our elections. My bill 
empowers the Department of Justice, which has jurisdiction over 
enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act. That is a better option.
  Clearly, I am not going to get an option because this bill was 
brought to the floor without any hearings, without any opportunity for 
us to have input, and that is a problem. That is a problem with 
legislating in this institution.
  That is a broken promise that this Democratic majority made to the 
voters who sent them here and put them in the majority. They said they 
were going to do things differently, right? I heard from my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, in my terms before this one, how things 
were ramrodded through, how regular order wasn't followed, how they 
weren't given a chance to sit down and come up with solutions. Well, I 
find it ironic that the success story we have of the Republican 
majority in the 115th Congress of investing $380 million in election 
security funds, where we saw historic turnout in the 2018 midterms--we 
saw historic turnout, and we saw success.
  That is what a Republican majority gave. The Democrat majority, they 
have given us hearings--well, wait, no. No hearings before this bill 
was put to the floor, that is a problem.
  I really want to say thank you to my colleague from Pennsylvania for 
offering this amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. But, again, the 
FEC is not the place. I am not going to be opposed to this amendment. 
The DOJ is the place.
  Madam Chair, I am going to make sure I reserve my time. If I had a 
challenge flag, I thought my colleague last time yielded back, but I 
believe the judgment from the referees up there was that he did not 
yield back. Maybe we could check the replay a little later, so I will 
go ahead and reserve this time.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HOULAHAN. Madam Chair, I will take it as the deepest compliment 
from my colleague, Mr. Davis, that he says that my amendment is wonky 
since I believe that is our responsibility here in Congress, to 
legislate and to develop good policy.
  I will also take that back to the working group that was a bipartisan 
working group that developed this amendment with me, the bipartisan 
Task Force Sentry, which really worked very hard to find a way to make 
sure that we would codify what was already being practiced by the FEC.
  This doesn't give the FEC any more power. It simply gives the power 
to us to be able to actually criminalize people by defining what it 
means to support foreign interference.
  I believe that this amendment does speak for itself, and I am very, 
very grateful for the compliments of how this is a policy wonk's dream. 
I will go ahead and interpret the gentleman's words.
  I very much would encourage Americans to understand why we need to 
prevent funneling foreign money into our elections.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1700


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Slotkin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 54, insert after line 14 the following:

Subtitle C--Assessment of Exemption of Registration Requirements Under 
                     FARA for Registered Lobbyists

     SEC. 321. ASSESSMENT OF EXEMPTION OF REGISTRATION 
                   REQUIREMENTS UNDER FARA FOR REGISTERED 
                   LOBBYISTS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct and submit to Congress an assessment of the 
     implications of the exemption provided under the Foreign 
     Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et 
     seq.) for agents of foreign principals who are also 
     registered lobbyists under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and shall include in the 
     assessment an analysis of the extent to which revisions in 
     such Acts might mitigate the risk of foreign government money 
     influencing elections or political processes in the United 
     States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of an amendment to 
the SHIELD Act, which takes a step toward solving a tough, complicated, 
outstanding challenge in preventing foreign influence in our elections, 
and that is closing loopholes that currently allow lobbyists of foreign 
governments to contribute to U.S. campaigns.
  Again, no matter who we are or what party we are from, we can all 
agree that we don't want foreigners playing in our political process.
  I am very proud that the SHIELD Act includes legislation--we have 
discussed it earlier--that closes loopholes so that foreigners cannot 
buy ads for or against a candidate in an American election. That idea 
was very simple. Particularly on social media, this is important.
  So why, then, if we are not letting foreign entities buy ads in our 
political process is it okay that lobbyists for foreign governments are 
able to contribute to candidates, campaigns, and otherwise influence 
U.S. elections?
  There is some work to be done on this. It is, admittedly, 
complicated. But in order to properly close these loopholes, we need to 
first understand what those loopholes are and how they impact foreign 
entities' ability to influence our elections.
  My amendment directs the Government Accountability Office to assess

[[Page H8435]]

existing law to identify loopholes in FARA, the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act, and then recommend the right legislative fixes.
  The SHIELD Act does a great deal to meet the threat of foreign 
influence and interference with robust legislative responses. This 
amendment will help us continue that work and get us closer to a 
solution to an outstanding vulnerability in our system.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, 
although I am supportive of this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I just want to say to my 
colleague from the great State of Michigan, thank you.
  Finally--finally--we have a study that is not too wonky, a perfect 
amount of wonkiness, that is going to go through an agency that is 
going to give us an unbiased review: the GAO.
  Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Pass this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I am just shocked because I have them 
running, jumping up and down over there.
  I continue to think that the gentleman from Illinois doesn't 
understand that when he calls our bills wonky and our amendments wonky, 
we are deeply proud of that over here. I am thrilled that he is 
supportive.
  There actually is a bipartisan agreement on the need to reform FARA, 
as reflected, I think, by Senator Grassley's bipartisan bill, very 
similar language.
  I am thrilled. I thank the gentleman for his support and for jumping 
up and down, giving us a little energy.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Sherrill

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 41, line 1, strike ``60'' and insert ``90''.
       Page 42, line 11, strike ``60'' and insert ``90''.
       Page 45, line 20, strike ``60'' and insert ``90''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
strengthen protections from deceptive practices in Federal elections.
  We know that in the lead-up to the 2016 election, our adversaries 
employed multiple systematic efforts to spread disinformation and sow 
confusion among American voters. In one particularly egregious example, 
Russian bots used social media to mislead voters and tell them that 
they could ``vote from home'' by simply texting a code or going online.
  On the eve of the 2018 election, Facebook deleted many accounts--
including those with links to the Russian Government--that were engaged 
in coordinated, deceptive behavior.
  Today, we know that our adversaries are not only working to hijack 
our political system just before an election, they are interfering in 
our democracy on a continuous basis.
  Madam Chair, election security is not about Democrats or Republicans. 
Election security is about all Americans coming together to defend our 
shared democracy--our democracy--enshrined in our Constitution.
  I have prioritized election security since arriving in Washington 10 
months ago. As chairwoman of the House Science Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight, I held a hearing on disinformation and 
the threat posed by online imposters and deep fakes.
  I have worked with a group of colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
on election security, and we have heard over and over again from 
experts on the need for more robust protections to combat this new era 
of coordinated disinformation efforts.
  As a proud Representative of the great State of New Jersey, I will 
always defend our right as Americans to have a spirited debate, 
particularly when it comes to what matters to us in the run-up to our 
elections.
  One of the things I love about my district is, while we don't always 
agree on the path forward, we agree on the need for honest and 
respectful debate. That is what our democracy is all about. It is what 
I signed up to defend when I joined the United States Navy.
  So it is essential that we stand together as Americans to strengthen 
our laws and to ensure that our foreign adversaries are not able to 
dictate the outcomes of our elections.
  I offer this amendment to prohibit any attempts to deceive voters 90 
days before a Federal primary and general elections. This includes 
knowingly providing false information about the time or place of 
voting, what qualifications a voter must have in order to vote, or 
public endorsements of candidates.
  Expanding the provisions in the Deceptive Practices and Voter 
Intimidation Act from 60 days before an election to 90 days will better 
protect our democracy from hostile foreign actors trying to disrupt the 
voices and votes of Americans. It also protects against longstanding 
efforts to disenfranchise communities of color, women, and other 
marginalized groups.
  In my home State of New Jersey, early voting can occur up to 45 days 
before an election. In fact, 39 States across the country have some 
form of early voting. That is why we need this critical amendment to 
extend protections and prohibit disinformation before any American 
casts their ballot.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this important amendment, safeguard our 
democracy, and ensure that the American people, not our foreign 
adversaries, determine the results of our elections.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I appreciate my new 
colleague from New Jersey offering this amendment and participating in 
this process. I look to work with her and many of my colleagues when 
the majority party finally comes to the table and wants to put a 
bipartisan solution together.
  Everyone here is against deceptive practices. This includes providing 
false information about the time or place of voting and qualifications 
for voting.
  But the underlying section here presents numerous questions because 
of its vagueness. Some of the situations this would apply to seem 
pretty ridiculous.
  Do you want to know how ridiculous this section of the SHIELD Act is? 
Let's talk about public endorsements.
  Recently, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said about 
current Presidential candidate, our colleague, Congresswoman Tulsi 
Gabbard:

       I think the Russians have got their eye on somebody and are 
     grooming her to be a third-party candidate. She's a favorite 
     of the Russians.

  So Secretary Clinton is suggesting the Russians endorse Congresswoman 
Gabbard. Is that not a false endorsement? Would Hillary Clinton not be 
subject to 5 years in prison according this section if this bill were 
passed?
  Let the Record show, nobody is chanting ``Lock her up.''
  This is another ridiculous section of the bill. It is not surprising, 
given the warp speed with which this bill is being rushed to the floor.
  I have to commend my colleague from New Jersey because this amendment 
is right about the amount of wonkiness that we need in amendments and 
pieces of legislation.
  But I will stand here and say, as a Member of this institution, that 
we can never get so wonky with our jobs and our writing of bills that 
it has a chilling effect on the First Amendment

[[Page H8436]]

rights to free speech that every American in this country deserves.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SHERRILL. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Cunningham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 33, line 7, strike ``and''
       Page 33, insert after line 7 the following (and redesignate 
     the succeeding provision accordingly):
       ``(2) an analysis of the extent to which illicit foreign 
     money was used to carry out disinformation and propaganda 
     campaigns focused on depressing turnout among African-
     American and other minority communities and the success or 
     failure of these efforts, together with recommendations to 
     address these efforts in future elections; and''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my 
straightforward, commonsense amendment which would specifically examine 
how illicit foreign money was used to carry out disinformation and 
propaganda campaigns focused on depressing turnout among African 
American and other minority communities and the success or failure of 
these efforts during our recent elections. This amendment would also 
call for recommendations to address these concerns in future elections.
  Republicans and Democrats agree that foreign adversaries should never 
be allowed to sow discord in our political system and interfere with 
our electoral process. Unfortunately, in the last two elections, we saw 
massive misinformation campaigns launched by hostile foreign powers, 
and we know--we know--those efforts disproportionately targeted African 
American communities.
  Last May, the House Judiciary Committee released a trove of over 
3,500 Facebook ads posted by Russia-linked accounts between 2014 and 
2017. In 2015, for instance, Kremlin-backed accounts tweeted and 
retweeted dozens of messages manipulating the tragic mass shooting at 
the predominantly African American Mother Emanuel AME Church in 
downtown Charleston. Ads like this reached over 11.4 million people.
  Russia has sought to influence our democratic process by stoking 
racial, religious, and political differences, and this has had real 
consequences. African American turnout declined in 2016 for the 
Presidential election for the first time in 20 years, according to the 
U.S. Census Bureau, falling to less than 60 percent, from a record high 
of 66.6 percent in 2012.
  Election security is not a partisan issue; it is essential to our 
democracy; and Americans deserve to have the confidence of knowing the 
information they seek hasn't been manipulated by foreign adversaries.
  Our next elections are quickly approaching, so the time to show the 
world that we stand united on election security is now. I ask all my 
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to support this amendment 
to protect against foreign interference in America's elections.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, 
although I am not necessarily opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I have had the opportunity 
to travel the country with my friend and colleague Congresswoman Marcia 
Fudge on the subject of the Voting Rights Act.
  We have heard testimony that minority turnout across the board was 
higher than ever: Hispanic and Asian communities jumped 13 points above 
the turnout levels in 2014 when compared to the 2018 election cycle; 
this last midterm, in 2018, African American turnout jumped 11 points.
  I hope this trend continues, and I hope we see increased minority 
turnout in our upcoming elections.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, in closing, I urge both Democrats and 
Republicans to support this commonsense amendment to prevent malicious 
misinformation and propaganda campaigns from targeting African American 
and other minority communities.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Cunningham

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 33, line 7, strike ``and''
       Page 33, insert after line 7 the following (and redesignate 
     the succeeding provision accordingly):
       ``(2) an analysis of the extent to which illicit foreign 
     money was used to carry out disinformation and propaganda 
     campaigns focused on influencing military and veteran 
     communities and the success or failure of these efforts, 
     together with recommendations to address these efforts in 
     future elections; and''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, today I rise in support of my amendment 
to help protect our Nation's veterans and servicemembers from targeted 
disinformation campaigns bankrolled by foreign governments.
  Earlier this month the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee 
released its report on Russia's attempts to interfere with the 2016 
U.S. Presidential election. In that report, the committee described how 
Russian-influenced operatives created fake online personas to target 
specific groups, including veterans, with the goal of sowing discord in 
the American political system.
  To that end, operatives created social media pages impersonating 
congressionally-chartered veteran service organizations, or VSOs, to 
push their divisive message. In one such case, a page impersonating 
Vietnam Veterans of America run by a troll farm in Bulgaria grew to 
nearly 200,000 followers before it was shut down.
  After learning of this illicit account, VVA launched their own 2-year 
investigation into the issue, and they found more than 150 similar 
efforts across every major social media platform.
  And while I think their actions are reprehensible, I have to admit 
that their approach makes sense. Numerous studies have shown that 
veterans vote at higher rates than those who haven't served. And those 
votes are especially concentrated in swing states. In my South Carolina 
district, veterans make up nearly 13 percent of the voting population, 
so I for one prefer my chances against a fellow American, rather than a 
campaign run out of a troll farm in Saint Petersburg.
  Joking aside, it is unacceptable that we are allowing those same men 
and women who have served our Nation overseas to be susceptible to 
these malign influences. That is why I am proud to support the 
underlying bill, which would prohibit foreign governments from 
sponsoring influenced campaigns designed to affect the outcome of a 
Federal election.

[[Page H8437]]

  But since we know that foreign adversaries aren't interested in 
playing by our own rules, my amendment would require the FEC to 
investigate those foreign influence campaigns after each election so we 
can put a stop to them.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, as much as I would like to 
have some fun with my good friend and colleague from South Carolina and 
oppose this amendment and have great debate back and forth, it is a 
pretty darn good amendment.
  I think we need to do everything we can in a bipartisan way to make 
sure that our Nation's heroes have the right to vote not only here at 
home, but abroad.
  I look forward to working with you--after this bill that will pass 
today on a partisan roll call but will go nowhere--to make sure that 
our Nation's heroes are not adversely affected by any propaganda or any 
attempts to stop them from exercising that right.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chair, in closing, I want to thank Chairwoman 
Lofgren for her leadership on the House Administration Committee and 
all the members of the committee for their work on this critical 
legislation. I also want to thank Chairman McGovern and the members of 
the Rules Committee for allowing my amendments to come to the floor. I 
want to thank my colleague, Mr. Davis, across the aisle for his work. 
And I hope that all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join 
me in supporting my straightforward, commonsense amendment, as well as 
the underlying bill.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Cunningham).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Spanberger

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part B of House Report 116-253.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 23, line 8, strike ``and a list'' and insert ``a 
     list''.
       Page 23, line 11, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``, and, if the person purchasing the 
     advertisement is acting as the agent of a foreign principal 
     under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended 
     (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), a statement that the person is 
     acting as the agent of a foreign principal and the 
     identification of the foreign principal involved.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 650, the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 4617, the SHIELD Act.
  Today the House is discussing and debating how we can safeguard the 
integrity of our elections, the bedrock of our democracy. How do we 
protect our electoral systems from foreign threats? And how do we 
prevent foreign influence over our electorate?
  As we stand here today, the number of countries engaged in active 
campaigns to mislead the electorate, the American people continues to 
grow. According to a new report from the University of Oxford, the 
number of countries engaged in disinformation campaigns has more than 
doubled in the last 2 years. Additionally, at least seven countries 
have used their intelligence or military apparatuses to deploy 
disinformation on social media to influence a foreign country and its 
people.
  As a former intelligence officer, I recognize the risks that these 
potential attacks, yes, attacks, pose as we head into the next year's 
Federal, State, and local elections. There is a legitimate fear across 
our intelligence community that foreign governments will build on 
Russia's extensive information warfare strategy. Foreign actors from 
Russia to China to North Korea to Iran are eager to undermine the 
foundations of our democracy.
  Leading up to the 2016 Presidential election Facebook disclosed that 
it had found more than $100,000 worth of ads on divisive issues 
purchased by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin, and the potential 
return on investment is extremely high. As we approach 2020, they have 
every reason to follow this playbook again and to strengthen their 
disinformation operations.
  In the context of these threats, we need to take a serious look at 
how we build resiliency against foreign interference on social media 
platforms. Digital advertising can be a far less expense and time 
intensive as a tool for propaganda, and it can spread disinformation, 
confusion, hate, and division at an alarming rate.
  The SHIELD Act takes real steps to require large online platforms to 
keep records of qualified political advertisements, and I would like to 
thank my colleagues for their hard work on this critical issue.
  The SHIELD Act would require online companies to keep publicly 
available records about online digital political advertisements. It 
would require information about the contents of a specific 
advertisement, its target audience, and the issue it addresses.
  Additionally, it would require disclosure information about those 
purchasing the advertisement. Disclosure sheds light on corruption. It 
unmasks influence. And it stops our democracy from becoming vulnerable 
to foreign governments, nonstate actors, and shadowy influence groups 
constantly working to distract and mislead the American people. My 
amendment would strengthen this disclosure requirement.
  My amendment would add that online platforms need to include a 
statement when the person purchasing a political advertisement is 
acting as the agent of a foreign principal.
  Not only would it include language making it clear that they are 
acting on behalf of a foreign entity, but it would require the online 
platform to identify the foreign principal involved. That principal 
could be a foreign government, a foreign political party or a nonstate 
actor.
  Fundamentally, my amendment to the SHIELD Act would put the power 
back in the hands of the American people. It would help address a 
critical underlying question, who is in charge of deciding American 
elections? Is it those abroad, working to divide and influence the 
American people? Or is it the American people themselves?
  By requiring online records of purchase requests that include public 
information on the foreign principal behind these advertisements, the 
American people will be able to see clearly who is attempting to 
influence their decisions.
  As Congress acts today to restore the trust of those we serve in our 
system of government, my amendment would strengthen our efforts to 
prevent the spread of foreign influence in our democratic system.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 4617 to increase 
transparency in online advertisements, something that should not be 
controversial.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from 
Virginia for offering this amendment, but this amendment shares the 
same flaw as the main text of the bill, putting media platforms in 
charge of enforcing our Nation's laws.
  They are not doing a good job right now. I don't know if Mr. 
Zuckerberg is still across the street testifying in front of the 
Financial Services Committee, but if they were doing a good job, he 
wouldn't have been here so long.
  Rather, we need to strengthen FARA and help the Department of Justice 
do

[[Page H8438]]

its job. I do not understand why the Democrats want the social media 
companies to have more responsibilities when they failed miserably in 
2016.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. I also urge every Member, both 
Republicans and Democrats, to take a look at my bill. It is a 
nonpartisan bill.
  I don't want to empower the media platforms or restrict speech by 
American citizens. I want to give the DOJ the resources to do its job
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, the purpose of this amendment is, in 
fact, to ensure that the American people are aware when an agent of a 
foreign principal under FARA parameters purchases a political 
advertisement. We, as Members of Congress, have the ability to set the 
parameters under which the transparency and information is available to 
the American public. And in doing so, we need to make sure that not 
only do the American people know when there is a foreign individual 
purchasing advertisements meant to influence them, but when someone 
else is purchasing those advertisements on behalf of a foreign entity 
as described by FARA.

  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I appreciate the 
gentlewoman's willingness to want to help fix a bill where the 
underlying bill is one that we never had a chance to have an open 
debate about, never had a chance to have hearings about.
  When it doesn't pass, I look forward to working with my colleagues. 
When it doesn't pass into law--it will pass here on a partisan roll 
call--when it doesn't pass into law, I look forward to working with my 
colleagues.
  But I do have a bill that would address this situation. FARA, let's 
work together to let the DOJ have the resources and the ability to do 
their job. The SHIELD Act is not allowing that to happen. The Honest 
Elections Act, my bill, will allow that to happen. I would urge 
everybody to take a look at that.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Chair, I also support increasing the 
enforcement of FARA.
  But this, in particular, is about transparency and the transparency 
that it brings as it relates to the underlying aspect of the Honest Ads 
Act, which is a bipartisan bill, Republicans and Democrats in equal 
amounts. This is about transparency. This is about allowing the 
American people to know who, in fact, is purchasing the ads that are 
meant to influence them.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Lesko

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished 
business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 2 printed 
in part B of House Report 116-253 offered by the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 231, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 581]

                               AYES--180

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Miller
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--231

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Norton
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Plaskett
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sablan
     San Nicolas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Bilirakis
     Collins (GA)
     Eshoo
     Estes
     Gabbard
     Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
     Grothman
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     Luria
     McEachin
     Meuser
     Mitchell
     Peters
     Radewagen
     Reschenthaler
     Smucker
     Steil
     Stivers
     Takano
     Thompson (PA)
     Timmons

                              {time}  1759

  Messrs. RUSH, VAN DREW, Ms. WILD, and Mr. LOWENTHAL changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H8439]]

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thompson of Mississippi). The question is on 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
DeGette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 650, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 4617 to the Committee on House Administration with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       Strike subsection (b) of section 1 and all that follows and 
     insert the following:
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

              TITLE I--FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION REFORM

Sec. 101. Clarification of coverage of activities directed within the 
              United States by agents outside of United States.
Sec. 102. Application of press exemption to other forms of media for 
              purposes of engagement in political activities.
Sec. 103. Treatment of activities to influence public opinion on 
              elections as political activity.
Sec. 104. Effective date.

 TITLE II--DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS FOR ONLINE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS

Sec. 201. Clarifying disclaimer requirements for online political 
              advertisements.

         TITLE III--REDUCING ILLICIT FOREIGN MONEY IN ELECTIONS

Sec. 301. Report on illicit foreign money in Federal elections.
Sec. 302. Prohibition on contributions and donations by foreign 
              nationals in connections with ballot initiatives and 
              referenda.

 TITLE IV--PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO STATES 
                       ALLOWING BALLOT HARVESTING

Sec. 401. Prohibition on payments to States allowing collection and 
              transmission of ballots by certain third parties.

  TITLE V--PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO STATES 
                    ALLOWING VOTING BY NON-CITIZENS

Sec. 501. Prohibition on payments to States allowing voting by non-
              citizens.

   TITLE VI--INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS ENGAGING IN 
                     IMPROPER ELECTION INTERFERENCE

Sec. 601. Inadmissibility and deportability of aliens engaging in 
              improper interference in United States elections.

              TITLE I--FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION REFORM

     SEC. 101. CLARIFICATION OF COVERAGE OF ACTIVITIES DIRECTED 
                   WITHIN THE UNITED STATES BY AGENTS OUTSIDE OF 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) Treatment of Agents Engaged in Activities as Agents of 
     Foreign Principals.--Section 1(c)(1) of the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611(c)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii);
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iv) and 
     inserting ``or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) engages outside the United States in political 
     activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal 
     which are directed at persons within the United States, 
     including activities consisting of communications 
     disseminated within the United States through 
     telecommunications or computer equipment or services, the 
     Internet, broadcast, cable, satellite, print, or mail; and''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 9 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 
     619) is amended by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting the following: ``, and shall be applicable outside 
     the United States to the extent described in section 
     1(c)(1)(v).''.

     SEC. 102. APPLICATION OF PRESS EXEMPTION TO OTHER FORMS OF 
                   MEDIA FOR PURPOSES OF ENGAGEMENT IN POLITICAL 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Application.--Section 1(d) of the Foreign Agents 
     Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611(d)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(d)'' and insert ``(d)(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) In addition to the exception described in paragraph 
     (1), to the extent that a person engages with the United 
     States in political activities, the term `agent of a foreign 
     principal' does not include any bona fide media outlet 
     organized under the laws of the United States or of any State 
     or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
     States, or any bona fide media outlet for which there is on 
     file with the United States Postal Service information in 
     compliance with section 3685 of title 39, United States Code, 
     published in the United States, solely by virtue of any bona 
     fide news or journalistic activities, including the 
     solicitation or acceptance of paid advertisements, 
     subscriptions, free social media access which is made 
     available to the general public, or other compensation 
     therefor, so long as it is at least 80 per centum 
     beneficially owned by, and its officers and directors, if 
     any, are citizens of the United States, and such media outlet 
     is not owned, directed, supervised, controlled, subsidized, 
     or financed, and none of its policies are determined by, any 
     foreign principal defined in subsection (b), or by any agent 
     of a foreign principal required to register under this 
     Act.''.
       (b) Definition.--Section 1 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 611) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(q) The term `media outlet' means any of the following:
       ``(1) Any newspaper, magazine, or periodical.
       ``(2) Any broadcast, satellite or cable television or radio 
     station.
       ``(3) Any Internet-based website, application, or 
     platform.''.

     SEC. 103. TREATMENT OF ACTIVITIES TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION 
                   ON ELECTIONS AS POLITICAL ACTIVITY.

       Section 1(o) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 
     1938, as amended (22 U.S.C. 611(o)) is amended by striking 
     the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: ``, or 
     with reference to public opinion about public officials, 
     candidates, or elections of the United States.''.

     SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title shall apply with respect 
     to activities carried out on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

 TITLE II--DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS FOR ONLINE POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS

     SEC. 201. CLARIFYING DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS FOR ONLINE 
                   POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS.

       (a) Clarification.--Section 318 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30120) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Application of Requirements to Online 
     Communications.--
       ``(1) Method of provision of information.--Except as 
     provided in paragraph (2) or paragraph (3), a covered 
     Internet communication shall provide the information required 
     under this section on the face of the communication.
       ``(2) Authorizing use of alternative mechanisms.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a covered Internet 
     communication described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4), 
     the communication may provide the information required under 
     this section through the use of a technological mechanism 
     described in subparagraph (B), so long as the communication 
     presents an indicator described in subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) Technological mechanism described.--A technological 
     mechanism described in this subparagraph is, with respect to 
     a communication, any technology which enables the individual 
     reading, observing, or listening to the communication to 
     read, observe, or listen to the information required under 
     this section without navigating more than one step away from 
     the communication itself. Such mechanism may take any form, 
     including hover-over, mouse-over, voice-

[[Page H8440]]

     over, rollover, pop-up screen, scrolling text, rotating 
     panels, or click-through or hyperlink to a landing page.
       ``(C) Indicator described.--An indicator described in this 
     subparagraph is, with respect to a communication, any clear 
     and conspicuous visible or audible element of the 
     communication that gives notice to the individual reading, 
     observing, or listening to the communication that the 
     individual may read, observe, or listen to the information 
     required under this section through a technological 
     mechanism. An indicator may take any form, including words 
     such as `Paid for by', `Paid by', `Sponsored by', or `Ad by', 
     a website URL, an image, a sound, a symbol, or an icon.
       ``(3) Waiver.--A disclaimer shall not be required for any 
     covered internet communication that cannot provide a clear 
     and conspicuous statement of the information required under 
     this section either on the face of communication or through 
     the use of a technological mechanism under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Covered internet communication defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term `covered Internet communication' means 
     any communication which is required to include information 
     under this section and which is any of the following:
       ``(A) Any electronic mailing of more than 500 substantially 
     similar communications which is disseminated by a political 
     committee.
       ``(B) Any communication disseminated on a publicly-
     available website of a political committee.
       ``(C) Any communication placed for a fee on another 
     person's website or Internet-based application or 
     platform.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to communications made after the 
     expiration of the 30-day period which begins on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

         TITLE III--REDUCING ILLICIT FOREIGN MONEY IN ELECTIONS

     SEC. 301. REPORT ON ILLICIT FOREIGN MONEY IN FEDERAL 
                   ELECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 319 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 319A. REPORT ON PRESENCE OF ILLICIT FOREIGN MONEY.

       ``(a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the end of 
     each Federal election cycle, the Commission shall submit to 
     Congress a report containing--
       ``(1) an analysis of the presence of illicit foreign money 
     in such cycle; and
       ``(2) recommendations to address the presence of illicit 
     foreign money in elections, as appropriate.
       ``(b) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) The term `Federal election cycle' means the period 
     which begins on the day after the date of a regularly 
     scheduled general election for Federal office and which ends 
     on the date of the first regularly scheduled general election 
     for Federal office held after such date.
       ``(2) The term `illicit foreign money' means any 
     disbursement by a foreign national (as defined in section 
     319(b)) prohibited under such section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to the Federal election cycle that 
     began during November 2018, and each succeeding Federal 
     election cycle.

     SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS BY 
                   FOREIGN NATIONALS IN CONNECTIONS WITH BALLOT 
                   INITIATIVES AND REFERENDA.

       (a) In General.--Section 319(a)(1)(A) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(1)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``election'' and inserting the following: 
     ``election, including a State or local ballot initiative or 
     referendum''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to elections held in 2020 or any 
     succeeding year.

 TITLE IV--PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO STATES 
                       ALLOWING BALLOT HARVESTING

     SEC. 401. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENTS TO STATES ALLOWING 
                   COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION OF BALLOTS BY 
                   CERTAIN THIRD PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of title II of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21001 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new part:

  ``PART 7--PROHIBITION ON PAYMENTS TO STATES ALLOWING COLLECTION AND 
            TRANSMISSION OF BALLOTS BY CERTAIN THIRD PARTIES

     ``SEC. 297. ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS OF STATES ALLOWING 
                   COLLECTION AND TRANSMISSION OF BALLOTS BY 
                   CERTAIN THIRD PARTIES.

       ``(a) In General.--A State is not eligible to receive funds 
     under this Act unless the State has in effect a law that 
     prohibits an individual from the knowing collection and 
     transmission of a ballot in an election for Federal office 
     that was mailed to another person, other than an individual 
     described as follows:
       ``(1) An election official while engaged in official duties 
     as authorized by law.
       ``(2) An employee of the United States Postal Service while 
     engaged in official duties as authorized by law.
       ``(3) Any other individual who is allowed by law to collect 
     and transmit United States mail, while engaged in official 
     duties as authorized by law.
       ``(4) A family member, household member, or caregiver of 
     the person to whom the ballot was mailed.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, with 
     respect to a person to whom the ballot was mailed:
       ``(1) The term `caregiver' means an individual who provides 
     medical or health care assistance to such person in a 
     residence, nursing care institution, hospice facility, 
     assisted living center, assisted living facility, assisted 
     living home, residential care institution, adult day health 
     care facility, or adult foster care home.
       ``(2) The term `family member' means an individual who is 
     related to such person by blood, marriage, adoption or legal 
     guardianship.
       ``(3) The term `household member' means an individual who 
     resides at the same residence as such person.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     296 the following new item:

  ``Part 7-Prohibition on Payments to States Allowing Collection and 
            Transmission of Ballots by Certain Third Parties

``Sec. 297. Eligibility for payments of States allowing collection and 
              transmission of ballots by certain third parties.''.

  TITLE V--PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE FUNDS TO STATES 
                    ALLOWING VOTING BY NON-CITIZENS

     SEC. 501. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENTS TO STATES ALLOWING VOTING 
                   BY NON-CITIZENS.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of title II of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21001 et seq.), as amended by 
     section 401, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new part:

  ``PART 8--PROHIBITION ON PAYMENTS TO STATES ALLOWING VOTING BY NON-
                                CITIZENS

     ``SEC. 298. ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENTS OF STATES ALLOWING 
                   VOTING BY NON-CITIZENS.

       ``A State is not eligible to receive funds under this Act 
     if the State allows an individual who is not a citizen of the 
     United States to vote in an election for public office.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such 
     Act, as amended by section 401, is further amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 297 the 
     following new item:

   ``Part 8-Prohibition on Payments to States Allowing Voting by Non-
                                citizens

``Sec. 298. Eligibility for payments of States allowing voting by non-
              citizens.''.

   TITLE VI--INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS ENGAGING IN 
                     IMPROPER ELECTION INTERFERENCE

     SEC. 601. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS 
                   ENGAGING IN IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN UNITED 
                   STATES ELECTIONS.

       (a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) Improper interference in a united states election.--
     Any alien who a consular officer, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General 
     knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, is seeking 
     admission to the United States to engage in improper 
     interference in a United States election, or has engaged in 
     improper interference in a United States election, is 
     inadmissible.''.
       (b) Deportability.--Section 237(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1227(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Improper interference in a united states election.--
     Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after 
     admission engages in improper interference in a United States 
     election is deportable.''.
       (c) Definition.--Section 101(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(53) The term `improper interference in a United States 
     election' means conduct by an alien that--
       ``(A)(i) violates Federal criminal, voting rights, or 
     campaign finance law, or
       ``(ii) is performed by any person acting as an agent of or 
     on behalf of a foreign government or criminal enterprise; and
       ``(B) includes any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or 
     unlawful act or attempted act, undertaken with the purpose or 
     effect of undermining public confidence in election processes 
     or institutions, or influencing, undermining confidence in, 
     or altering the result or reported result of, a general or 
     primary Federal, State, or local election or caucus, 
     including--
       ``(i) the campaign of a candidate; or
       ``(ii) a ballot measure, including an amendment, a bond 
     issue, an initiative, a recall, a referral, or a 
     referendum.''.

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H8441]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the 
motion to recommit, a proposal that would actually assist law 
enforcement in pursuing those individuals who seek to disrupt our 
elections, as opposed to the partisan bill we have been debating here 
today.
  I first want to address some of the accusations made here today about 
how my colleagues and I on this side of the aisle do not care about 
election security or how we are the only thing standing in the way of 
securing elections. This is simply not true.
  In the 115th Congress, a Republican-controlled Congress appropriated 
over $400 million to the States and to DHS prior to the 2018 midterms 
to bolster election security, allowing for unprecedented cooperation 
between DHS and all 50 States and 1,400 localities. Earlier this year, 
$33 million was appropriated to DHS to continue these assistance 
efforts.
  I also introduced a bill during the debate of the SAFE Act that will 
provide even more funding for DHS to combat nefarious activity. But 
last week, I introduced, along with many of my colleagues, the Honest 
Elections Act, which the entire basis for this motion to recommit is 
based upon. So don't tell me that we on this side of the aisle are 
standing in the way.
  According to the report recently released by the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, out of the $1.4 billion spent on digital political ads in 
the 2016 election cycle, Russia spent $100,000 over 2 years on Facebook 
ads. The majority of those were not election ads, so they wouldn't 
necessarily be regulated by the Honest Ads Act portion of SHIELD and 
will not address the real threat that we saw in 2016.
  My motion today strengthens and reforms the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act, FARA, to combat election interference. It modernizes 
online political ad disclosure. It increases monitoring of spending by 
foreign nationals in elections. It incentivizes States to prohibit the 
practice of ballot harvesting and encourages States to stop this recent 
trend of noncitizen voting.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to 
recommit because I was given some advice by our colleague from Idaho 
(Mr. Simpson) before I came up here. He said: ``The more you talk, the 
fewer votes this MTR will get.''
  So, let's make sure everyone goes back to their districts. But first, 
vote for this motion to recommit. Vote to protect our elections from 
interference from foreign countries like Russia, China, and all others. 
Vote to hunt down those who are attempting to interfere in our 
elections. And vote, finally, to restore the American people's trust in 
our institutions.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion to recommit, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would like to say that this motion to 
recommit should be opposed. It is so much weaker than the bill that we 
have an opportunity to pass to get foreign interference out of our 
elections so that millions of Americans are not exposed unwittingly to 
ads by Russian trolls.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rose).
  Mr. ROSE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to this blatant attempt to help foreign agents subvert our 
democracy.
  Madam Speaker, we stand at the crossroads of history. Foreign enemies 
have attacked our elections in a sweeping and systematic fashion, and 
they are continuing to do so.
  We are faced today with a very simple question: Should Iran, Russia, 
and China be allowed to interfere in our elections? Should they have 
more of a say in who gets elected than our constituents?
  Let me tell you my answer. Our soldiers did not fight our enemies 
overseas just to watch them try to corrupt our democracy here at home. 
I am not sure when that became a controversial position, but it is a 
damn shame that it has.
  Protecting America should not be a one-party issue. It should be what 
unites us, not a cause for petty games.
  But once again, the minority party has decided it is more important 
to practice the kind of politics that put them in the minority in the 
first place. They have decided, yet again, to play another political 
stunt, just like they played this morning in the SCIF. It is the same 
exact thing.
  That is your choice. My choice is to stand up to say American 
elections are for Americans only.
  The SHIELD Act puts forward critical reforms to improve our defenses 
against foreign influence and interference. The bill strengthens 
reporting requirements, closes loopholes, and deters illegal foreign 
activity in our elections.
  I can understand if some of my colleagues are worried that they 
cannot win on a fair and level election playing field, but for all 
those who believe in free and fair elections, who swore an oath to 
protect and defend the Constitution, I urge you to reject this MTR and 
stand with the United States of America.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on:
  Passage of H.R. 4617, if ordered; and
  The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 777.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 225, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 582]

                               AYES--182

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Miller
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NOES--225

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay

[[Page H8442]]


     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Bilirakis
     Collins (GA)
     Estes
     Gabbard
     Grothman
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     McEachin
     Meuser
     Mitchell
     Newhouse
     Peters
     Reschenthaler
     Smucker
     Steil
     Steube
     Stivers
     Takano
     Thompson (PA)
     Timmons


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The Speaker Pro Tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1816

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 181, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 583]

                               AYES--227

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--181

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Miller
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Peterson
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Bilirakis
     Collins (GA)
     Estes
     Gabbard
     Grothman
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     McEachin
     Meuser
     Mitchell
     Peters
     Reschenthaler
     Smucker
     Steil
     Steube
     Stivers
     Takano
     Thompson (PA)
     Timmons


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The Speaker Pro Tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1824

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________