[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 149 (Tuesday, September 24, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6350-S6351]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2229

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to make a unanimous 
consent request, but out of courtesy to somebody who may object--since 
there is nobody here to object--I won't make the motion, but I would 
like to give my remarks at this point.
  Today, I am going to discuss a decades-long priority of mine, and 
that is reforming the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Around here, it 
is known by the acronym FARA. This legislation is necessary to give it 
the teeth that it needs to be effective.
  Just a little bit of history about FARA: Until maybe 6, 7 years ago--
now it is being enforced a little more often by the Department of 
Justice, but prior to that, a law that had been on the books for 
decades was not really being enforced. So that means people could be 
hired to lobby for a foreign country before the Congress of the United 
States and we didn't even know who they were.
  Well, the FARA act, passed decades ago, was supposed to make that 
public because we ought to know who is working for foreign countries as 
they try to influence policy in this country. And now more attention is 
being paid to it. It is being enforced.
  But I come to the floor today, as I am going to explain to you, 
because we had recent court decisions that have made it even weaker 
than it should be--is intended to be.
  Since 2015--to give you a little history of my involvement with this 
issue--over four Congresses, I have investigated potential FARA 
violations to ensure the Justice Department equally enforces FARA 
without regard to power, party, and privilege. In 2017, as chairman of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, I held a FARA oversight hearing, which 
contributed to the Disclosing Foreign Influence Act that year. I also 
introduced the bipartisan Foreign Agents Disclosure and Registration 
Enhancement Act in 2019, which was supported on both sides by the 
Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. The 
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee also signed off on 
that legislation. So then Senator Cornyn and I requested unanimous 
consent to pass that bill at that time; however, the then-ranking 
member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Menendez, objected.
  The Foreign Agents Disclosure and Registration Enhancement Act is one 
of several FARA bills that I have sought to advance.
  Today, I am here to talk about the bipartisan bill entitled 
``Retroactive Foreign Agents Registration Act.'' The purpose of that 
legislation is to overcome the court decisions that I have already 
spoken about. Chairman Peters, my Democratic co-lead, and Senators 
Warren, Rubio, and Young are cosponsors of the bill that goes by the 
number S. 2229. The bill overturns a recent court ruling that held a 
person doesn't have to register as a foreign agent if their 
relationship with a foreign principal has stopped.
  It is understood that FARA imposes a continuing obligation for 
persons to register as foreign agents; otherwise, once a lobbyist for a 
foreign country is caught not reporting, it is pretty simple for them 
if they don't want to be prosecuted or registered; they just have to 
sever their representation with that country, and they are off the 
hook. And, of course, that is not what Congress intended.
  My bill, the Retroactive Foreign Agents Registration Act, fixes that 
problem, overrides the court decisions.
  Remember, FARA doesn't prohibit any activity. You are free to do 
anything you want to. It is a disclosure statute. It simply requires 
lobbyists and public relations groups on K Street representing foreign 
interests, which might be friendly to the United States or unfriendly 
to the United States, in the Halls of Congress--all they have to do is 
disclose, just disclose. They can do anything they want to, but they 
have to disclose whom they are working for.
  If a lobbyist doesn't want everyone to know that they are working for 
the communist Chinese Government, then I guess that person shouldn't be 
working for the communist Chinese Government.
  Now, it is pretty simple what the spirit of this FARA legislation is 
all about. It is all about transparency. And with transparency, you are 
more apt to get accountability. And who shouldn't want transparency 
because the public's business ought to be public, and you ought to be 
accountable for what you are doing.
  My retroactive FARA fix is supported by almost a decade of oversight, 
hearings, legislative vetting, and discussions with the Department of 
Justice. Congress must send a crystal-clear message to foreign actors 
that they can't hide in the shadows.
  So now that we have other people on the floor who might want to speak 
on this, at this point I want to make this request.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 2229 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third 
time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Foreign 
Agents Registration Act was enacted in 1938 and requires individuals 
working on behalf of foreign governments to disclose their 
relationships and activities. Violations of the law are subject to 
criminal and civil penalties. Generally, a person who willfully 
violates these regulations may face up to 5 years in prison and a 
$10,000 fine.
  Now, many thought leaders have written about the overcriminalization 
of regulations, the fact that we add criminal penalties to people with 
paper violations. Ed Meese has written about this extensively. Justice 
Neil Gorsuch has written a new book, ``Over Ruled,'' talking about so 
many regulation crimes, paperwork crimes, having criminal penalties.
  A 2016 inspector general audit reported that, historically, the 
Department of Justice's practice has been to pursue voluntary 
compliance rather than the prosecution of agents who failed to register 
under the act. More recently, though, the Department of Justice has 
signaled that it is shifting from treating these violations as an 
administrative obligation to one that is increasingly an enforcement 
priority.
  In 2022, DOJ reported that it had charged a record number of criminal 
cases for this regulatory breach. In other words, what was once 
considered a mistake that could be rectified simply by encouraging 
voluntary compliance is now a weapon that can be used to silence 
dissent by threatening individuals with prison time.
  Just 2 weeks ago, four members of the African People's Socialist 
Party, two of whom are 82 and 78 years old, were convicted of 
conspiracy to violate a law similar to FARA by acting as agents of 
Russia. The Department of Justice press release states that the 
defendants ``face a maximum penalty of five years in prison.''
  And what had they done to potentially lose their liberty? The 
specific acts they were accused of included attending an international 
conference in Russia, publishing a Petition to the United Nations on 
the Crime of Genocide Against the African People in the United States 
of America, accepting financial support for a speaking tour to discuss 
reparations, and speaking in support of the Russian Government.
  The African People's Socialist Party was founded in 1972. For 
decades, the party has criticized the United States and maintained the 
government owes trillions of dollars in reparations for the crime of 
genocide against Black Americans.

[[Page S6351]]

  While I don't agree with any of their policy statements or any of the 
things they are for, I really don't wish to put them in prison.
  Highlighting the disturbing nature of DOJ's prosecution of this 
minuscule fringe group, Patrick Eddington, of the Cato Institute, 
writes that the party ``and its related political movement can only be 
described as fringe, bit players on the American political scene whose 
previous statements and stances already mirrored the Kremlin's line'' 
for decades.
  Eddington continues: ``It makes one wonder why the FBI targeted such 
marginal groups with little to no impact on the broader political 
process, and whether an unstated goal of'' these DOJ raids and 
imprisoning people ``was to put the entire domestic political advocacy 
community on notice that a domestic group with foreign connections is 
considered fair game for FBI scrutiny even if legitimate First 
Amendment activity is involved.''
  According to an article in The Nation magazine, ``Since its initial 
enactment into law, the DOJ has invoked FARA,'' the statute at hand, 
``to stigmatize and criminalize political advocacy that is contrary to 
the interests of the US government. Early illustrative examples include 
the 1951 indictment of W.E.B. Du Bois, who was prosecuted as an agent 
of the Soviet Union for having promoted and circulated the Stockholm 
Appeal, calling for a ban on nuclear weapons.''
  You can see how this gathers up political speech. You don't have to 
agree with the speech. But if the speech happens to represent the 
viewpoint of another country, the speech may be stifled and you may be 
arrested for it.
  I understand the Senate will be asked to pass unanimously two bills 
today that would allow the DOJ to retroactively require this 
registration or this paperwork and another that would, effectively, 
write an enemies list into law.
  Both give the DOJ prosecutors greater ability to selectively threaten 
disfavored groups by prosecuting activities that are otherwise 
protected by the First Amendment. Yet these bills have not been marked 
up by the committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee. At the very least, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
of which I am a member, should consider these bills before being rushed 
into passage.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to speak to this.
  This legislation was passed in 1938. You heard me say in my opening 
remarks that for a long period of time--until about, I think, less than 
8 years ago, when we started bringing attention to this legislation not 
being enforced by the Department of Justice--probably only about a 
dozen people or less were convicted under this legislation.
  I heard what my colleague from Kentucky said about this legislation. 
I think you could read his remarks to indicate that a violation of 
freedom of speech is--we might as well repeal the lobbying act or 
lobbying registration act--whatever the law is--of 1946 that lobbyists 
have to register if they are going to lobby the Congress of the United 
States.
  It doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. What it has to 
do with is transparency, so we know who is spending money to influence 
the laws in this country. That has nothing to do with freedom of 
speech. You can say anything you want to. It is just about transparency 
and accountability that comes with transparency. I think it is very 
important.
  I don't find a lot of fault with what Senator Rand has said about 
regulatory criminalization and too much federalization, but this is a 
law that has been on the books since 1938 and, really, hasn't been 
enforced until very recently here. I think when you enforce the law, 
you get respect for the law. And there ought to be respect for a simple 
little law that says nothing more than: We just want to know who you 
are; who you are working for; and, particularly, if it is a foreign 
country, we ought to have a record of who is being hired to influence 
public policy in the United States as a result of your work. It could 
be a national security concern. It could be a business concern. It 
doesn't matter what that concern is. You can do anything you want to 
lobby Congress, but we ought to know who you are.
  I have great respect for Senator Paul. Of course, as you just found 
out, I happen to disagree with him on his decision not to let this bill 
move forward.
  I know a thing or two about government abuse and weaponization. My 
investigative staff has been surveilled by the Justice Department, as 
an example. You find out that from whistleblowers. You don't find out 
that because there is transparency of what they are doing.
  I and my investigative staff have been subject to briefings from the 
Justice Department that were targeted to interfere in my investigative 
work. I have seen government weaponization firsthand.
  That data point shouldn't be a basis to object to this bill. The due 
diligence has been done--the oversight, the hearing, the negotiations. 
This bill is bicameral. This bill is bipartisan. There is no legitimate 
basis for this bill to not be law.
  I thank my colleagues, including the objector, for their giving 
attention to it even if we couldn't agree on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington