[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF H.R. 4617, THE STOPPING HARMFUL INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS FOR
A LASTING DEMOCRACY ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 16, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-administration
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-768 WASHINGTON : 2020
Committee on House Administration
116th Congress
ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairperson
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Ranking
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California Member
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MARK WALKER, North Carolina
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
PETE AGUILAR, California
MARKUP OF H.R. 4617, THE STOPPING HARMFUL INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS FOR
A LASTING DEMOCRACY ACT
---------- --
--------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:56 p.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Zoe Lofgren
[Chairperson of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lofgren, Raskin, Davis of
California, Butterfield, Fudge, Aguilar, Davis of Illinois,
Walker, and Loudermilk.
Staff Present: Sean Jones, Legislative Clerk; Lisa Sherman,
Chief of Staff for Mrs. Davis of California; David Tucker,
Parliamentarian; Eddie Flaherty, Chief Clerk; Mariam Malik,
Staff Assistant; Hannah Carr, Staff Assistant; Khalil Abboud,
Deputy Staff Director; Evan Dorner, Legislative Assistant for
Mr. Aguilar; Lauren Doney, Deputy Chief of Staff for Mr.
Raskin; Stephen Spaulding, Counsel--Elections; Tim Monahan,
Minority Deputy Staff Director; Jesse Roberts, Minority
Counsel; Cole Felder, Minority General Counsel; Courtney
Parella, Minority Communications Director; and Jennifer Daulby,
Minority Staff Director.
The Chairperson. A quorum being present, the Committee will
come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time. Pursuant to Committee Rule 4 and clause
2(h)(4) of House Rule XI, the Chair announces that she may
postpone further proceedings today when a recorded vote is
ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter or on
adopting an amendment.
We are expecting additional Members, but while we are
waiting, we will proceed with our opening statements.
This afternoon, we will consider H.R. 4617, the Stopping
Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy, or
SHIELD, Act. This comprehensive legislation will strengthen the
resilience of our democracy and protect against foreign
interference in elections, including by foreign governments.
The 2020 Federal elections are fast approaching. Public
confidence and trust in our elections is of the utmost
importance. But foreign adversaries are working to undermine
that trust. They use disinformation and discord as weapons to
divide us and to attack our values of equality and freedom.
They hope that our institutions will collapse under the
pressure of the division, decay, and distrust that they sow.
The need to act is urgent. Foreign adversaries, including
Russia, are interfering in our elections right now. Former
Special Counsel Mueller, back in July, testified that they are,
quote, ``doing it as we sit here.''
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, quote, ``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 fashion to influence U.S.
policy actions on elections.
Just last week, 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
results of the 2016 election. This included using content to
push Americans farther 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 Internet Research Agency (IRA)
information operatives more than African Americans.
Among the bipartisan Senate report's recommendations are
for Congress to examine legislative approaches to ensure
Americans know the sources of online political advertisements
and to harmonize the rules that apply online with television,
radio, and satellite communications.
This Committee and this House have acted at least twice
this year to shore up confidence in our elections. 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.
The House passed 2722, the SAFE Act, which originated in
this Committee and had some of its roots in Title III of H.R.
1. It would set strong cybersecurity standards for election
infrastructure and provide 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.
The SHIELD Act 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 advertising campaigns. It codifies a basic norm, that
political committees should report offers of illicit campaign
assistance from foreign governments to the FBI and to the FEC,
rather than welcome interference from foreign governments.
We should all be able to agree that we need to protect our
democracy and with a sense of urgency. This should not be a
partisan opinion. Nothing less than our national security is at
stake.
The Ranking Member has discussed his views on partisanship
and democracy at previous markups, and I must stress for the
record that many key elements of the SHIELD Act, including its
incorporation of the Honest Ads Act, have strong Republican
support.
A July Quinnipiac poll found that, by an 87-to-7-percent
margin, including 80 percent to 11 percent among Republicans,
voters support requiring political campaigns to report any
information they received from foreign governments to the FBI,
a key component of Title I of the SHIELD Act. And voters say,
78 to 13 percent, it is never acceptable for a Presidential
campaign to obtain information on a political opponent from a
hostile foreign power.
The SHIELD Act also incorporates other elements of H.R. 1
that Republicans supported unanimously during the amendment
process, including expanded prohibitions on paid political
advertising by foreign governments.
The SHIELD Act has garnered support since its introduction
from the NAACP, Public Citizen, Common Cause, the Brennan
Center for Justice, Democracy 21 Network, and the End Citizens
United Action Fund, as well as a letter received just this
morning from the nuns, which is of particular meaning to me.
So, with that, I will say that 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, and it is our solemn duty to
defend them.
I would now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Davis, for any
opening comments he would like to make.
[The statement of the Chairperson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and
thanks to the Committee.
As the Chairperson noted, I have said time and time again,
the biggest threat to our elections and the integrity of those
elections is actually partisanship. As the Majority has pointed
out, there are legitimate election security concerns that H.R.
4617 aims to address that I know my Democratic colleagues and I
agree on, which leads me to wonder: If the Majority knows we
support large portions of this bill, why would they not work
with us to find a bipartisan solution to our collective
concerns?
Once again, the Majority has chosen to continue this
pattern we have seen all Congress where they rush legislation
without any hearings or public discussion of the issues and
insert poison pills into a bill that they know we will not
support--all in an effort to prop up their impeachment efforts
against the President.
That is why we are here today: not to make real legislative
progress on preventing foreign interference in our elections,
but to push partisan politics for the Democratic agenda.
We have marked up three comprehensive election security
bills in this Committee in this Congress, and the partisan
approach to every problem always ends with expanding the powers
of the Federal Government, the highlight of this bill being
that we are vastly expanding the powers of the Attorney General
and--my personal favorite--defining legitimate news.
What we aren't going to hear about today is the work done
last Congress and earlier this Congress to provide funding for
election infrastructure and to create unprecedented cooperation
among the States and Federal stakeholders aimed at better
securing our elections.
What we aren't going to hear about today is how many of the
private companies and online platforms mentioned in this bill
are already taking important steps to help prevent election
interference through social media.
What we are not going to hear about today is how we are
marking up this bill without a hearing so the American public
can see who is paying for and supporting the ads they see in
their social media feeds and won't actually stop the sort of
interference that we saw from Russia in the 2016 election.
Don't get me wrong; as the Chairperson said, there are
provisions in this legislation that make sense. I like
prohibiting foreign nationals from participating in ballot
initiatives and requiring the Federal Election Commission to
annually audit and report any foreign money in U.S. elections.
I am also supportive of disclosing on online political ads.
However, there are also provisions in this bill, like
broadly defined requirements for who has to disclose ads, as
well as applying aging TV regulations to internet advertising,
that I cannot support because of the threat they pose to our
First Amendment.
I believe the SHIELD Act will have many unintended but
severe consequences on the American people and a chilling
effect on free speech--a fundamental right we in Congress have
a responsibility to defend.
H.R. 4617, in my opinion, is unfixable in its current form.
The amendments we put forth today will only showcase the
hypocrisy and flaws within this legislation. If we truly want
to prevent the type of election interference that we saw in
2016, we must put forth the strongest legislation possible that
actually stands a chance at becoming law.
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.
A better approach to concerns mentioned today would be to
update the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which this
legislation completely ignores. It is disappointing for the
American people, who deserve a bipartisan bill that allows them
to trust in their election system that actually stands a chance
of becoming law.
I look forward to debating my amendments that will make
improvements to this partisan bill. Let us forget the partisan
politics today and, instead, put the needs of the American
people first.
And thank you, Madam Chairperson, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
[The statement of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Without objection, the opening statements of all other
Members will be included in the record.
The Chairperson. I now call up H.R. 4617, and the clerk
shall report the title of the legislation.
The Clerk. H.R. 4617. Short Title. This Act may be cited as
the Stopping Harmful----
The Chairperson. Without objection, the first reading of
the bill is dispensed with. And, without objection, the bill is
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[The bill follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The Chair recognizes herself to offer an
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment has been
made available in advance to all Members and is in front of
each Member.
The clerk shall designate the amendment.
The Clerk. The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 4617 Offered by Ms. Lofgren of California. Strike all
after the----
The Chairperson. Without objection, the amendment will be
considered as read and be considered as original text for
purposes of amendment and shall be open for amendment at any
point.
[The amendment of the Chairperson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Now I would like to explain what is in the
amendment.
The amendment differs from the text of the SHIELD Act as
introduced only in that it reserves Subtitle B of Title III,
the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act,
because it is within the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary
Committee, not the House Administration Committee. We consulted
with the House Parliamentarian on this issue, and that was the
advice that we received.
Otherwise, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is
the same as the bill as introduced and is organized by four
titles.
Title I enhances reporting requirements. First, 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, their agents,
and those on the sanctions list. It also includes the Honest
Ads Act, bipartisan legislation that advances an important step
in bringing rules of transparency to online political
advertising.
Title II closes loopholes and gaps in the law that could
permit foreign nationals and foreign governments to influence
elections. It codifies existing FEC regulations prohibiting
foreign nationals from influencing decisions about campaign
spending. It would require 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. It prohibits foreign spending in
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.
Title III deters foreign interference in elections. For
example, it restricts campaigns from sharing nonpublic campaign
material, 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 makes clear that the standard of determining the
existence of coordination between campaigns and outside
interests does not require an express agreement. This is in
keeping with longstanding laws and regulations.
The remaining provisions of Title III remain reserved.
Title IV is the severability clause and provides guidance
about effective dates.
Does any Member seek recognition?
Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
The Chairperson. For what purpose does the Member seek
recognition?
Mr. Raskin. I move to strike the last word.
I want to rise in support of the SHIELD Act. I am very
enthusiastic about this legislation, and I want to thank the
Chair for her leadership in bringing it forward.
This is the third major piece of legislation that I hope we
will be able to pass in the House of Representatives to address
the serious deficiencies and deficits in American electoral
democracy.
We passed H.R. 1, which would eliminate gerrymandering in
America by mandating the use of independent redistricting
commissions in every State. It would also institute automatic
voter registration. It has the ``Shareholders United''
provisions that would prevent corporations from spending the
money of the shareholders without their consent. And there are
a number of other very positive features in H.R. 1. Alas, we
are still waiting for any movement in the Senate on it.
We also passed the SAFE Act to guarantee the integrity of
the machinery of American democracy and to assure that the
mechanics will certify the authentic public will.
And now we have the SHIELD Act to try to repel and reject
foreign interference in our campaigns. I am especially
delighted that we are doing this because I was on the Committee
in the last Congress, and for two years we saw no legislation
that would successfully repel foreign interference in our
campaigns.
In fact, I don't think that we seriously addressed the
issue at all of what took place in 2016, so I think that we
need to start there. As a member of the Judiciary Committee as
well as the House Administration Committee and the Oversight
and Reform Committee, I want to give everybody my best sense of
what took place in 2016.
Special Counsel Mueller, in his report, said there was a
campaign for sweeping and systematic interference in the U.S.
election by Russia, by the GRU. That campaign included an
attempt to poison the political culture of the United States of
America with racist propaganda and various provocations to
create and exacerbate preexisting racial, ethnic, religious,
and social conflict in the country.
There was also direct cyber espionage and sabotage that
took place with respect to the DNC, the DCCC, Hillary Clinton's
offices, all of which were hacked into by Russian operators.
And then, finally, there were direct efforts to hack into the
computer systems of all 50 State election systems.
So that is a basic outline of what Vladimir Putin undertook
to do to distort and thwart and predetermine election outcomes
in our country. That is intolerable from a democratic
perspective, and I think it is something that should unify all
of us as Americans.
I have colleagues in Congress whose politics I disagree
with vehemently, but I will defend with my life their right to
be involved in our politics. That is not true of Russian
saboteurs and Ukrainian prosecutors and investigators and
Chinese spies and others who appear to have been invited to
come into our electoral process. And we need to build very
strong safeguards in our election laws to prevent this
interference and tampering with American political democracy.
The first three words of our Constitution are ``We the
people.'' This is up to the people of America. We don't even
allow our own government to get involved in our election, to
spend money trying to elect this candidate or defeat that
candidate. That is completely against our laws, to spend
government money in that way. Why would we allow other people's
governments to get involved in our elections to try to thwart
the popular will and to try to bend our government to their
will?
The Founders of the United States understood that this
would be a constant threat because we are a free, open, and
democratic society. They understood that other governments
would try to come and use our openness in order to gain sway
over us. We have to pass fair, open, and transparent laws to
say America's elections are for the American people.
I am very proud to support the SHIELD Act. I hope we will
have a good markup today and we will pass it on to the Floor.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Does any other Member wish to be recognized?
Does the Ranking Member seek to be recognized to offer an
amendment?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. The Ranking Member is recognized for the
purpose of offering an amendment and for five minutes.
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady reserves a point of order.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 4617 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois. In
section 104(1), strike ``legitimate.''
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I ask unanimous
consent to waive the reading.
The Chairperson. Pardon me?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I would like to make a motion we
waive the reading of the amendment, although it is over.
The Chairperson. It was over. It was so quick that we
couldn't even get the words out in time.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. That is a good amendment. That is
called governing. Look at that quick reading.
Am I recognized, Madam Chairperson?
The Chairperson. You are recognized for five minutes----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I thank you.
The Chairperson [continuing]. In support of your amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. This amendment----
The Chairperson. And I assume the gentlelady withdraws her
point of order.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you to the gentlelady from
California for withdrawing the point of order.
This amendment simply would strike the term ``legitimate''
in Section 104 of this bill. The word ``legitimate'' in this
section is vague and overbroad, which would eventually lead to
the courts determining which journalistic activities are
legitimate and which ones are not.
It is reckless to have this provision in this bill,
considering our highly polarized political climate, where each
side believes they are the ones correctly reporting the news.
Interpretations of the word ``legitimate'' would undoubtedly be
politically motivated and, if this legislation passes the House
without this amendment adopted, would undoubtedly weaken public
confidence in election security legislation.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this very short, simple amendment
that I think makes tremendous sense.
And I will reserve.
The Chairperson. The gentleman can't reserve, the gentleman
yields back.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I yield back.
The Chairperson. I oppose the amendment, and I will tell
you why.
Section 104, the rule of construction, of the SHIELD Act
duty-to-report provisions is just an expression of
congressional intent that the duty to report should not be
construed to otherwise limit the existing rights of foreign
nationals, as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act, or
journalists.
It closely tracks the rule of construction that is included
in a Senate duty-to-report bill that has Republican support, by
the way. It also tracks something that the FEC has long
required when applying the press exemption, to consider, among
other things, whether an outlet or journalist is acting in
their, quote, ``legitimate press function.''
In keeping with the Federal court case Reader's Digest
Association v. FEC, it applies a two-part test when analyzing
the press exemption: first, whether an entity is a press
entity; and, second, whether that press entity is acting in
its, quote, ``legitimate press function.''
Here is how the FEC describes its analysis of legitimacy.
And this is from an advisory opinion in 2016 that had the
unanimous vote of the FEC, including all three FEC Republicans.
And I quote: ``The Commission applies a two-step analysis
to determine whether this media exemption, also known as the
press exemption, applies. First, the Commission asks whether
the entity engaging in the activity is a press entity within
the meaning of the act and Commission regulations. Second, in
determining the scope of the exemption, the Commission
considers, one, whether the press entity is owned or controlled
by a political party, political committee, or candidate, and,
two, whether the press entity is acting as a press entity in
conducting the activity at issue''--in other words, whether the
press entity is acting in its, quote, ``legitimate press
function.''
And they refer to the Reader's Digest Association v. FEC,
found at 509 F. Supp. 1210 and 1215, as well as the FEC v.
Phillips Publishing, as well as several advisory opinions. ``In
applying this analysis''--and I go on to quote them--``the
Commission considers whether the entity's materials are
available to the general public, whether they are comparable in
form to those ordinarily issued by the entity, and''--the point
I am making is that this rule of construction is what is being
referred to as a legitimate journalistic activity. There is a
long body of law defining what it means. We will incorporate
and assume that that body of law will continue to be in effect
when we utilize this phrase that has been defined in these
cases and opinions.
And, therefore the amendment should be opposed and, I
think, is ill-advised.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Are there further comments on the amendment?
Mr. Raskin is recognized to strike the last word.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, I move to strike the last word. Thank you,
Madam Chairperson.
Thanks for that explanation. And also thanks for the
amendment, which I think does raise an interesting problem.
I wondered if the Chairperson would be willing to give us
some more concrete hypotheticals to help us understand this
problem. Because, as stated, at this level of abstraction, I am
not quite sure I understand.
What is the general function of having this provision at
all? As I understand it, if someone comes to my campaign
representing a foreign government and seeks to engage in
certain kinds of communications and interactions with me, that
is a reportable event, even if they represent a state news
service. Isn't that right?
The Chairperson. Well, no. See, this would exempt that.
Let's say Oligarch No. 1 comes to your campaign. You have a
duty to report. But if it is a legitimate reporter, as defined
by the legitimate press function and a whole body of law----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
The Chairperson [continuing]. That requirement to report
would not exist, because it is a press inquiry. It is not a
foreign interference.
Mr. Raskin. And thank you for that explication. I guess
that raises an issue with me, because, you know, I don't know
what Vladimir Putin is calling Pravda these days, but if he
sends state news to get involved with someone's campaign, it
doesn't give me any comfort that that person is acting as a
journalist for a foreign state actor.
And so I guess I am looking for a broader defense of why we
even have----
The Chairperson. Well----
Mr. Raskin. Do we feel this is a constitutionally
necessary----
The Chairperson. I do. And whether there is further work
that could be done to prevent what is perceived as a government
propaganda arm is something we could discuss between here and
the Floor.
But there are many organizations that are legitimate news
organizations, meeting the test in Reader's Digest Association,
that are clearly not propaganda associations. For example, the
BBC is funded by the British Government. I don't think anyone
would say they are a propaganda source. They are a news source.
We might feel differently about Pravda, but how we make
that distinction I don't know at this moment. If you have
additional suggestions between now and the Floor, we could all
discuss them and----
Mr. Raskin. Okay. And then let me----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Raskin. Yes, I am happy to yield.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Look, I think some of the questions
you bring up are some of the concerns that we had.
You know, we mentioned that the FEC has clearly defined
what they believe legitimate news sources are. I mean, would
like to be able to work together to--let's define it. Let's not
make this as broad.
That is my main concern about bringing this up; this is so
broad. Who is going to make this judgment? And are we sure that
they are going to follow the same process and procedures and
the definition that the FEC follows?
Mr. Raskin. Okay. And just reclaiming my time here, I would
be delighted to work with both of you in thinking through the
problem further.
Unfortunately, your amendment, which I understand is well-
intentioned, would make it broader. By removing ``legitimate,''
it opens the door broader to anybody who claims to be a news
organization from a state. And so I guess, given the----
The Chairperson. You are thinking, if I may, if the
gentleman will yield----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
The Chairperson [continuing]. You actually want to narrow
the----
Mr. Raskin. Yes, I would either abolish it or narrow it.
But, certainly, I want to keep the legitimacy of the news
entity front and center, because there are lots of people who
are really acting as political emissaries for various states
out there who are happy to pose as reporters.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Raskin. I yield.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I agree, there are entities. But
what I think this legislation does, which is why we wanted to
bring it to the Majority's attention, is that it gives a
blanket protection to anyone who may be considered by some
agency in the Federal Government as legitimate when, at some
time, they may be considered not legitimate in the future. They
may be that entity.
So the broadness of where we are right now with this
definition, it shows why we have some concerns about this bill.
I would love to work with you. I would like to immediately put
the--I would work further right now if we could offer an
amendment to put the FEC's definition of legitimate news
sources into an amendment now and pass it today.
Mr. Raskin. Well, reclaiming my time, thank you, and I
appreciate that.
And, again, I am very happy to work with both of you on
brainstorming the best way to deal with the problem. But I
don't think a good way to deal with it is to abolish the
legitimacy criterion and thereby allow both legitimate and
illegitimate news entities to come into the gate.
So I yield back to you.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Does any other Member wish to be heard on the amendment?
If not, then the decision is on the amendment.
All those who are in favor of the amendment will say aye.
All those who are opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The noes
have it and----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I need a roll call vote, because I
didn't ask for a roll call vote for H.R. 1 and now it is being
viewed as unanimous.
The Chairperson. Okay.
The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren?
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
Mrs. Davis of California?
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California votes no.
Mr. Butterfield?
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield votes no.
Ms. Fudge?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar votes no.
Mr. Davis of Illinois?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois votes yes.
Mr. Walker?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, on this vote, five Members
vote no and one Member is yes.
The Chairperson. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments that Members wish to offer?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Chairperson. The Ranking Member is recognized for the
purpose of offering an amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 4617 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Strike Subtitle B of Title I (and redesignate the previous
subtitle accordingly). Page 37, line 19, strike ``Section 117
and.'' Page 37, line 22, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(d).''
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of California. I reserve a point of order.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady reserves a point of order.
The gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of
his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This amendment strikes Subtitle B of Title I. This section
would not accomplish its desired goal of eliminating foreign
meddling in our elections. This section only applies to paid
ads, but in 2016 most Russian propaganda was posted for free on
social media platforms.
It would also apply only to the largest media platforms,
such as Twitter, Facebook, and The New York Times, but ignores
thousands of other platforms, viewed by hundreds of millions of
Americans, open to foreign propaganda.
It also requires web platforms to play the role of law
enforcement officials. But if they fail to detect foreigners
disguised with American identities, they will be punished as
criminals.
Our foreign adversaries will not be deterred by compliance
with FEC filings. Do you think they care if they get hit with a
civil penalty from an administrative board? The only people
that will truly be penalized by this will be Americans who want
to engage in public discourse.
This is a good amendment that provides a fix to this bill
that I believe right now, in its current form, is unfixable.
And I urge--therefore, I doubt I get my wish that the Majority
would pass this amendment. I would like to see something come
through in any of these election security bills that have been
marked up in this Committee. I would like to see at least
someone work with us on a bipartisan amendment. I am still
waiting, and I hope it might be this one.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady withdraws her point of order.
And the Chair recognizes herself to explain why I oppose
the amendment.
Essentially, the amendment would repeal the provisions of
the SHIELD Act that basically reflect the Honest Ads Act. It is
important that digital advertising be included in our efforts
to reform in this space. Digital advertising can have far
greater reach than broadcast advertising. They are relatively
inexpensive to produce, can be disseminated instantly to huge
audiences across vast distances.
And I will note, the Ranking Member complains about lack of
bipartisanship. The Honest Ads Act incorporated in Title I of
the SHIELD Act actually has 18 Republican cosponsors and 17
Democratic cosponsors. So that is a bipartisan approach.
Earlier this year, the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, as I mentioned in my opening statement, released
a report about Russian information warfare and specifically
recommended, on page 80 of Volume II, that Congress should
examine legislative approaches to ensuring Americans know the
sources of online political advertisements.
I think it is time for our disclosure and disclaimer laws
and regulations to be updated to reflect how campaigns are run
in the 21st century. The Honest Ads Act takes steps to curb
illegal foreign influence in our elections by requiring that
media platforms make reasonable efforts to ensure that
political advertisements are not purchased by foreign
nationals.
Now, we know that during the 2016 Presidential elections
Russian operatives took advantage of the absence of disclosure
rules for online political ads. Facebook has disclosed that
Russian entities spend $100,000 in political advertisements to
amplify divisive social and political messages. And it is
important to note that these ads were seen by a huge number of
people.
Now, it is true that paid political advertisements are not
the sole method by which foreign adversaries wage
disinformation. But they are a key tactic to grow followers and
gain exposure to millions of people.
According to page 44 of the bipartisan Senate report, 11.4
million people in the United States saw at least 1 of the 3,393
advertisements that were purchased by the IRA, the Russian
influence agency. Moreover, they were targeted down to the
State, city, and, in some instances, university level.
I will just note that when Citizens United was decided by
the Supreme Court--a decision, to be honest, I disagreed with--
one of the things that the Court said in making its ruling was,
the answer to whatever harm would be done by money in the
political arena would be disclosure. Justice Kennedy wrote that
the First Amendment protects political speech, and disclosure
permits citizens and shareholders to react to entities in a
proper way.
We need to have complete disclosure so that people know
what they are getting. And we need to make sure that we
prohibit these foreign, really, enemies of the United States
from trying to disrupt our democracy.
So, with that, I see my time is almost up, and I yield
back.
Are there additional Members wishing to be heard?
If not, then the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor will say aye.
All opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair--the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I clearly won that voice vote. I
would like a roll call vote.
The Chairperson. The Ranking Member asks for a roll call
vote.
The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren?
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California?
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California votes no.
Mr. Butterfield?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar votes no.
Mr. Davis of Illinois?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois votes yes.
Mr. Walker?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, on this vote, there are three
Members voting no and one Member voting yes.
The Chairperson. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments that Members wish to offer?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Chairperson. The Ranking Member is recognized to offer
his amendment.
The gentlelady from California reserves a point of order.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. The Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of
a Substitute to H.R. 4617 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Strike Section 115 (and redesignate the succeeding sections
accordingly).
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of his amendment.
The gentlelady from California withdraws her point of
order.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I want to comment
on your comments. I don't have the ability to get any of my
colleagues to yield me time when they are not here. You are
welcome, to the rest of the Committee, for not having me have
extra time, but that means I get to take some time now.
We are not against additional disclaimer and disclosure
laws. We want to work with you all on this. But in its current
form, this bill would regulate all political advertisement, of
all Americans, for $100,000 in Russian ads out of $1.4 billion
in online political ads purchased in the 2016 Presidential
election.
Remember, the majority of the propaganda came on free
portions of the platforms. We haven't even had a hearing in
this Committee with the companies who are in charge of these
platforms to ask them why. Why did they take a check from a
foreign country and put those ads up? What are they doing to
ensure that countries like Russia can't use free platforms to
disseminate bad information? Why don't we get a chance to have
them at that table right there and ask them that?
This bill has been rushed. That is the problem. That is the
problem. We can throw $100,000 in Facebook ads in a
Presidential election. My Lord, if you divided that by 435 and
you put it in my race, you mean I only have to spend 1/435th of
$100,000 and I am going to influence enough voters to make sure
I come back here? That is what is going to make me win in my
race? Seriously, come on. That is why this bill is bad.
Madam Chairperson, you mentioned the Senate report that
said we should examine legislation on online ads. Exactly. Why
haven't we had a hearing about that? Why are we pushing another
one of these partisan bills through this Committee, this
Committee that has become one of the most legislating
legislative committees of Congress? I am okay with that. I like
debating these issues. But let's get real here.
This amendment would correct a problem in this bill that
applies television disclaimer rules to online advertising. I
don't know about you, but, look, I have a race where I have to
run television ads and I have to run online ads. There is a big
freaking difference between an online advertisement and a TV
advertisement.
We are going to go backwards. We are not looking at the
21st century. We are not looking at new platforms. We don't
even know what the next generation of platforms is going to be,
because we haven't seen anybody here from any of these
platforms that are named in this bill.
That, to me, is not what I came to Congress for. I can talk
bipartisanship all I want. How about information? Missed that.
Don't get a chance.
Instead, we are going to go put some--we here in Congress
and on this Committee are now going to implement rules that
online platforms are going to have to follow without giving a
chance for them to tell us what they already do.
Also, every time we debate an election security bill in
this Committee, every single time, we forget to talk about what
we have done right. We forget to talk about the 2018 election.
Historic midterm turnout. Trust me, I know. A lot longer night
than I am used to. Historic midterm turnout.
What we don't talk about is where we have worked together
in the last Congress in a bipartisan fashion, mind you, to
provide millions of dollars to our States to work in
conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, who
deserves a lot of kudos at a time where our Department of
Homeland Security is attacked on a daily basis. They deserve a
lot of credit for what they are doing, working with our local
election officials to make sure no foreign country interferes
in our elections. And you know what? You know what? It is
working. Not one instance that I have seen reported of foreign
interference in our 2018 election cycle. Not one.
And you would think, if the Russians had been so successful
in determining an outcome in an election, that they certainly
would want to influence Congress too, right? But we see
nothing. Wow.
But let's go ahead and fix it. Let's go ahead and put
antiquated rules for disclosure into law, because government
knows best, without even asking these new platforms how they
are going to implement them, without even pulling them in front
of our Committee.
If we are going to legislate on a Committee like this, like
we are being asked to, then let's damn well have some hearings
so we can hear why it is important, we can hear from them what
is going to work and what is not. That is what makes me mad.
And I don't have anybody here to yield me more time, and I
am okay with that, but I am not going to sit here and look at
this legislation and think that it is okay without standing up
and putting up a fight. I know I am going to be alone on every
one of these amendments. I know I am going to get drowned out
by a unanimous vote except for me. And you know what? That is
okay, because I am going to go to the Floor and say the same
damn things.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady withdraws her point of order. I recognize
myself in opposition to the amendment.
First, I just would like to note that we did have a hearing
on February 14. We heard from eight witnesses at our hearing,
``For the People: Our American Democracy.'' And--excuse me?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Will the gentlelady yield?
The Chairperson. No. I am in the middle of explaining why I
oppose this amendment.
We did have the Honest Ads Act discussed at that hearing.
This amendment would eliminate the Honest Ads Act
improvements on disclaimer and disclosure rules that apply to
paid digital advertising on major online platforms. It seems to
me that Americans should have the right to know who is spending
money to influence their views, including on online digital
ads.
Transparency is key, as we have noted earlier and as the
Supreme Court noted in the Citizens United case. The Honest Ads
Act ensures that the same rules that apply to television and
radio also would apply to digital advertisements but with
regulatory flexibility to address ongoing changes in
technology.
For example, the bill, starting on page 16, requires
advertisements to include in a clear and conspicuous manner who
paid for the ad, but it provides for a special rule, on page
17, for qualified internet or digital communications in which a
full paid-for-by disclaimer is not possible due to
technological limitations.
And that special rule would provide that an ad, at a
minimum, include the name of the person who paid for the
communication and then provide a means for the recipient of the
communication to obtain the remainder of the information,
required under the section, with minimal effort and without
receiving or viewing additional materials. In other words, a
rollover or pop-up or landing page could supply the remainder
of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' rules.
The three-second audio and four-second video requirement
provides a safe harbor, as defined on page 18 of the bill, and
it provides that the disclaimer information be presented in a
clear and conspicuous manner.
I would like to note that, although much has been said
about bipartisanship, this Honest Ads bill has bipartisan
support.
On the House side, Representative Elise Stefanik of New
York said this: ``The Honest Ads Act will prevent foreign
actors from influencing our elections by ensuring that online
political advertising follows the same rules as television
advertising and discloses the purchaser. There is no doubt that
Russia has tried to interfere in our electoral process, and I
am proud to cosponsor this bipartisan effort to ensure they or
other foreign entities are not successful.''
Senator Lindsey Graham, not known to be a liberal, made a
similar statement of support of the Senate version of the
Honest Ads Act.
So, while the Ranking Member may not agree, as is his
right, to suggest that this does not have bipartisan support, I
think, is incorrect.
I think the amendment, which would simply remove this,
would be a mistake and would make this piece of legislation a
far poorer piece of legislation, and I would ask that the
Members vote against it.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Do other Members wish to be heard?
The gentlelady from California----
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
The Chairperson [continuing]. Is recognized for five
minutes to strike the last word.
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes. Madam Chairperson, just very
briefly, I think, in many ways, what we are asking in this is
that there are enough obstacles in the way to suggest, on some
levels, that we are watching all these other entities at the
same time.
I think that is important, because what we are trying to do
is, at the same time, sort of build resiliency in the
population so people begin to ask those questions: Who is
supporting this? How are they doing it? Where is the money
coming from? Et cetera. And by removing all of that information
we open up the gates and say ``come on in.''
I think we just have to put a few gates in the way to make
it a far more difficult process for at least a certain amount
of information that is meant to influence, on some levels--and,
again, this is coming from foreign entities. And, you know, we
don't want to get out of their way. We actually want to get in
their way, in this instance.
The Chairperson. Does the gentlelady yield back?
Mrs. Davis of California. I yield back.
The Chairperson. Are there other Members wishing to be
heard on this amendment?
If not, then the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Can I have a roll call vote?
The Chairperson. The Ranking Member asked for a roll call
vote.
The clerk will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren?
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California?
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California votes no.
Mr. Butterfield?
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield votes no.
Ms. Fudge?
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes no.
Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar votes no.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois votes yes.
Mr. Walker?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, on this vote, there are five
noes and one yes.
The Chairperson. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Does the Ranking Member have an additional amendment?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I do. I have an amendment at the
desk, No. 4.
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized to offer his
amendment.
The gentlelady from California reserves a point of order.
The clerk will please report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 4617 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Strike Section 116 (relating to political record requirements
for online platforms).
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
And, look, I enjoy working with every Member on this
Committee. We have our differences of opinion when it comes to
these election security issues. I want to vent my frustration
once more on this Honest Ads Act portion.
Look, if the Honest Ads Act is what everybody wants, why
aren't we just pushing that bill? Why are we following the same
path that we have seen in other committees, where you take
bipartisan legislation that could get marked up in a bipartisan
way, we could make some fixes that even some of the cosponsors
have come to talk to me about, we could make some fixes, and
then we could pass it, and then we could all stand together. We
could be like, yeah, we did it, we did something. Send it over
to the Senate in a bipartisan fashion, and then the bogeyman,
Senator Mitch McConnell, can't be blamed for stopping it,
because we are going to push it over in a bipartisan fashion.
But, instead, instead, you take a portion that has some
very good things in it and you mold it together, like I said in
my opening statements, with some poison pills. Then you call it
the SHIELD Act instead. Well, that is great. Great. But there
is a chance for bipartisanship and unfortunately we are not
getting it.
Which is why, as I said in my opening statement, I am
throwing these amendments up, to send a message that maybe we
should fix it, maybe we should do a little more, maybe we
shouldn't rush this stuff. Because this is going to have a
chilling effect on how all of us and how anybody who wants to
participate in the political process actually is able to in the
future.
So much so that, when you look at this provision--another
reason why we have offered this amendment is that I have three
former FEC chairs that wrote an article addressing what, Madam
Chairperson, you said earlier. And it says: But the bill, the
Honest Ads Act, which goes far beyond the Senate report's
recommendation, wouldn't prevent foreign meddling, and it would
harm First Amendment rights.
All I am doing is striking Section 116 because the bill, as
written, would capture far more ads than what we have seen in
the past and what I think the intention of the Majority is.
Many issue-based groups say this would have a chilling effect
on First Amendment rights.
Now, you talk about having a political notation and
categorization. Well, I would like to submit this for the
record. I have some examples of----
The Chairperson. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yeah, thank you. I have some
examples of Facebook ads where they have been categorized
``issue,'' ``electoral,'' or ``political.''
Here is my favorite. I am a proud father of two small
Yorkies. They run my house. I don't know how political they
are, but the hotdogcollars.com-sponsored ad on Facebook was
labeled ``electoral'' or ``political.'' I mean, it is so
political that you can shop thousands of styles of dog collars,
cat collars, leashes, ID tags, and more. Get free shipping on
orders over 30 bucks.
More than willing, Pete, if you want to buy me some dog
collars, you get free shipping. All right. Thank you.
So that is a problem. That is why we ought to have Twitter
and Facebook here, so we can hear from them what they are
already doing, what is working, and what is not.
Recently, Federal courts have doubted the constitutionality
of provisions such as this. A U.S. district court has
preliminarily enjoined Maryland's implementation of the
Maryland Online Electioneering Transparency and Actability Act,
which in many ways was less burdensome than the Honest Ads Act
section contained in this bill. The court held, ``All compelled
disclosure laws implicate the Free Speech Clause, but laws
imposing those burdens on the media implicate a separate First
Amendment right as well, the freedom of the press.''
Lastly, Madam Chairperson, you mentioned a hearing that we
had in preparation for H.R. 1, the one, with two panels. We had
Secretaries of State here talking about election security
issues. We had the Brennan Center talking about how they helped
you guys write that 600-page bill. We had others come in
talking about how they helped the Majority write the bill too.
Yes, we had a hearing. But, no, we had nobody sitting at a
table in a subsequent hearing from companies and platforms that
we and everyone who participates in the political process will
use in every subsequent election. We didn't have any of them
come here to tell us how best to fix the problem and answer the
questions as to why they took money from foreign countries for
ads.
I didn't get a chance to ask that. None of you got a chance
to ask that. I think that is wrong. I think we could have had a
very informational hearing with the companies that are going to
be most affected by this very rushed legislation.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady withdraws her point of order. The Chair
recognizes herself for an explanation of why I would ask that
the amendment be opposed.
I did see the op-ed by the three former Republican members
of the FEC opposing the Honest Ads Act, a bill that has been
sponsored by Representative Kilmer, which currently has more
Republican cosponsors than Democratic cosponsors.
I note that two other FEC members, former Chair Ann Ravel,
has endorsed the Honest Ads Act, as well as the current FEC
Chair, Ellen Weintraub. So that appears to be split.
The amendment would remove the recordkeeping requirements
in the bill. Now, critics have said that it is, you know,
somehow unfair for online platforms to maintain and make
available for public inspection a record of campaign
advertising. To be clear, the recordkeeping requirements are
very similar to those that apply to broadcasters that maintain
political files. Here, the platforms would be required to
maintain a digital copy of the ad, a description of the
audience targeted, and information about the rate charts, the
candidate it supports, or the national legislative issue to
which it refers.
Moreover, the Honest Ads Act puts these transparency
obligations on the largest platforms, those that sell ads and
have 50 million or more monthly U.S. visitors.
Now, platforms like Facebook and Google, in particular,
have taken some voluntary steps, partly, to keep these
recordkeeping requirements, although their work has not been
perfect. But we in Congress need to do our job. These have to
be requirements, not voluntary agreements that can be changed
at any time.
I would note also, I had not seen the dog collar ad
mentioned and now put into our official record, but it is an
example of why the ``national legislative issues of public
importance'' provisions in the Honest Ads Act needs to be made
law.
The term ``national legislative issue of public
importance,'' which is what triggers the qualified political
advertisement for purpose of a platform's recording
requirements, is borrowed from Section 315(e)(1)(B) of the
Communications Act. This is not just made up here on the spot.
It requires broadcasters to maintain and make available for
public inspection a complete record of requests to purchase
broadcast time going to a national legislative issue of public
importance. We need to have an administrative standard, as we
do in the context of broadcasters, and it is important we set
that standard so it can be met.
Finally, just a note on whether or not this will chill
speech. I think it is important that, even though, as I
mentioned earlier, I disagreed with the court in their Citizens
United decision, seven Justices joined Justice Kennedy in
saying, quote, ``The First Amendment protects political speech;
and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to
the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This
transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions
and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.''
Disclosure does not silence or censor any speech. The Court
affirmed in Citizens United, by an eight-to-one margin, that
disclaimer and disclosure requirements impose no ceiling on
campaign-related activities and do not prevent anyone from
speaking.
So I think this amendment is ill-advised. I would urge that
it be defeated. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Do additional Members wish to be recognized?
Seeing no one, then the question is on the amendment.
All those who are in favor of the amendment will signify by
saying aye.
All opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I request a roll call vote, please.
The Chairperson. The Ranking Member has asked for a roll
call.
The roll call will be called by the clerk.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren?
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California?
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California votes no.
Mr. Butterfield?
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield votes no.
Ms. Fudge?
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes no.
Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar votes no.
Mr. Davis of Illinois?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois votes yes.
Mr. Walker?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, on this vote, there are five
noes and one yes.
The Chairperson. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there additional amendments?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk, No. 5.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report the amendment.
The gentlelady from California reserves a point of order.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I will waive the reading of the
bill. I would like to----
The Clerk. Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.R. 4617 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois. In
Section 319(d)----
The Chairperson. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, thank you.
This amendment would simply include ``labor organizations''
after each occurrence of ``corporation.'' Unions have been
treated in parity with corporations throughout the history of
the Federal Election Campaign Act, and there is no reason to
deviate from that here regarding certification of compliance.
There is, however, no reason for either to actually be
targeted in this bill. Neither corporations nor unions have
been accused of any election interference in any election. I
mean, frankly, I don't think either one should be in this bill.
But since you put one in, we have to kind of put the other in.
I am kind of waiting--it is interesting because, right now,
under the Federal Election Campaign Act, nobody running for
Federal office can take corporate dollars. Nobody. The only way
that is going to happen is if H.R. 1 is ever signed into law.
The Chairperson. Would the gentleman yield? Because I think
we are prepared to accept your amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Oh. Yes.
The Chairperson. I think it is covered anyhow pursuant to
the FEC, but I have no objection to including labor
organizations along with the other delineated entities in both
sections of the bill. And I am prepared to accept the
amendment, and I think other members are as well, if we can
proceed.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Well, I will reclaim my time. Thank
you for the cooperation.
And, in this case, look, I am a pro-labor Republican. I am
somebody who is proud to be endorsed in my campaigns by many
labor organizations.
These are opportunities for us to be able to work together
for commonsense solutions. The sheer fact that we are targeting
labor or corporations in this bad bill is something that I
think the entire Committee needs to be concerned about. And
when we move forward and we can talk about bipartisanship, I
hope it is in the sense that we have truth when it comes to
advertising in the future.
Now, I am sitting here, and I can tell you, as somebody who
had millions of dollars spent against him in online ads, TV
ads, radio ads, where they said I took corporate money, I mean,
I can't wait, if this bill is put into law, for the Attorney
General and the DOJ to spend millions of your tax dollars
actually setting the record straight on my behalf when we
finally find out that none of us can take corporate money. That
is what this bill does. We are going to address that later. It
is going to be pretty fun.
But this is an opportunity for us to be able--I would
rather this amendment strike ``labor'' and ``corporate,'' but
if you are going to put one in, you are going to have to put
the other. And I don't think my friends in organized labor
would have any problems coming up with the same certifications
that everybody else is.
And, frankly, when we look ahead, I think it is incumbent
upon them and anyone who wants to participate in the political
process to do it. But let's not kid ourselves; this is another
example--and I am glad you guys are offering bipartisanship.
You kind of take one of my arguments away when we get to the
floor, but I will make an adjustment. But, in the end, if you
guys want to target corporations that can't give to us anyway,
instead of stripping this language out, if you want to add
``labor'' to it, on a bad bill--hey, I am trying to prove a
point, how bad your bill is. If you want to make it worse,
let's go.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentlelady withdraws her point of
order. The question is on the amendment.
All those in favor will say aye.
Opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Does the gentleman wish a recorded vote?
Then the record will reflect that all Members have voted
aye.
Are there additional amendments to be offered?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes. Amendment No. 6. I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report, and the gentlelady
reserves a point of order.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 4617, offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois.
Insert after Title III the following and conform the
succeeding----
The Chairperson. The bill will be considered--the amendment
will be considered as read.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. The gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of this amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
This is one that I think we have heard before in this
Committee. This amendment would simply prohibit ballot
harvesting. We want to talk about making sure that we know that
our election processes are fair. We have got to be concerned
about the chain of custody when it comes to every ballot, and
we are going to have now, if this bill passes, labor
organizations certify when they participate in the political
process to make sure they have no foreign nationals
participating in the political process. We are going to have
corporations that can't give to us under current law unless
H.R. 1 passes, that are going to have to certify that they
don't have foreign nationals participating in our election
process?
How about we get to the ballot level? North Carolina just
had a special election where a Republican operative is going to
likely go to jail because of chain of custody questions in a
ballot harvesting process that is illegal in North Carolina but
legal in other States in our Nation. If we are going to have
labor organizations now certify that they have no foreign
interference in the election process, we ought to make sure
that we outlaw processes ripe for political operatives to take
advantage of. And if we have nefarious adversaries like Russia
that have interfered in the 2016 election, we did a great job
making sure they didn't interfere in the 2018 election, they
are criminal. They want to continue to spew their propaganda
here in our country. They want to interfere in our elections.
Don't you think they are going to figure out how to use this
ballot harvesting process that takes away any identity of chain
of custody of where that ballot comes from and where it gets to
and what happens in between? We are just going to trust people
to do that? That is why that process is just ripe for criminal
activity. And if it is criminal activity in North Carolina that
required us to have a special election, where millions upon
millions of dollars were spent again, we Republicans recognize
that it was a problem, and we are glad that the State decided
to not certify the first winner. And we are glad they had a
special election, which the other side started with a
tremendous advantage. It didn't work out for them, but you know
what? We said right is wrong, and wrong is wrong. What was
wrong in North Carolina can't be right in the other States.
If you want to address the entire security of our
elections, you can't just start on online advertising, and it
can't just start with election machines. It has got to end
before that ballot gets to the ballot box to be counted. And
until we address this ballot harvesting issue, we will not be
sure that the entire election process is secure. States have
decided to outlaw ballot harvesting, States like Arizona. If we
are going to do a Federal approach, let's do it together. I
think we ought to. We need much more security when it comes to
the chain of custody of our ballots because we saw the activity
that is criminal in North Carolina, and we stood together and
said it is wrong. Let's stand together again now. I am going to
keep offering this ballot harvesting stuff every single time we
have an election security bill because it is a loophole that
will continue to exist no matter what happens with any of these
bills that are passed through here.
Until that loophole is closed, I don't know how Americans
can ever be sure that we stop all foreign interference in the
elections. It is that important, ladies and gentlemen. There
are other areas we can work together to make sure that we
preserve that chain of custody. Maybe we can put bar codes,
have certifications from anybody who is ballot harvester. Why
wouldn't we make sure that no foreign agent decides to be a
ballot harvester in any State in our Nation? This is a good
amendment. Let's work to make sure that it passes.
I yield back.
The Chairperson. I don't know if the gentlelady intends to
insist on a point of order. I would note that this amendment is
out outside of the scope of the bill, which does not deal with
HAVA, but perhaps rather than getting down a rabbit hole on
germaneness, I will just address the issue, and we will have a
vote on the amendment if the gentlelady will withdraw her point
of order as a courtesy, not because it is germane. The
gentlelady withdraws her point of order.
I would urge that the amendment be defeated. Some States
have laws that make voting accessible for homebound voters and
others who have trouble physically getting to the polls. For
instance, California's Elections Code 3017 provides that a
vote-by-mail voter who is unable to return the ballot may
designate any person to return the ballot to the elections
official who issued the ballot, to the precinct board at a
polling place or a vote center within the State, or to a vote-
by-mail drop off location within the State. Now, allowing
absentee voters to designate someone to drop off their marked
ballot allows for greater participation in elections. Some
people are homebound. They may not have family to delegate this
role to. They should still have the right to vote, make their
voice heard in our elections. They should not be
disenfranchised for that reason.
Any method of illegal or fraudulent voting is by definition
against the law, and it carries strict penalties.
You know, I am from California, and there were no credible
reports of this ballot return practice resulting in any
fraudulent or otherwise illegally cast ballots. And I will tell
you: We had voter monitors from both parties at all the
elections, and nobody filed a complaint because there was no
fraud. By contrast, unfortunately, in North Carolina, which,
frankly, has a much stricter absentee ballot drop-off law than
California, they did come under scrutiny because there was
fraud. There was a GOP operative who engaged in fraud, and I
believe he is being prosecuted. In North Carolina, only a
family member or a legal guardian can drop off a mail ballot.
But the deception engaged in in North Carolina last year is the
problem, not the drop-off law itself, because the drop-off law
didn't prevent fraud. Fraud is fraud. So the strictness of the
law really proved inconsequential to prevent election fraud.
The SHIELD Act actually doesn't have anything to do with
this provision of the amendment, which is why it probably isn't
germane. It closes instead the gap in the law that foreign
governments and others could exploit to manipulate our
democracy. But the idea that voter fraud is somehow related to
voter turnout, the real fact is we need to have robust turnout
among American citizens to have a robust democracy. The ability
of people who are mobility-impaired to have their votes carried
by a friend or neighbor or anyone they designate is a good
thing for voter turnout. It has nothing to do with fraud. As I
mentioned, the stricter methods in North Carolina certainly did
not result in fraud from occurring there. So, with that, I
would yield back the balance of my time to other members who
wish to be heard on this amendment.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized to strike
the last word.
Mr. Butterfield. I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chairperson, because of the experience that we had in
North Carolina, I have grave concerns about ballot harvesting.
We have not had that experience before in North Carolina. It
has not been a widespread problem throughout the country, but
what we saw in the Ninth Congressional District in North
Carolina was unacceptable. But I am going to deem that to be an
aberration and just not something that we will see repeatedly.
There may come a time when I will vote for an amendment like
this, but right now, I think the evidence is not there that
will support it. Therefore, I will be voting against the
amendment. Thank you.
The Chairperson. Thank you. Any other Members wishing to be
heard? If not, the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The gentleman asks for a recorded vote.
The clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren?
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
Mrs. Davis of California?
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California votes no.
Mr. Butterfield?
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield votes no.
Ms. Fudge?
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes no.
Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar votes no.
Mr. Davis of Illinois?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois votes yes.
Mr. Walker?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, on this vote, there are six
noes and one yes.
The Chairperson. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk. As we only have three more, I would urge
to waive the reading, if possible.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report the amendment. The
gentlelady reserves a point of order, and the reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, am I recognized?
The Chairperson. Yes, you are for five minutes in support
of your amendment.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
During the passage of H.R. 1 through this Committee,
Chairperson Lofgren indicated that any provision of the bill
that would be reserved would have an opportunity to be marked
up in the respective committees that have jurisdiction over the
reserved sections. Unfortunately, not only were large portions
of H.R. 1 passed without a markup, but Chairperson Lofgren has
not afforded a similar opportunity for the SHIELD Act, leaving
the reserved a very important section, even though it has been
indicated that bills marked up by the Committee would follow
regular order. This section is a massive Federal overreach and
is another example of not providing the Judiciary Committee
with an opportunity to mark it up adequately. Section 313 also
is poorly drafted, and it places an impossible onus on the
Attorney General and the Department of Justice as what I
mentioned earlier.
So, when I am accused by my opponent of taking corporate
dollars which I can't do by law, when I am accused of doing
that by law, if this bill passes, I would have the right to go
to the DOJ to get them to spend your tax dollars to defend me,
to say that that is not true. I just think this places an
onerous burden on the Department of Justice. And are they going
to put a political litmus test in place, depending on who is in
power? Listen. I am a proud Republican, but I don't want any
party at the Department of Justice having that power to
determine how they are going to spend your tax dollars to
defend something that is said about a Congressional candidate.
It just--it scares me, and it is an overreach.
You know, I said it is poorly drafted. It places an
impossible burden on the Attorney General and the Department of
Justice under any administration. This bill states that the
Attorney General shall communicate to the public by any means
necessary the supposed materially false information he or she
believes the State authorities have failed to monitor and
sufficiently communicate. Okay. Any means? Are they going to
spend a million bucks on TV in my district, in somebody else's?
I would think long and hard about this provision in this bill.
Are they going to do it by lifeguard signals, maybe? They won't
spend as much money on others. Maybe some Morse code? What
defines adequate steps? This phrase is too vague and would
allow the AG to take whatever steps he or she deemed necessary.
Imagine if a Republican Attorney General, such as the current
Attorney General, Mr. Barr, imagine if he would have the power
to intervene in the elections of Democrats. Under this section,
under this section, he would have the power to do that.
I also want to submit for the record a letter from the
Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Doug Collins, that
asked for a hearing in the Judiciary Committee about these
provisions in the SHIELD Act of Chairman Nadler, so I would
like to submit that for the record along with----
The Chairperson. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you. Along with, again, the
Facebook ads.
The Chairperson. That has already been included as well.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Since Mr. Aguilar won't buy my dogs
collars, there is another one here that is deemed political. It
is for the pizza crave. It is a $10 pizza special.
The Chairperson. I think the entire page has been included
in the record.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you. I wanted to highlight
that, though. I still have some time left.
I will go ahead and yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
Does the gentlelady insist on a point of order?
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes. Madam Chairperson, I
continue to make a point of order that the amendment violates
Rule X of the Rules of the House as being outside the
Committee's jurisdiction. The language of Subtitle B of Title 3
of H.R. 4617 as introduced, was removed from the measure being
marked up today as being within the jurisdiction of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I will withdraw
this amendment, but I think it is something that the Majority
and every Member needs to think about before we rush this
through without a hearing. You said during H.R. 1, we would
have regular order. This is not going to happen unless they get
a hearing at least in Judiciary on the parts that are reserved
for them, and I yield back.
The Chairperson. Without objection the gentleman withdraws
his amendment.
Are there additional amendments that the gentleman wishes
to offer?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, I have an
amendment at the desk, No. 8.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report the amendment, and,
by unanimous consent, the amendment will be considered as read.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairperson. And the gentlelady reserves a point of
order.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, thank you.
This amendment will prohibit political committees from
directly or indirectly making disbursements to foreign
nationals. Political campaigns should not be enlisting the aid
of foreign nationals, either directly or indirectly, such as
the Hillary for America campaign did in 2016 by hiring Fusion
GPS through its law firm, Perkins Coie. The campaign then
reported this covert transaction by filing an FEC statement
looping in this activity with legal services provided by
Perkins Coie. This amendment would ensure that this loophole
would be closed. Political disbursements to foreign nationals
only serve to weaken confidence in the impartiality of our
elections. Banning disbursements to foreign nationals would
limit the access that nefarious foreign actors would have to
our country's political campaigns. I would urge a ``yes'' vote
on this amendment, and I yield back.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
I recognize myself to urge opposition to this amendment.
Does the gentlelady withdraw her point of order.
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
The Chairperson. I think there has been persistent effort
on the other side of the aisle to try and use the Steele
dossier, the so-called Steele dossier, as a smokescreen to
obfuscate and to avoid doing things about interference from
foreign adversaries in our elections, and I think it is really
a classic example of false equivalencies. A campaign that hires
an American opposition research firm, such as Fusion GPS, and
that pays for any resulting research is very different from the
President's repeated efforts to welcome interference from
foreign governments in our elections, including by Russia,
Ukraine, and China.
Now, Fusion GPS was originally hired by a conservative
outlet, the Washington Free Beacon, for its opposition
research. Then it was retained by the Clinton campaign, which
paid for the resulting work. It was not an illegal in-kind
contribution from a foreign government. It was fee-for-service,
and, by the way, it is fully reported under the FEC rules. The
law allows campaigns to contract with foreign individuals to do
bona fide campaign work that it pays for. And I will remind my
colleagues that it was the Trump campaign that hired Cambridge
Analytica, a British firm, to work in 2016.
I think that it is a mistake to blur the facts. Closing
gaps in our laws should not be partisan. The SHIELD Act
responds to vulnerabilities in our system and creates a duty to
report illicit offers of campaign assistance from foreign
governments and their agents. It helps to prevent foreign
interference and deter disinformation by improving transparency
of online political ads and closes loopholes that allow foreign
nationals and foreign governments to spend money influencing
our elections.
This amendment does not solve any problem at all. This
amendment would make it hard to run a campaign. It would mean
having to worry if the campaign signs you printed came from a
foreign company or if the catering firm you hired had foreign
workers, and that really has nothing to do with foreign
influence on the campaign when you are paying for a service. If
the campaign is paying someone for work or services, they are
being compensated. Where that doesn't happen and a campaign is
accepting a contribution or a thing of value from a foreign
government, the question is what is in it for them, and that is
an entirely different matter. So I would urge this amendment's
defeat, and I yield back the balance of my time and would ask
if there are other additional Members wishing to be heard on
the amendment.
If not, then the question is on the amendment.
Those that are in favor will say aye.
Those who are opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
The Ranking Member asks for a roll call vote. The clerk
will please call the roll.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren?
The Chairperson. No.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren votes no.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
Mrs. Davis of California?
Mrs. Davis of California. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California votes no.
Mr. Butterfield?
Mr. Butterfield. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield votes no.
Ms. Fudge?
Ms. Fudge. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes no.
Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar votes no.
Mr. Davis of Illinois?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois votes yes.
Mr. Walker?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, on this vote, there are six
noes and one yes.
The Chairperson. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Does the gentleman have an additional amendment?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I do, Madam Chairperson.
I have an amendment at the desk, No. 9.
The Chairperson. The clerk will please report the
amendment, and the gentlelady reserves a point of order.
The Clerk. The amendment to the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.R. 4617, offered by Mr. Davis of----
The Chairperson. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized for five
minutes in support of this amendment.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I am disappointed we couldn't see bipartisanship in the
last amendment. I believe my bill would simply be even more
strict to any campaign, not just Hillary Clinton's or Donald
Trump's, to make sure we have no foreign interference.
You know, you talked about--Madam Chairperson, you talked
about how we don't want to have anybody blur the facts. You
can't get much more blurry than the sheer fact that Hillary for
America tried to hide the true source of the payments to Fusion
GPS for an opposition research project that created a dossier
that was investigated by a foreign national, Christopher
Steele, and, in turn, was put together with direct connection
to Russian operatives. I mean, you can't get much more foreign
interference in opposition research than that. And then, when
reporting it to the FEC, when reported to the FEC, Hillary for
America described that as legal services--not opposition
research, not Fusion GPS--legal services. That is a problem.
That is a problem. I don't want any campaign doing something
like that in the future. I don't care if they are Republican or
Democrat. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. But this
amendment would prohibit how the funds from going to States--
millions of taxpayer dollars from going to States that allow
noncitizens to vote in an election for public office, how the
funds are meant for U.S. election infrastructure. And when the
States allows millions of noncitizens to vote in their State
and local elections, it degrades the security of that election
infrastructure.
Additionally, much of the HAVA funds have been used to
update State voter registration databases, such as my home
State of Illinois. When you have millions of people improperly
registered, it takes away resources that could be used for
other areas of election infrastructure, such as newer,
stronger, more secure election machines. I would urge a ``yes''
vote on this. Federal funds should not be expended on projects
for States that don't follow Federal law. And when we are
talking about any other investment of Federal dollars, be it
transportation dollars, be it education dollars, cancer
research dollars, Federal law has to be followed. So Federal
dollars shouldn't be spent in areas in the States that
implement portions that don't coincide with the Federal rules
and regulations. So, with that, I yield back, and I urge a
``yes'' vote.
The Chairperson. The gentleman leads back.
The gentlelady, I assume, wishes to insist on her point of
order because this amendment is beyond the scope of this bill.
It seeks to amend the Help America Vote Act, which is not
included within the SHIELD Act and, therefore, is beyond the
scope of the bill.
I would note, however, that it is illegal for noncitizens
to vote in Federal elections. It is illegal today. It will be
illegal tomorrow. It will be illegal if this amendment were
defeated. But it is not germane, so I would ask the gentleman
if he would wish to withdraw it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Madam Chairperson, yes.
I would wish to withdraw the amendment at this time.
The Chairperson. By unanimous consent, the gentleman
withdraws his amendment.
Are there additional amendments?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. There is. My final amendment,
amendment No. 10.
The Chairperson. The clerk will report the amendment.
And, without objection, the reading of the amendment is
waived, and the gentlelady from California reserves a point of
order.
[The amendment of Mr. Davis of Illinois follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I would note that I don't think we will have any
germaneness questions on this amendment. The idea that we would
allow foreign nationals to administer our elections is
ridiculous, but, right now, there is nothing specifically
preventing that. This is another amendment that should pass
with bipartisan support if we are truly trying to close every
loophole and prevent foreign interference in our elections. I
mean, we could, unless you pass my amendment, have Russians
managing machine storage facilities. We could have Russians
serving as IT professionals. And as we pointed out during
debate on H.R. 2722, we could have Russians harvesting ballots.
We could have Russians harvesting ballots unless this amendment
passes.
Let's all agree that foreign nationals should not be in
contact with our election infrastructure. Let's pass this
amendment. Let's make this bill a step better than it is. I
urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairperson. The gentleman yields back.
I assume the gentlelady would like to insist on a point of
order since, once again, this amendment amends the Help America
Vote Act, which is not before us in the SHIELD Act or the
amendment in the nature of a substitute. I would note that, as
Mr. Aguilar pointed out during the debate on H.R. 1, it is also
unnecessary. Fraud is not legal anywhere. If an H-1B visa
holder or your husband is a TPS recipient and takes the ballot
to the poll for you, it is not a problem or fraud. But having
said that, this amendment is beyond the scope of the bill, and
I wonder if the member would like to ask unanimous consent to
withdraw it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. I am not going to ask. I am not
going to offer withdrawal on this one.
The Chairperson. Then the question is on the ruling of the
Chair which is that the point of order is in order. The
amendment is beyond the scope of the bill and is, therefore,
not germane.
Do you wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. Raskin. Well, I was hoping to move to table.
The Chairperson. Well, let's allow the gentleman----
Mr. Raskin. Okay.
The Chairperson. Let's hold off so that the gentleman can
be heard to speak on the point of order. I don't want to cut
that off.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. If we are serious in this
institution about making sure that the entirety of our election
process is secure, it is amendments like this that ought to
garner as much bipartisan support as possible. With that being
said, we in this Committee have had bills rushed through that
deal with election security. We have been talking about
election security issues. You can't get much more relevant and
germane to what we are doing when we were trying to limit
foreign interference in our elections than this amendment. So
that is why I am not offering a unanimous consent request to
withdraw the amendment and take the issue of germaneness
without a fight. I think it is germane. I think it is something
we should be concerned about. I know I am not going to win this
fight looking at the numbers on the other side of the dais, but
I think it is important for the American people to understand
that there are people in this institution that are actually
wanting to stand up and ensure that the entirety of our
election process is secure. I don't want Russians running
storage facilities where our election machines are stored. I
want to make sure they can't do that. That is what this
amendment addresses. The bill does not address it. The
underlying----
The Chairperson. Correct. That is the point. The underlying
bill--the amendment is not germane.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. The underlying bill does not address
the problem I just mentioned. I am not talking germaneness,
Madam Chair. But if you want to talk germaneness, let's run the
vote. I yield back.
The Chairperson. All right. The gentleman yields back.
The ruling of the Chair is that the amendment is not
germane. We do follow the rules here in how we operate.
Sometimes people don't like the rules, but we follow them. And
this amendment is beyond the scope of the underlying bill.
Therefore, it is not germane and will not be considered.
And Mr. Raskin makes a motion to table the appeal of the
ruling of the Chair.
All those in favor of tabling the appeal of the ruling of
the Chair will say aye.
All those opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
A roll call is requested.
The clerk will call the roll on tabling the appeal of the
ruling by the Chair.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren?
The Chairperson. Aye.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Mrs. Davis of California?
Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California votes aye.
Mr. Butterfield?
Mr. Butterfield. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield votes aye.
Ms. Fudge?
Ms. Fudge. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes aye.
Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar votes aye.
Mr. Davis of Illinois?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois votes no.
Mr. Walker?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Chairperson. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, on this vote, six ayes and
one no.
The Chairperson. And the motion to table the appeal of the
ruling of the Chair is agreed to.
Are there further amendments? If not, all those who are in
favor of the amendment in the nature of a substitute will
indicate by saying aye.
All those who are opposed will say no.
We will now move to the question of reporting H.R. 4617, as
amended, favorably to the House.
All those in favor will say aye.
Opposed will say no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
The Ranking Member requests a recorded vote. The clerk will
call the roll, please.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren?
The Chairperson. Aye.
The Clerk. Chairperson Lofgren votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Mrs. Davis of California?
Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California votes aye.
Mr. Butterfield?
Mr. Butterfield. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Butterfield votes aye.
Ms. Fudge?
Ms. Fudge. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes aye.
Mr. Aguilar?
Mr. Aguilar. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Aguilar votes aye.
Mr. Davis of Illinois?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Illinois votes no.
Mr. Walker?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Loudermilk?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Madam Chairperson, on this vote there are six
ayes and one no.
The Chairperson. And, therefore, H.R. 4617, as amended, is
reported favorably to the House.
The motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
Without objection, the staff is authorized to make any
technical and conforming changes, and I want to thank all of
our Members for participating in today's markup.
There being no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]