Rodney Davis

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I appreciate my new colleague from New Jersey offering this amendment and participating in this process. I look to work with her and many of my colleagues when the majority party finally comes to the table and wants to put a bipartisan solution together. Everyone here is against deceptive practices. This includes providing false information about the time or place of voting and qualifications for voting. But the underlying section here presents numerous questions because of its vagueness. Some of the situations this would apply to seem pretty ridiculous. Do you want to know how ridiculous this section of the SHIELD Act is? Let's talk about public endorsements. Recently, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said about current Presidential candidate, our colleague, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard: I think the Russians have got their eye on somebody and are grooming her to be a third-party candidate. She's a favorite of the Russians. So Secretary Clinton is suggesting the Russians endorse Congresswoman Gabbard. Is that not a false endorsement? Would Hillary Clinton not be subject to 5 years in prison according this section if this bill were passed? Let the Record show, nobody is chanting ``Lock her up.'' This is another ridiculous section of the bill. It is not surprising, given the warp speed with which this bill is being rushed to the floor. I have to commend my colleague from New Jersey because this amendment is right about the amount of wonkiness that we need in amendments and pieces of legislation. But I will stand here and say, as a Member of this institution, that we can never get so wonky with our jobs and our writing of bills that it has a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights to free speech that every American in this country deserves. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my good friend from the great State of Pennsylvania for offering this amendment. However, I would like to add, this is an incredibly wonky amendment to an already complicated, convoluted, and confusing bill. I don't think you should have to be a high-powered campaign finance attorney to understand what is at stake in terms of election security. The issue of foreign nationals meddling in elections can be resolved more simply by passing my bill, the Honest Elections Act. My bill does not have to empower the FEC, an already--I have said, and I hope my colleagues agree--pretty dysfunctional agency. If they didn't believe it was dysfunctional, they wouldn't have voted, in H.R. 1, to make it a partisan agency. If they think it is great now, why did they try to make it into an even more partisan agency? So, I think we all agree it is dysfunctional. We may have different reasons why. But my bill doesn't empower a dysfunctional FEC to address the problem of foreign nationals meddling in our elections. My bill empowers the Department of Justice, which has jurisdiction over enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act. That is a better option. Clearly, I am not going to get an option because this bill was brought to the floor without any hearings, without any opportunity for us to have input, and that is a problem. That is a problem with legislating in this institution. That is a broken promise that this Democratic majority made to the voters who sent them here and put them in the majority. They said they were going to do things differently, right? I heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in my terms before this one, how things were ramrodded through, how regular order wasn't followed, how they weren't given a chance to sit down and come up with solutions. Well, I find it ironic that the success story we have of the Republican majority in the 115th Congress of investing $380 million in election security funds, where we saw historic turnout in the 2018 midterms--we saw historic turnout, and we saw success. That is what a Republican majority gave. The Democrat majority, they have given us hearings--well, wait, no. No hearings before this bill was put to the floor, that is a problem. I really want to say thank you to my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering this amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. But, again, the FEC is not the place. I am not going to be opposed to this amendment. The DOJ is the place. Madam Chair, I am going to make sure I reserve my time. If I had a challenge flag, I thought my colleague last time yielded back, but I believe the judgment from the referees up there was that he did not yield back. Maybe we could check the replay a little later, so I will go ahead and reserve this time. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed to this amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am supportive of this amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, as much as I would like to have some fun with my good friend and colleague from South Carolina and oppose this amendment and have great debate back and forth, it is a pretty darn good amendment. I think we need to do everything we can in a bipartisan way to make sure that our Nation's heroes have the right to vote not only here at home, but abroad. I look forward to working with you--after this bill that will pass today on a partisan roll call but will go nowhere--to make sure that our Nation's heroes are not adversely affected by any propaganda or any attempts to stop them from exercising that right. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I look forward to working with my colleague from New York to address many issues regarding rural America. I would love to be able to sit down and find a workable solution. The problem is, the solution that is being offered in this amendment is going to be tacked on to a bill that is never going to become law. So we are either going to talk about amendments that are going to remain talking points or we can sit down together and work in a bipartisan fashion to get a law passed that is going to have the impact that my colleague from New York and I want it to have. Let's sit down, without having to write the rules that the FEC would have to follow. Let's work together and send a letter to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Let's send a letter to the Brennan Center and see if they can study it. Why do we have to wait so long? This is a much easier way to address the problem that I think he and I agree ought to be addressed. Let's do that. When this bill passes on a partisan rollcall today and goes nowhere when it moves into the Senate, let's commit to working together to see what we can do to get this done because rural America is too important to be affected by partisanship here in Washington, D.C. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I, too, like my colleague from New York, represent a district with a very large rural population. I want to see rural turnout as high as possible. But the mission of the FEC is to administer and enforce Federal campaign finance law. I mean, if this becomes law, along with some of the other previous amendments and amendments after this, I don't know when the FEC is going to have any time to actually enforce campaign finance violations that are happening right now. The FEC is not equipped to receive all these mandates from Congress. This is an extremely important job, a job some on the Commission, including the Chair, are ignoring by spending all their time attacking the President. I think we need to let the FEC focus on their day job. There are many groups, within and outside government, that could produce a report on misinformation, such as the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, maybe even the Brennan Center. Let's let them do it. Help us help the FEC to be able to do the job that we have required it to do. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, this amendment amends the underlying duty to report section. The goal of this underlying section is something I share with my friend across the aisle. If a foreign national would approach me with an offer of assistance in my campaign, I would absolutely alert the FBI. My colleague from California mentions an instance with the President's son. I mean, clearly, I know that he and my Democratic colleagues, they look at this, this is not about what is going to happen to many of the colleagues here, because, likely, we are never going to be approached by a foreign national. But if we are, I think we all agree, it is a pretty bipartisan consensus, we would call the FBI. This is a partisan attack on the President. But rarely are instances as blatant as what I mentioned before about being contacted and I would call the FBI. What this underlying section is asking of political committees is for them to serve as immigration officials, where they will be in a position to determine the citizenship of anyone that their campaign comes into contact with. But, again, I believe through bipartisan negotiations, we could make this work. The underlying duty to report section was already vague to begin with, and adding in additional parties, as this amendment does, that must comply only adds to our concern that we are setting up campaign committees, as well as their families, we are setting them up for failure. It is also worth noting that this amendment would affect family members the candidate has no control over. My family members own fast food restaurants. So are they going to have to ask--if this becomes law--every customer if they are a foreign national representing a foreign government? Do they have a duty to report? That is something that needs to be clarified. We have to do a little bit more work. I think we can work this out, but again, the secretive nature of how this bill was written and forced onto the floor with zero hearings doesn't give us a chance, or frankly, the majority a chance to ask these questions and address our concerns. Madam Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I appreciate the comments from my good friend from Michigan. I, too, am in a swing district. We don't want misinformation. To address comments made by my good friend from Rhode Island, I understand that what the gentleman is asking for is an independent report. I don't believe the FEC can offer an independent assessment of anything right now. Madam Chair, you have an FEC that is completely dysfunctional. You have a Chair of the FEC who is doing nothing but taking partisan shots at our President. That is not what the FEC should be. The FEC is incapable of offering any independent review of anything. That is my concern. That is why I believe if we could work together and come up with a more viable solution to get a true independent study, I think we could do that. Madam Chair, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, to clarify, I don't think the FEC is capable of actually commissioning an independent study. I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Rhode Island to find another agency that we believe could offer a fair assessment. Madam Chair, I will urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment for those reasons, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, again, I agree with my colleague. This place becomes overly partisan. This entire process, this bill, with zero hearings in the House Administration Committee before it was forced to markup through our committee, without us to have a chance to ask experts what they can and cannot do to address many of the problems that my colleague from New York actually offers solutions for, that is the problem of partisanship. We can't just blame the Senate. I was told by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when we were in the majority, ``So what if the Senate is not going to pass it? We ought to work together in the House.'' I agreed then, and I agree now. We ought to find solutions. Unfortunately, partisanship has overtaken this process. The unfortunate result of that is that good ideas like the one my colleague has are going to stop in their tracks when this amendment passes on a partisan rollcall vote for this amendment, and then it is not going to be signed into law. Again, I can't wait to work with my colleague on finding a way to get this information into the right hands and have those who can study it without having to go through a dysfunctional Federal Election Commission and also have them study why we had historic turnout not just in urban America but in rural America during the 2018 midterms. Let's talk about what we have done right to make sure that voters have a chance to get to the polls at historic turnout numbers like we saw during the 2018 election cycle, which allowed many of my colleagues to get elected to this institution. Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I look forward to working with my colleague in the future to address the problem of access and voter access in rural America, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not necessarily opposed.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Virginia for offering this amendment, but this amendment shares the same flaw as the main text of the bill, putting media platforms in charge of enforcing our Nation's laws. They are not doing a good job right now. I don't know if Mr. Zuckerberg is still across the street testifying in front of the Financial Services Committee, but if they were doing a good job, he wouldn't have been here so long. Rather, we need to strengthen FARA and help the Department of Justice do its job. I do not understand why the Democrats want the social media companies to have more responsibilities when they failed miserably in 2016. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote. I also urge every Member, both Republicans and Democrats, to take a look at my bill. It is a nonpartisan bill. I don't want to empower the media platforms or restrict speech by American citizens. I want to give the DOJ the resources to do its job Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Langevin, for offering this amendment. As good a friend as he is, it somewhat pains me to have to stand up and be opposed to it. Again, the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, is the independent regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the Federal campaign finance law. They have jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for us here in the House, our colleagues in the Senate, the President, and the Vice President. They are not the fake news police, much to the chagrin of the current FEC Chair. This amendment requires an independent report from the FEC, and I am not convinced that the FEC Chair is capable of issuing any independent report, any independent guidance, or any independent legal interpretations; and, frankly, I don't think she is capable of offering any independent tweets. I think it is worth noting that every single House Democrat voted to make the FEC a partisan agency earlier this Congress in H.R. 1 and has lamented how dysfunctional they believe the FEC is. If the FEC were a partisan agency, would we want them determining which news was fake news and which news was legitimate? I agree we need to understand and improve media literacy with respect to political content in this country, but the FEC is not the entity to lead that endeavor. Let's take a look at the danger of overregulating online ads and misinterpreting political content. The ad I have behind me and the ones behind it are already being labeled as political ads on Facebook. These came straight from the Facebook ad library. First off, we have my favorite. As the proud dad of two Yorkies at home in Taylorville, Illinois, this political ad for hotdogcollars.com would allow me to get my two Yorkies some new dog collars. I don't know--except maybe the American flag dog collar--how political that is. Next up is the very political ad Facebook is now categorizing under current law and under their current regulations as a political ad-- Pizza Crave. Hey, it is Halloween season, it is almost upon us, $10 pizza pies. I don't know why that is categorized as political, but it is. Do we really want the FEC to figure out that they are the agency to correct that? No. Facebook ought to correct it. Lastly, Stone Bridge Pizza & Salad: We always crave the classic-- obviously a political ad. I don't know anybody who would eat pizza like that, but clearly this is not a political ad. I think we need to take a step back. We need to realize that the current FEC that is dysfunctional is the last place for independent review of anything. We need to make sure that the FEC does its job in a nonpartisan way. Madam Chair, we need to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague from California. We will be judged on how we actually impact foreign interference in our elections. We will be judged on the chilling effect to free speech that this legislation, if put into law, would have on our system that is so much different from those nefarious countries and leaders who want to meddle in our election process. But my point earlier still stands. I agree that somebody who would fall under FARA, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, would be the ones that we would have a duty to report, if they came to our campaign. But at the same time, how do we know? Are they going to wear a badge that says, Hey, I am a FARA-registered individual from another country, and I am coming to talk to you since you are a Member of Congress in a political campaign? I mean, am I going to have my kids who are in college, am I going to have to have them ask everyone they come into contact with, ``Are you registered under the Foreign Agent Registration Act in Washington, D.C., because I have a duty to report.'' How are we going to know? That is why we have to take a step back. We have to sit down. We have to work this together. There are too many unintended consequences that, yes, Madam Chair, we will be judged by in this country. We will be judged by the freedoms and the freedom of speech that many in this country take for granted, that we should stand together, Republicans and Democrats, to protect, or we will be judged by bad legislation that could be turned into law that could have a chilling effect on these freedoms, on these liberties that our adversaries that meddle in our elections want to use to take them away from every single American. Vote ``no'' on this amendment. Vote to protect free speech and vote to take a step back to clarify how we work to ensure that no foreign entity can interfere with our elections again. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I thank, again, my good friend from the great State of Michigan for offering this amendment. The only thing that I wish could have happened is I wish we could have had some hearings on this bill so that we could have brought experts in on shell corporations that are making straw donor donations to Federal campaigns that are already prohibited so we could find out the best way to ensure that doesn't happen in the future, especially from nefarious foreign actors. Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, this is a problem. Misinformation, false representation, digitally manipulated images, that is a problem. What we do in this institution, and the political nature of our jobs, I think we have all been victims of videos that try to provide false information. This has to be addressed. I believe we need to have some hearings on this issue because it is pretty complicated. And we haven't had a single hearing with any of the platforms, where many of these videos would be published, before this bill was rushed to the floor. I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) that deepfakes present a unique challenge for Congress to address. I would hate to see a potential solution that is being offered by my good friend put on a partisan bill. An additional problem I see is that I am not aware of any technology that can identify which images or video are deepfakes. Perhaps the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology should hold a hearing on this issue as well. In dealing with this issue, Congress needs to appropriately weigh the First Amendment protections afforded to public speech with the dangerous potential of deepfakes to add further damage to our already polarized climate. This amendment, like many of these amendments, would be better served to pass through regular order and give the American public a chance to learn about these very important and, at times, recent and troubling issues. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to this amendment.