Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Listening to my colleague, the ranking member, reminded me of when I ran for Congress the very first time. My children were in elementary school. Really, the high point of every day was going to the elementary school, Horace Mann Elementary in downtown San Jose, and standing with the other mothers while we said the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag outside. I think, for parents, being a parent gives you a viewpoint that is helpful when you come to the Congress of the United States. You don't forget what regular people are going through at home when you are a parent. I also remember my first day in Congress. My mother had passed away several years before, but my dad was still alive, a retired beer truck driver. He had never been on an airplane in his life. We got him on a plane, and we had a friend sit next to him. He was sitting in that gallery, watching his daughter become a Member of the United States Congress. I think for those of us who came from humble roots, we never forget where we came from, and it informs our perspective on where the country should go. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter), the author of the bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just note that the provision referred to relates only to the time, place, or manner of holding an election. So if you have a digital ad that says Democrats vote Tuesday, Republicans vote Wednesday, you can send out an ad saying everybody votes on Tuesday. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would like to say that this motion to recommit should be opposed. It is so much weaker than the bill that we have an opportunity to pass to get foreign interference out of our elections so that millions of Americans are not exposed unwittingly to ads by Russian trolls. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rose).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer), who is a leader in the Honest Ads Act.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I think the amendment strikes what is really a commonsense section of the underlying bill. Section 313, beginning on page 49, line 11, comes from the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Act. It first gives deference to State and local officials to combat deceptive practices in their localities if there is a credible report made that materially false information has been communicated to the public regarding Federal elections such as the time, place, or manner of holding an election. Section 313 provides that the responsibility first falls on State and local officials to correct the materially false information. It is only if State and local election officials fall short of making a correction that the Attorney General would ensure that voters do not fall victim to deceptive practices. I don't believe this is an example of Federal interference or overreach. It is an example of putting to use all levels of government to protect voters in our democracy. Let's be clear, section 313 is, at its core, about enhancing transparency and disclosure. The sort of activity we are talking about here is merely providing factual information to voters to ensure they are not deceived, that they are adequately informed, and that they have a fair chance of participating in their democracy. Section 313, page 51, directs the U.S. Attorney General to work in partnership with the Election Assistance Commission, State and local officials, and others to come up with procedures and standards for how to take corrective action if there is an instance of materially false information regarding voting. It is not just whatever he or she thinks at the time. This is going to be said in advance. The procedures in the partnership determines exactly how the AG could step in when there is materially false information being spread. The information communicated by the AG also should be designed not to favor or disfavor any particular candidate, organization, or political party. I think this is an example of how local, State, and Federal levels of government could work together to protect voters in our democracy. This is not an academic issue. We have seen situations where online, or elsewhere, information has been spread to people that certain people-- for example, one party or the other--would be allowed to vote on a day that wasn't election day. Well, that needs to be corrected or people will be disenfranchised if they believe it because they saw it on the internet. Mr. Chairman, I think, though I am sure well-intended, this amendment is a mistake. I urge its defeat, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would note that it was Justice Kavanaugh, in the Bluman v. Federal Election Commission case, who wrote the opinion that ``it is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.'' The idea that we are going to infringe on foreign governments' rights to participate is simply not legally supported. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a valued member of our committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chair, I would note that this bill is supported by a broad spectrum of civil rights groups, including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, as well as the Brennan Center for Justice. And there is a reason for that. A lot of the mischief that goes on to try and prevent people from voting has a racial impact. We have seen the suppression of the vote, the efforts that have been undertaken to suppress the vote through confusion and through lies, where a piece of information would go into a minority community--``the vote is now on Wednesday, not on Tuesday''--so that people will be confused and not show up to vote. That is simply wrong. We need to take steps that are reasonable, as this is, to confront that. This bill will help. That is why so many groups support it. I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 4617.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would note that I think this bill would have done a lot to save us from the Russian attacks in 2016. I will tell you one thing. The chairman of the Trump campaign, Mr. Manafort, gave internal polling and target data to a Russian agent multiple times while the Russians were buying ads. That would be prohibited under this act. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a much-valued member of the House Administration Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I would note that the legitimate press function referred to is part of the FEC analysis that has been longstanding. It is nothing new in this bill. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a respected and valued member of the committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4617 is comprehensive legislation to strengthen the resilience of our democracy and protect against foreign interference in our elections, including by foreign governments. These concerns go back to the earliest days of our country. In his farewell address to the people of the United States, our first President, George Washington, warned that ``Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence . . . the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of the republican government.'' Mr. Chair, the 2020 Federal elections are fast-approaching. Public confidence and trust in our elections is of the utmost importance. We know that foreign adversaries are working to undermine that trust today. To quote former Special Counsel Mueller in July, ``They are doing it as we sit here.'' Our adversaries have a variety of tools to interfere in our democracy. These tools sow disinformation to provoke discord. Their goal is to divide us and attack our values of equality and freedom. Their tactics are calculated to undermine confidence in our democratic institutions so that they will collapse under the pressure of the division and distrust. The need to act is urgent. We have been warned repeatedly about this. The former Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, wrote earlier this year in his Worldwide Threat Assessment, that as the 2020 elections advance, our ``adversaries and strategic competitors almost certainly will use online influence operations to try to weaken democratic institutions, undermine U.S. alliances and partnerships, and shape policy outcomes in the United States and elsewhere.'' He also wrote that their tactics will include spreading disinformation, conducting hack-and-leak operations, or manipulating data in a more targeted fashion to influence U.S. policy, actions, and elections. Earlier this month, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report showing how the Kremlin's ``information warfare campaign was broad in scope and entailed objectives beyond the result of the 2016 presidential election.'' This included using content to ``push Americans further away from one another and to foment distrust in government institutions.'' The Senate report also found that ``no single group of Americans was targeted by IRA''--that is the Russian group--``information operatives more than African Americans.'' Among the bipartisan Senate report's recommendations, are for Congress to ``examine legislative approaches to ensuring Americans know the sources of online political advertisements,'' and to harmonize the rules that apply online with television, radio, and satellite communications. H.R. 4617 does just that. It builds on two other bills that strengthen the integrity of our democracy. In March, the House passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which included strong standards for ballot box election security, as well as provisions to shut down loopholes that allow foreign money, including from foreign governments, to influence elections here. In June, the House passed H.R. 2722, the SAFE Act, which sets strong cybersecurity standards for election infrastructure and provides resources to States to replace paperless and other outdated systems with voter-verified paper ballot systems. Now we are turning to another element of election security. H.R. 4617 closes gaps in the law that allow foreign nationals and foreign governments to launder money into our elections. It promotes full transparency of the sources behind online campaign advertising, and it codifies a basic norm that political committees should report offers of illicit campaign assistance from foreign governments, both to the FBI and the FEC, rather than welcome interference from foreign governments. Title I of the bill enhances reporting requirements and advances transparency and accountability. It establishes a duty upon political committees to report to the FBI and the FEC illicit offers of campaign assistance from foreign governments, foreign political parties, and their agents. This provision of the bill was informed by various proposals that were introduced in the House, including by Representative Jackson Lee, Representative Swalwell, Representative Malinowski, and Representative Slotkin. The bill also includes the Honest Ads Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that takes an important step to provide more transparency to digital political advertising, including the ads that the Russians targeted to Americans to build followers and the engagement of unwitting American citizens. Title II closes loopholes and gaps in the law that permit foreign nationals and foreign governments to influence elections. It codifies existing FEC regulations prohibiting foreign nationals from influencing decisions about campaign spending. It requires the FEC to conduct an audit of illicit money in elections and report its recommendations to Congress after every election cycle. It prohibits foreign spending in connection with ballot initiatives and referenda; and it prohibits foreign spending and political advertising that promotes, attacks, supports, or opposes the election of candidates--or in the case of foreign governments, political advertising during an election year about national legislative issues of public importance. I will note that some of these elements received bipartisan support when similar provisions were included in H.R. 1. Title III deters foreign interference in elections. For example, it restricts campaigns from sharing nonpublic campaign materials, like internal opposition research and internal polling data with foreign governments and their agents, or those on the sanctions list, which can include oligarchs. It also includes the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act--this was also part of H.R. 1--and prohibits knowingly false statements about voting and elections that are made with the intent to impede someone from exercising their franchise. It also provides mechanisms to ensure that state and local officials and the attorney general, as necessary, disseminate correct information in the wake of false information that might spread. Mr. Chair, free and fair elections are the core of what it means to live in a democracy like ours. Free and fair elections are at the heart of what it means to be a citizen of the United States. It is our solemn duty to defend them. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I am disappointed that, apparently, we are not going to get support for this important bill from at least the ranking member and some of the Members who have spoken today on the other side of the aisle. There are no poison pills in this bill, and much of the bill is made up of bills that had bipartisan support. It is interesting to hear that somehow this is partisan because the Republican leadership refuses to step forward to confront the danger that we face from Russian interference in our elections and the possible interference from other nations. We have been told by the FBI that might include Iran as well as Turkey. I listened carefully to my friend, the ranking member, about the money that was appropriated--and that was bipartisan; we supported that--in the last Congress for election security. Democrats included $600 million this year for election security. We sent it to the Senate, and unlike last year, they now are refusing to act. I remember back in law school that I was told by one of my professors, who I liked so much, that if you can't argue the law and you can't argue the facts, argue a lot. I think that is some of what we heard today. We have had some hearings on these issues, three in the House Administration Committee. Although the Elections Subcommittee, which has been so active, did not focus entirely on these issues, it did touch also on these issues, in fact, just earlier this week. In the House Administration Committee, there have been 11 of these hearings. To say that this bill threatens First Amendment rights is certainly incorrect. Now, I value the ACLU. We work with them very closely on a variety of issues, including the role of due process in immigration, and they have an important role in American society. But when it comes to campaign finance reform, they have a long history of opposing laws that regulate the raising and spending of money to influence elections. The ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the Citizens United case. They opposed the effort by the Congress to get rid of the dark money in our elections. They, I think, misunderstand the issue of free speech when it comes to foreign governments. I will quote the entire thing again that Justice Kavanaugh wrote: ``The United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.'' We don't have to worry about whether the Russian trolls' rights to free speech are being violated when we keep them from interfering in our elections because we have a compelling interest to keep the Russians and others from trying to subvert our elections, to hurt our country. We have a right to defend ourselves from them, and the SHIELD Act does that. I would like to note also that elements in this bill would have prevented some of the misconduct or problems that occurred in the 2016 election. I was interested that my colleague expressed concern that we didn't hear from some of the platforms, that we didn't hear from Mark Zuckerberg. He is correct. We did not call Facebook into the House Administration Committee. Frankly, if they had said, ``We don't want to do this,'' I would have said, ``Too bad.'' We need to set some rules that prevent the lack of responsibility on the part of some of these platforms. They accepted money from Russian influencers to place ads to harm our democracy. This bill requires them to make a reasonable effort to find out that the ads that are being placed are not actually coming from our foreign adversaries. We, as I mentioned earlier, in this bill directly prohibit the sharing of sensitive campaign information by American campaigns with foreign actors. That happened in the 2016 election. We had the chairman of the Trump campaign, Mr. Manafort, sharing internal polling data with a Russian agent, sharing the playbook for the States at play with a Russian agent. I have wondered a lot about what was going on there. I didn't get an answer to that, but this bill makes that impermissible. This bill makes that a crime. It also requires campaigns to report to the FBI when they have been contacted by a foreign campaign. We all know now that the Russians contacted the Trump campaign, and the President's son said: ``If it is what you say, I love it.'' They supposedly had dirt on the Democratic opponent. They were going to funnel information into the campaign. Did the campaign tell the FBI? No, they did not. Well, if this bill had passed, there would have been a requirement to notify the FEC and the FBI that the Russians were trying to interfere in the campaign. Now, I would think that would be something that most people would think you would do anyway, that we shouldn't need a law to require it. But, apparently, we do, and this bill would include that. I want to mention the Honest Ads Act because the Honest Ads Act has been introduced with a broad bipartisan group to make sure that there is disclosure. We have had a disclosure regime when it comes to broadcast TV and radio for a long time, but it did not extend to the digital advertising environment. That is a mistake because as information migrates to the digital world, we need to have disclosure there, too. The Honest Ads Act does that. It is incorporated in the SHIELD Act. It is important. It requires the platforms to maintain copies of the ads for 4 years. It requires that there be a disclosure of who is paying for it. The American people have a right to know who is trying to influence them online, just as they do in TV broadcasting. Does it make a difference? Yes, it does. I remember in my State of California, a number of years ago, there was an initiative to control smoking in restaurants. It was polling at, like, 80 percent, something of that nature. Then it came out that the backers of the initiative were the tobacco companies. They were doing it to undercut local ordinances that were stricter than what they were trying to put into place at the State level. Support for the initiative dropped like a stone because people aren't stupid. They know that they have to consider the source of the information when information is sent to them. The American voters have a right to know who is spending money to influence them. I would like to say that this measure deserves the support of every Member of this body. To say that the Senate will take it up--I would hate to think that the Senate cares so little about protecting our country from foreign influence that they would simply say no. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this bill. I think it is important for our country. I think it is essential for our democracy. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to note that it was eight Justices who said, in the Citizens United case, that, while the First Amendment protects political speech, disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech. They were the ones, in the Citizens United case, who urged transparency. And it was Justice Kavanaugh himself who pointed out that foreign citizens don't have a First Amendment right to meddle in our elections. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who has done so much on our ethics and election reform effort.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time remains.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb), a star in our caucus.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin), a new Member of Congress from Michigan, who had a distinguished career in the intelligence community.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips), a valued new Member of Congress.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the cost estimate for H.R. 4617 from the Congressional Budget Office. The cost estimate was not available at the time of the filing of the Committee report. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, October 21, 2019. Hon. Zoe Lofgren, Chairperson, Committee on House Administration, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Chairperson: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4617, the SHIELD Act. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. Sincerely, Mark P. Hadley (For Phillip L. Swagel, Director). Enclosure. H.R. 4617, the SHIELD Act--October 16, 2019 [By fiscal year, millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2020 2020-2024 2020-2029 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Direct Spending (Outlays)........... * * * Revenues............................ * * * Increase or Decrease (-) in the * * * Deficit............................ Spending Subject to Appropriation * 2 ** (Outlays).......................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * = between -$500,000 and $500,000. ** = not estimated. Statutory pay-as-you-go procedures apply? Yes. Increases on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2030? No. Mandate Effects: Contains intergovernmental mandate? No. Contains private-sector mandate? Yes, Under Threshold. H.R. 4617 would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Most provisions in the bill are related to prohibiting the participation of foreign nationals in election-related activities, and making additional campaign expenditures and advertising purchases subject to public disclosure. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4617 would cost $2 million over the 2020-2024 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Those amounts would cover additional administrative costs for the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to ensure compliance with the bill. In 2019, the FEC received an appropriation of $71 million. Violators of the bill's reporting requirements could be subject to civil and criminal penalties, so enacting H.R. 4617 could increase collections of fines. Civil fines are recorded in the budget as revenues. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and subsequently spent without further appropriation. CBO estimates that any additional collections would not be significant in any year and over the 2020-2029 period because of the relatively small number of additional cases likely to be affected. H.R. 4617 would impose private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) on candidates for federal office, campaign committees, political entities, and advertising platforms, among other entities. CBO expects that the aggregate cost of the mandates would be small because compliance with some of the mandates would not impose costs or because the affected entities already perform similar disclosure and reporting activities. For such entities, the new duties would impose only small incremental costs. Therefore, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandates would not exceed the private-sector threshold established in UMRA ($164 million in 2019, adjusted annually for inflation). Title I would: Require political campaigns to report contacts by foreign entities offering contributions or election coordination to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the FEC and to establish a policy requiring staff to report such contacts and to notify staff of that policy. Expand the types of communication subject to existing disclosure rules under the Federal Election Campaign Act and require disclaimers on internet and digital communications. Require online platforms that sell political advertisements and meet minimum traffic thresholds to maintain a public database of qualified political advertisements. Require television and radio broadcasters and online platforms to make reasonable efforts to ensure that campaign communications are not purchased by a foreign national. Title II would prohibit foreign nationals from: Participating in the decision making process of any election-related activity. Contributing to super political action committees (PACs) or campaigns concerning a state or local ballot initiative or referendum. Making campaign or advocacy expenditures for digital, broadcast, and internet communications. Title II would impose additional private-sector mandates by requiring corporations and labor organizations that make campaign contributions to certify that no foreign nationals participated in the decision making process related to those contributions and by requiring corporate PACs to certify that they are not under foreign control. H.R. 4617 would impose no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew Pickford (for federal costs) and Andrew Laughlin (for mandates), The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 25th Anniversary of City Year San Jose/Silicon Valley and acknowledge its work and accomplishments. City Year San Jose/Silicon Valley (``City Year'') was founded in 1993. Susan Hammer, the Mayor of San Jose during City Year's early years, supported City Year's mission. She played a key role in connecting City Year to important partners in our San Jose community. Today, City Year prepares 138 AmeriCorps Members who help in over a dozen elementary, middle, and high schools. Its programs reach over 7,000 students each year through partnerships with public schools in our most challenged communities. City Year's diverse AmeriCorps teams serve as tutors, mentors, and role models, helping to provide research-based student, in classrooms and city wide. City Year strives to help students stay in school and on track to graduate from high school with a solid foundation for college and future careers. A recent study showed that students from schools that partnered with City Year were likely to demonstrate improvement on mathematics and English language arts assessments. Madam Speaker, I hereby recognize and commend City Year for its dedicated work to improve educational access for all students, regardless of background. Today, we honor City Year San Jose/Silicon Valley for 25 years of service in our Santa Clara County community and for helping our students strive for a better future.