the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 223. nays are 180. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. on that, we'd request the yeas nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the yeas and nays are requested. vote by abothe yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. will be a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226. the nays are 180. the bill, the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. lofgren: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that mifes -- that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house is not in order.

the gentlelady may continue. ms. lofgren: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to evise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 4617. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 650 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4617. the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. guy yar, to preside over the committee of the whole. -- mr. cuellar to preside over he committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4617, which the clerk will report the title. the clerk: a bill neend the federal election campaign act of 1971 to clarify the obligation to report acts of foreign election influence and require implementation of compliance and reporting systems by federal campaigns, to detect and report such acts, and for other purposes. the chair:le pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. general debate shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on house administration. the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the the .entlewoman from california the gentlewoman from california. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i

yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chairman, h.r. 4617 is a 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 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 federal adversaries are working to undermine that trust today. to quote former special counsel mueller in july, quote, they are

doing it as we sit here. our adversaries have a variety of tools to infear in our democrat. these tools sew disinformation to provoke discord. their goal is to divide us and attack our values of equality and freedom. their tactics undermine confidence in our democratic institutions so 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 as the 2020 elections advance, quote our adversaries and strategy competitors will most certainly 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, end quote. 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 a select committee, 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 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 i.r.a., that's the russian group, information operatives more than african-americans. among the bipartisan senate report's senate recommendations are for congress to exam legislative approaches to ensure americans know the sources of online political advertisements. harmonize on nies -- the rules online.

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 cyber security 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 f.b.i. and to the f.e.s. rather than welcoming interference from foreign governments. panel one of the bill enhances reporting requirements and fanses transparency and accountability. it establishes a duty upon political committees to report to the f.b.i. and the f.e.c. elicit 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 slot kin. the bill also -- slotkin. the bill also also the honest ads at 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 biling followers and engagement of unwitting american citizens. title 2 closes loopholes and gaps in the law that permit foreign nationals and foreign governments to influence elections. it codifies existing f.e.c. regulations prohibiting foreign nationals from influencing decisions about campaign spending. it requires the f.e.c. 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 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. i'll note that some of these elements we see bipartisan

support when similar provisions were included in h.r. 1. title 3 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 oligarches. 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 state and local officials and the attorney general, as necessary, to 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's our solemn duty to defend them. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from it illinois is recognized, mr. davis. mr. davis: thank you very much, mr. chair. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: mr. chairman, i said many times since becoming the ranking member of the house administration committee, the committee with jurisdiction over election system in the house. the greatest threat is partisanship. why? because when you have one side drafting partisan legislation to further their own political agenda, it cows causts inaction. when it comes to securing our nation's elentions, we cannot afford inaction. that's why it's imperative our colleagues across the aisle work with us to find a bipartisan solution to preventing foreign interference in elections.

unfortunately, that's not the route that the majority party chose to take this congress. we saw this pattern first begin with the majority's h.r. 1, over 700 pages of political initiatives to help them federalize elections, then again for the safe act, a partisan election security bill, again attempting to federalize elections and take power away from states. both bills were drafted without bipartisan input and rushed through the house. back then i told my colleagues if they were serious about reforming elections and making them more secure, we needed to work together. but here we are again with another partisan election bill that has no chance, zero chance of becoming law. this time it's the shield act. a bill aimed at preventing foreign interference in our elections like what we saw with russia's misinformation campaign through social media in the 2016 presidential election. look, it's safe to say that no one on either side of the aisle wants foreign meddling in our

elections. let me repeat that. i don't believe a single republican or democrat in this house wants foreign meddling in our elections. i want to be clear that there is bipartisan agreement on some of the intended goals of shield. we should have increased transparency in political digital advertising. we should close the loopholes that allowed for foreign nationals to meddle in our elections. but this bill isn't a serious attempt to address the type of interference we saw in 2016, mr. chairman. it's jammed full of poison pills that the democrats knew would make shield a nonstarter. the shield act contains provision that is would federalize elections, which i have already pointed out is the favorite solution of our majority for any issue. this bill expands the powers of the department of justice to allow the attorney general to insert himself or herself into individual races at the federal, state, and local level. that is a complete federal overreach of state's constitutional rights to

maintain their own elections. think about it. the a.g. can come in to your race and every state and local race if they -- he or she wants to correct the record. there are also provisions of this bill that i believe are unconstitutional and will have a chilling effect on our freedom of speech. for instance, we should not be proposing broad vague regulations for disenclosinging online political ads that create unworkable standard for the american public. out of the $1.4 billion spent on political digital ads in 2016, russia spent $100,000 over two years on facebook ads. the majority of those were not even election ads. so they wouldn't even have been regulated by the honest ads act. why would we overreach and threaten americans' free speech with this bill when it doesn't even address what russia did? we need serious election security legislation that will protect americans' first amendment rights. that's why i introduced the honest elections act, which, if passed, would address the type

of foreign meddling we saw in 2016. and highlighted in the senate intel report. the honest elections act would strengthen existing laws such as the foreign agents registration act and the federal election campaign act and the help america vote act, and it would modernize online political ad disclosure without infringing on free speech or requiring unworkable standards for americans. our bill also increases monitoring of spending by foreign nationals in elections and addresses domestic interference in our elections, something the shield act fails to accomplish. . we may never prevent criminal activity, whether in our or day-to-day lives. but we can give law enforcement with the best tools and resources available. honest elections act is simply a better solution to preventing foreign interference elections than the shield

act and the unintended consequences on americans. will say the greatest threat to our nation's partisanship,m is because it's the partisanship that we're seeing from the majority today that's keeping from having people bipartisan legislation right now that will prevent any foreign -- any potential foreign our elections. i keep hearing my democratic colleagues talk about urgency, the third time we've been here with a partisan election bill in the house that law or make come any real change whatsoever. serious about e this urgency in protecting our 2020 's elections in the cycle, prove it. stop with the political games, come back to the table, work on something that actually stands a chance at becoming law and protecting our elections. thank you and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of time. the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chair, i would note that it was justice

kavanaugh in bloom vs. federal lection case who wrote the opinion that it is fundamental to the definition of our political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to in and thus may be excluded from activities of democratic self-government. this idea that we're going to infringe on foreign governments' rights to participate is simply not legally supportive. would like now to yield to the gentlelady from california, valued member of our committee, mrs. davis, for one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman from alifornia, mrs. davis, is recognized. mrs. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. we know there have been foreign ttacks on our election infrastructure. that is a fact. knowing there are those out us of our eek to rob democracy, why would we leave open?or wide

why would we not create a shield hen our democracy is under attack? the shield act, carefully my colleague and chair, ms. lofgren, requires report itical campaigns any information they receive from foreign agents to the so we can centralize information and stop attacks. do would we not want to that? the shield act establishes trong penalties for online voter intimidation by foreign actors. want to would we not do that? the shield act closes loopholes foreigners to spend their money in our elections. to do ld we not want that? there are enemies out there trying to cast out on our elections. no excuse no excuse, for not doing all we can to make ourselves less vulnerable. this should be a bipartisan

no-brainer, mr. chairman. urge my colleagues to support the shield act to protect our democracy. he chair: the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis, yields back the balance of her time. ms. lofgren: i reserve. he chair: the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, is recognized. chair, i'd now like to yield two minutes to my well riend and very respect respected member of the house administration committee, mr. loudermilk. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. loudermilk: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague and ranking member for reserving this time. i also want to say how thankful i am that we are here in this front of the , in american people debating something that's very important to this nation that at least process isn't held in the basement of this building, behind closed doors, away from people, like some other issues are being held right now. i am at least still thankful for that. but here we go again. it's another attempt by our on the other side to

bring a bad idea to fix a bad situation. is the third attempt for a federal takeover of our election system. me of a f reminds popular television commercial that's on television right now bout these young people in a horror show and there's something evil after them and hey're outside this spooky old house and they're like, we have to go somewhere to hide. one of the young people says, running we get in the car? and the others say, that's a dumb idea. let's go hide in the spooky shed behind the chainsaws. here we go running to chain chainsaws again, --ting our severs in a worse ourselves in a worse situation. this would have not have the russian meddling in the election. the obama administration, who ere advised that the russians were attempting to hack into our system that they were meddling, the they were advised by obama cybersecurity czar, and he brought it to their attention proposed countermeasures was

told to stand down. we did nothing within the power already have to try to top foreign influence in our elections. that's where we need to be focused. goes further than needs to happen by giving the federal power, more re authority to take away the authority that's being given to oversee their election. if these weren't enough concerns, this thing has been floor with zero hearings. let me repeat that. have been no hearings, no fact findings to get to the bestm of what would be the solution to this problem. none. quickly scheduled markup that was rushed to the floor, and here we are again, working that iece of legislation would do nothing to fix the problem and has no chance of going anywhere in the senate. that we work together in a bipartisan basis to actually come up with a solution the american

people, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. reserve.: i the chair: the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. just note,: i would i think this bill would have one a lot to save us from the russian attacks in 2016. 'll tell you one thing, the chairman of the trump campaign, r. manafort, gave internal polling and target data to a russian agent multiple times buying e russians were ads. that would be prohibited under this act, and i would now yield raskin, a member of the committee, much-valued member of he house administration committee, one minute. the chair: the gentleman, mr. raskin, is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. speaker. madam chair, for your exceptional work on the shield overdue.h is long for two years, our colleagues across the aisle had control committee, diciary the rules committee, the administration committee. they had no hearings about the systematic campaign

by the russians to subvert and undermine our election. democrats have brought forth the shield act. there's not a single partisan word in this act. we hear our colleagues declaring it's partisan. name me one provision in this that's partisan. there's nothing partisan about it except your response to it is partisan. of our colleagues said this is unconstitutional. a federal takeover, i think we just heard the words our distinguished colleague from georgia. you know who engineered the elections, over of the framers of our constitution in article 4. who said thatones ongress may make or alter of lations the time, place the elections. it was the framers of the constitution who put in article 4 that congress must guarantee of every state a republican form of government. so this is in the constitution. doing our job to protect

our elections, the sovereignty the r country, and integrity of the democracy against foreign attack. we should all be together on it, i deplore the partisan response to this excellent legislation. back.ld the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: mr. chair, i have the great privilege right now of good ng two minutes to my and new friend, our newest institution, from the great state of north carolina, mr. murphy. the chair: the gentleman from recognized.na is mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chairman. davis.ou, mr. it's an honor to serve beside you. truly an honor. with my , i rise today adament s on -- opposition to the shield act. this bill is misleading at best effectively more monikered as the first amendment suppression act. an extension of

house democrats' efforts to federalize the election process way from the states by substantially restricting free speech through governmental overreach. furthermore, it does not actually do anything further to secure our elections from interference. in the buildup to the 2016 operatives ssian broke many existing u.s. laws in heir attempt to spread misinformation. nothing in shield would provide additional resources to law officials to pursue these foreign actors. additionally, this bill will chilling effect on free speech by punishing organizations that have nothing politics and it mandates federal overreach on a substantial scale. the shield act even gives the federal government the duty of etermining what qualifies as a legitimate news source. to combat this recklessness, i offered a commonsense amendment that democratic leadership would not consider for debate. simply enough would have

struck the word legitimate from the section because it is vague, overbroad, and has subjective nation.e should we -- determination. offtime to is not fully detail the unintended consequences of the shield act, i intend to vote against later on today on floor. thank you, mr. chairman. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois eserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california, mrs. love bren go -- ms. recognized. ms. lofgren: the legitimate is s function referred to part of the f.e.c. analysis that's been of long standing. it's nothing new in this bill. i would now yield to a respected member of the committee, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for a minute. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, is recognized. mr. butterfield: i thank the yielding. for i rise today in strong support

of h.r. 4617, the shield act. the world knows, the world knows that our emocracy was attacked in 2016 by foreign actors, and so we have a responsibility as a against to fight back foreign cyberintrusions into our emocracy and protect the sanctity of our elections. the shield act does just that. now, our right country is facing an existential crisis. question for each of us is, what are we going to do? what are we going to do to efend the principles and the constitution upon which this country was founded? the vote today on the shield act moments ne of those that some years from now we will all look back and each of us give an account for what we did. we must take a vote to defend democracy from foreign nterference and ensure that every american's vote counts. the words of in

our dear colleague, congressman cummings, which are swirling today.this chamber he said the following -- when we're dancing with the angels, in question will be asked 2019, what do we do to make sure that we kept our democracy intact? did we stand on the sidelines? did we play games? support colleagues to this legislation. i yield back. from air: the gentleman north carolina yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois, mr. recognized. mr. davis: mr. chair, before i yield to my good friend from respondia, i do want to to my great friend and colleague from the great state of maryland that republicans said that this bill is unconstitutional. just us.wasn't americans for prosperity says unconstitutional. heritage action says this bill's unconstitutional. even the aclu said this bill is unconstitutional. every day, mr. chair,

that you get those three rganizations together on the same issue, but it's here and the unconstitutionality of this is from them and their adding to what we're saying here debating on the floor. now, i'm proud to yield two my friend from the great state of california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from recognized.is mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chair. i agree with the premise of this bill. american political campaigns should remain among americans. now common a, it's for admitted noncitizens, some f them here illegally, to inject themselves into campaigns and attempt to influence voters. agree, you an all are either a citizen or you're not, and if you are not a citizen, you are a guest, and if guest, you are not entitled to participate in our lections or in the debate that influences them. that's especially important in a nation where sovereignty is not with the government

but with the people. you know, most countries, the sovereign.is the here in america, the people are sovereign, but in america, our doesn't -- sovereign doesn't govern. help. hired once we're hired, the sovereign people then discuss among hemselves the job we're doing, and every two years, this discussion informs their to keep user whether or to hire somebody else. of 's a unique exercise american sovereignty and it ought to be off-limits to all others. where i fervently disagree is with this bill's use of governmental power to interfere with freedom of speesh and association that is essential to the preservation of our liberty. except for incitement to commit crimes every person must be free to speak their minds. if a foreign national inserts themselves into the american political discussion the remedy is to call them out, tell them

to butt out and denounce such conduct for the meddling it is. the remedy is not to insert the government into the discussion over how the government is doing. what's government seizes the power to tell the people what they can say or who they can talk to, we will have cracked the touchstone of our bill of rights and that crack will grow until it shatters the bedrock of our freedom. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california queeleds back. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: may i ask how much time remains. the chair: the gentlewoman from california has 19 minutes remaining. the gentleman from illinois has 8 minutes remaining. ms. lofgren: thank you very much. i would 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. it was justice kavanaugh himself who pointed out that foreign citizens don't have a first amendment right to meddle in our elections. i would now like to recognize the gentleman from maryland who has done so much on our ethics and election reform effort, the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sarbanes: thank you to chairwoman lofgren. thank you for your incredible work. nobody has done more in this congress to protect our democracy and lift up the voices of everyday americans than zoe lofgren so thank you for yielding. the measure of partisanship here is not whether the republicans have refused to get on this and it's a democratic bill. that's not how you measure

partisanship. that's an easy maneuver you decide none of us will get on the bill. it'll be all democrats that are supporting it or voting for it and then we can say it's a partisan bill. the measure of whether something is partisan or not is to go out and talk to the people in the country. and this is one of the most bipartisan bills you could possibly put together. judged by what people out in the country want to see. republicans, independents, democrats, coming off the 2016 elections said to this congress, protect our house. not this house. the united states of america. protect our elections from foreign interference. that wasn't just coming from democrats. that wasn't a partisan voice out in the wilderness. that was everybody saying, including republicans, and independents. so the fact that the republicans don't want to get on a bill that americans want to see doesn't

make the bill partisan. it means that republicans are not listening carefully enough to what the american people want to see. , have tried now three times three times, to get our republican colleagues to support these basic measures that would safeguard the integrity of our elections. h.r. 1, the for the people act, contained many of the same provisions. i get it, i heard what you said. oh, the bill is too big. does these other things. we love the election security stuff. we can go get those quotes from the h.r. 1 debate. oh, if you'd just do election security, or the ballot box security measures, to protect our elections. we'd be on that in a minute. well, you got a second chance. a second bite at the apple. with the safe act. thank you, zoe lofgren for shepherding that through committee. the safe act that would protect the ball lot box.

did republicans vote for that to protect our democracy? no. strike two. so now we have the shield act to protect us against foreign interference. foreign money coming into our election and trying to influence the outcome. misinformation campaigns. coming from overseas. all this interference we have to push back on that the american people are concerned about. so here you get a third chance to show that you want to protect our elections. and safeguard our elections. this is the opportunity to stand up, support what the american people want to see, which is us protecting our democracy. yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to make their comments to the chair. the jerusalem from kale reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> mr. chairman, too many

comments i'd like to make and i'll reserve that until we have a few less speakers. i'm sure we'll have a chance to debate some of the the issue misgood friend from maryland brought up. right now i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great state of virginia, mr. griffin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. griffin: thank you so much for yielding to me. mr. chairman, i would say that i were in a court of law, i would tell you in advance that i am about to do an argument that is conditionally relevant. meaning that, bear with me, it'll make sense when i get to the point. so this morning in committee, and i serve on the energy and commerce committee and we were having a hearing and a ba macare came up. -- and obamacare came up. five or six times people said on the democrat side of the aisle, obamacare is being sabotaged by the trump administration.

well, i started thinking about that. and i realized that that wasn't really fair. that the problem was that this congress and the democrats in this house voted for a bill that mentioned the secretary, h.r.: -- h.h.s. secretary, 3,033 times. 974 times it said the secretary shall and then went on to say something else. according to dr. burgess, he estimated that there were actually 262 different action items in obamacare voted on by the democrats, none of the republicans in the house at the time, i was in the here but none of the republicans voted for it. 262 action items were given over to the secretary. so now we have the shield act and you're saying, all right, morgan, what does this have to do with the shield act. i direct you to page 49. lines 10 through 25.

corrective action. if the attorney general receives a credible report that materially false information has been or is being communicated in violation of this bill and if the attorney general determines that the state and local officials have not taken adequate steps to promptly communicate accurate information to correct the materially false information, the attorney general shall, pursuant to the written procedure and standards under subsection b, which by the way, the attorney general determines, communicate to the public by any means, any means, include big means of written, electronic or telephonic communication, accurate information designed to correct the material -- materially false information. what we are about to do in this bill, ladies and gentlemen, is we're about to give the attorney general the power to come into our congressional elections and to come into any election and start running ads. to run robo calls. to get involved in the election process. because i wouldn't want attorney

general holder making decisions on my ads and i don't think my friends on the other side of the aisle would want attorney general barr making decisions on their ads. but that's what this bill does. it creates a situation where the attorney general is going to come into our districts if they think one of us has issued a materially false ad and instead of letting the voters make a decision as to whether or not i have done something wrong or my opponent has done something wrong or you've done something wrong or your opponent has done something wrong, the attorney general will make that decision all by himself. and when you don't like it you'll come back and say -- thank you. you're going to come back and say oh my gosh they're sabotaging the intent of the bill. forget the intent, read the bill. read the bill, ladies and gentlemen. this bill has significant problems, it needs to go back to committee and p worked on some more. i appreciate it but until this is corrected, i must vote no to

try to protect our election system from having it being taken over by whomever the attorney general might be. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. love fwren: i note that the provision referred to refers only to the time, place and manner of holding an election. if you have a digital ad that says democrats vote tuesday, republicans vote wednesday, you that says an ad everybody votes on tuesday. at this point i yield to the gentlelady from texas, my colleague on the judiciary committee, ms. jackson lee, one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentlelady for her leadership. maybe my friends have gotten a little bit of absentmindedness. this is volume one and two of

the mueller report, a distinguished veteran of the vietnam war. 174, volume one, it says specifically well documented on february 16, 2018, a federal grand jury in the district of columbia returned an indictment against 13 russian nationals and three russian entities including the internet research agency i.r.a., concord management and consulting l.l.c., concord was violating laws to interfere with u.s. elections and political processes. the indictment charges all of the defendants with conspiracy to defraud the united states, three of the defendants with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud and five defendants with aggravated identify theft counts three and four. internet research agency indictment. concord which is one of the entities charged in count one

conspiracy, entered an appearance through counsel and moved to dismiss. they were indicted. on the basis of their interference in the 2016 election. let me be very clear. i rise to support this legislation, grateful that in this bill is h.r. 2353, duty to refuse and report foreign interference was language i had that said you cannot accept information from a foreign operative. with that in mind, i thank the gentlelady and ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 2353. i thank the gentlelady for her leadership. i support this legislation. yield back. the chair: the yom from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis is recognized. mr. davis: mr. chairman, we have some folks that are on their way here to offer some more remarks. so while we're waiting, i'll offer my remarks on some of the comments that were made by my colleagues. one of my colleagues talked

about bipartisanship. this is a bipartisan bill. it is not a bipartisan bill. the majority party clearly had an opportunity to put through our committee and onto onto the floor a bill that had republican and democrat co-sponsors. instead of doing that they chose to follow the exact same path they've followed in the past through other committees and other pieces of legislation that they don't want to put real solutions forward they want to put political talking points forward. they decided to combine what my colleague from virginia just talked about, allowing a federal -- allowing the attorney general to participate, possibly in federal campaigns. that should scare every american regardless if you're republican or democrat. let's keep our elections run the most safe and effective way possible at the state and local level. it's not bipartisan. this bill is not bipartisan.

there are 137 co-sponsors of the shield act and not a single republican. and that's a ploy, that's how we run away from bipartisanship? no, bipartisanship was taken away from us. now, how do you get bipartisanship? well, you have hearings. not a single hearing was held in the house administration committee where we could ask questions to the social media platforms. that are going to be affected by this piece of legislation if it becomes law. i certainly would have loved to have asked mark zuckerberg, i tried to go over today, to financial services, to ask mr. zuckerberg why in the world did facebook or anybody at facebook take a payment from russia for overtly political ads? $100,000 that they took in payment out of $1.4 billion in

digital ads bought in the 2016 cycle that check was cashed. i don't know if they wret a check. i don't know if they paid cash. i don't know if they paid rubles. we ought to get to the bottom of it. i didn't have a chance to ask before this bill was rushed to the floor. too many questions. if you want bipartisanship you've got to earn bipartisanship by allowing us to have a seat at the table. now, it's not too hard to have discussions. it's not too hard to sit down and work out bipartisan solutions. there's only nine members of the house administration committee. . h.r. 1 was brought up. that's the bill that was written interests y special before we were all even sworn in. of the y single member majority party sign on as co-sponsor before they had a chance to read it. it wasn't even introduced yet. let's talk what h.r. 1 about,

my colleague said strike one. every single member of this institution who voted for that voted to put either your taxpayer dollars or corporate the first time ever in our nation's history into their campaign coffers. to vote t a strike against that bill. run.s a freaking home no one thinks getting more money out of politics would be solved provisions. the safe act, well, when the to write their bill, after we had one hearing, theiridn't even listen to own witness about the efficacy about certain types of voting machines and the safety capabilities. they didn't listen to their own witness. they still tried to create a would have made safe election machines with a verified, voter system, paper backup

would essentially make them illegal after 2021 or 2022. we know counties upon counties and election authorities across nation that purchased these machines that their own witness was safe. that would be a safe of taxpayer dollars because they didn't allow us to work in a bipartisan way. they would have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on voting machines. local election official in my home county of christian county, illinois, they their local republican county board to $300,000 in ost election machines that if h.r. 1 as -- if the safe act was signed into law, that expense lightened $300,000 up with a match. that's wrong. our local election officials. i do. that's certainly not strike two. home run at's another too. now the shield act. gain, i said it's not

bipartisan. democrats.sors, all we want to talk about bipartisanship, mr. speaker, we talk all we want. i want to see some action. i haven't seen some action. in the rules committee last night about no hearings, no witnesses.question we can come together. nobody, and i mean nobody in no one wants on, foreign interference. bill, our bipartisan next colleague who's going to talk was a co-sponsor of a that could have come to the floor but we weren't given the chance. 'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from california, is recognized. ms. lofgren: thank you. i am honored to recognize the gentleman from washington, mr. who's a leader in the honest ads act, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from mr. kilmer, is recognized for one minute. mr. kilmer: thank you,

chairman. lofgren, for ir your leadership on the security package. should not be ts able to influence american electionings -- elections, period. not a republican notion, democratic notion. that's an american notion. e know there is an election just a year away and we know just this week one of the prominent social media companies that russia, iran, china, and other adversaries are actively in our nextnterfere elections. this is a no-brainer. it's time to take real action to loopholes and protect our elections from foreign interference. so 's why the shield act is important. listen, there's a ton in this bill -- and i am proud that many of the components of the shield ct are based on bills the new democratic coalition endorsed. one of them, the honest ads act. f a candidate or group runs political ads on television, that's publicly available information. the public and the press is able information on who's buying ad, how much they're paying. same thing on radio.

not true on social media. if an entity buys ads on social no disclosure e requirements under the law. even though we know foreign seeking to buy online ads. the honest ads act would change why it's a at's bipartisan bill. 18 democratic sponsors. 18 republican sponsors. the chair of senate judiciary committee, the vice chair of intel -- s. lofgren: i yield an additional 30 seconds. ms. lofgren: thank you, madam chair. hey see this as a way to strengthen our democracy and our national security. to enable law enforcement and others to better detect and investigate foreign involvement in our elections. house has a choice to make. a choice to keep loopholes open continue to see threats against our democracy or a chase to -- choice to take action and shield act. i'm proud to be a sponsor of this bill. chair lofgren and her team for their hard work on i'm confident the

house will make the right choice and pass this bill. i yield back. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chair. you, my colleague from the great state of washington, you can't get much more kilmer.an than mr. i certainly wish we would have been able to have the bill on my colleague spoke about that had an even number of republican and co-sponsors. but unfortunately, we don't have the opportunity to do that, mr. chair. we're watching poison pills like the one that my colleague from virginia spoke an attorney general can come in and decide to orrect the record on federal elections. i think it's scary for any american. it's not a solution. i do believe - hat we will see this bill passed. i'm not proud that this bill's going to pass, because this bill s not going to be signed into law. i know my good friend and colleague, the chairperson of

administration committee, has discussed a ouple times about justice kavanaugh, supreme justice kavanaugh. i think her and i agree with justice kavanaugh that foreign actors, they don't have freedom of speech protections in the united states of he shalling ma. -- states of america. but the sad fact if this bill ere to pass into law, it would do nothing to affect the bad ctors who interfered in our 2016 elections. nothing. our bill, the honest elections act, would. will positively affect those bad actors and we will make sure accountable. if this bill passes, i believe the majority party would give speech participation to those bad actors. so, mr. chair, i do want to take the time right now to yield three minutes to the are, my ished gentleman good friend from the state of california, mr. calvert. the chair: the gentleman from calvert, is mr. recognized. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman. i thank the speaker.

bill under consideration is an attempt to protect our lections from foreign interference. that's the goal that i certainly share and i think all of us share. offer an tried to amendment to the bill that would have closed a gaping hole in the security of our election system. it's a weakness that basically out the red carpet to foreign interference. unfortunately, my colleagues on he other side of the aisle blocked my amendment. my proposal would have ashibited the practice known ballot harvesting, which is something that's only legal in a states where literally anyone can collect absentee ballots. california, where ballot anyone, g is legal, anyone, including paid campaign nationals, foreign are allowed to collect an ballots. number of california democrats have guardrails on any

ballot collection, leaving it by open to fraud and abuse both foreign and domestic bad actors. my voice -- i voice my concern about ballot harvesting, my friends on the other side of the aisle and the media keep asking for evidence of abuse. speaker, the reason there's no evidence of ballot harvesting because california democrats have designed a system evidence.n't collect if you collect ballots in california, you aren't required give your name to the voter whose ballot you're collecting, that boll u turn in out to -- ballot to election officials, you're not required name at that point either. to e is no requirements document the chain of custody of ballots, and there's nothing in law prohibiting foreign nationals from collecting and handling ballots.

let me repeat that. california hing in law prohibiting foreign ationals from collecting and handling ballots. the only in reality, rule is there are no rules. this isn't the wild west. we shouldn't wait for fraud and before we act. by rejecting my amendment, left a s have not only door open to foreign involvement they've laid ns, out the welcome mat. with that, i'm happy to yield back. time.you for the the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the -- yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. you, mr. en: thank chairman. i am honored to yield one minute a star in our caucus, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr.

lamb. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. lamb, is recognized. thank you, madam chairwoman. thank you, mr. speaker. i'm proud to stand up in support act which ld incorporates my bill, h.r. 4703, the defend act. defend act, as incorporated here, would forbid paid internet by foreign actors, foreign political parties, foreign intelligence services, the like. this is a problem because in pennsylvania, users of social media saw this image and over again. it's the real image of a coal that miners ing were supporting the republican nominee and getting together in places like in pittsburgh and philadelphia. he problem is there were no rallies. and the truth is the actual opinions of coal miners were much more mixed. know, in fact, that they've been let down on issues like

by bothare and pensions republicans and democrats, and they have been supported and protected on those same issues members of both parties. in fact, just today, the house atural resources committee passed the miners pension protection act, and i was proud of both with members parties in support of that. mr. speaker, the man in this 1987 at the age of 57, too young, like most miners, of black lung. these miners have given a lot. we cannot allow the russians or anything e to take else from them and affect our elections. thank you for the time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. he gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized, mr. davis. mr. davis: i'll reserve. the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized, ms. lofgren. is an honor to yield a minute to a new member congress from michigan who ad a distinguished career in the intelligence community, ms. slotkin. the chair: the gentlewoman from

recognized. ms. slotkin: thank you, mr. peaker, and madam chairwoman, thank you for the work you've done on a shield act. as a former c.i.a. officer and wife on official, as the of a 30-year army officer and the step mom of a current army stepmom of a current army officer, i know when our country sees a threat, we have the opportunity to act and to protect our country. i think we've all said it many times here today. o matter who you are, what political party you're from, we can all agree that foreigners political e in our progress -- political process -- excuse me. am incredibly proud to be supporting the shield act. certain portions of it are off legislation since i worked on since january. act, in particular. this very basic idea that foreigners should not be able to buy an ad for our against a -- for or against a candidate in an political election. that should be illegal, plain and simple. michigan was particularly

ads.ted by these they are divisive, they are hateful, they are meant to split us apart and stoke fears in our community. t's a classic playbook that russians have used in eastern europe and now they're using it here in the united states. closes these loopholes that currently allow foreign entities to purchase campaign ads. i'm thrilled to support it. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from yields back. ms. lofgren: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois, mr. recognized. mr. davis: mr. chair, i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, is recognized. ms. lofgren: i am pleased to for one now the -- minute, the gentleman from new member valued congress, mr. philips. the gentleman is recognized. mr. phillips: foreign

found a ts have weakness in our national security and they are exploiting t by using social media platforms to influence americans with the hope that they'll vote or foreign interests, not american interests. democrats and republicans need together now and today to do something about it. founders, r washington, adams, jefferson, madison, and others, it's what they would have demanded. that's why i'm proud to support the shield act, an important legislative package that the firewall ll, act, that simply prevents foreign nationals from paying political advertisements. something to which my distinguished colleague from illinois referred to just ago.ts so i urge my colleagues to support this historic and us ssary package and help build a wall, a digital wall to rotect americans from foreign interference in our elections. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserve the gentleman

from illinois is recognized. mr. davis: i reserve. i would like to let my colleague know i'm ready to close. the chair: the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis is recognized to close. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to my colleagues. there's a lot of activity in the opportunity to come to this floor and debate very important issues, and there are no more important issues than protecting the validity and safety of our election system here in the -- in this institution and the great united states of america. you know what? we heard a lot about this process not being bipartisan, mr. chairman. well let's talk about what we have done in a bipartisan manner. to protect our elections. when republicans were in charge of this institution, we worked in a bipartisan fashion to actually appropriate over $300

million to go to our states to work with our local officials to partner with the department of homeland security to ensure that our election infrastructure is safer than it was in 2016. we all learned lessons in 2016 and we worked together to put solutions on the table. that's exactly what we should be doing here but the shield act unfortunately the democratic majority did not allow us a seat at the table. you knowing, you go to my home state of illinois where they have been raving about their partnership with this administration's department of homeland security and we look at the 2018 election cycle where we had record turnout. in a mid-term election. not one instance of foreign interference has been brought forth. so it looks like we've done something good together in a bipartisan fashion in the past. i certainly hope, mr. chairman, we could do that in the future.

many of the provisions that my colleagues talked about and i spoke about are simply too egregious for us to support. we want to support a bill that has proper hearings, goes through regular order, and provides an opportunity for republicans and democrats to work together. just like we did to protect america's election systems for the 2018 election cycle. i want to see results, mr. chairman. i'm not seeing results with the child act. let's come together, let's take another swing, take another crack at the bat, let's hit another home run together. because according to my count right now, that bipartisan investment of $300 million plus we worked together on is a grand slam. let's start working on some more grand slams together. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california,

ms. lofgren is recognized. ms. lofgren: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: you know, i'm disappointed we are not apparently 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's no poison pills in this bill and really, much of the bill is made up of bills that had bipartisan support. so it's 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've been told by the f.b.i. that might include iran and as well as turkey.

you know, 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 and we sent it to the senate and unlike last year, they now are refusing to act. you know, we, as we book forward -- as we look forward, i remember back in law school, 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's some of what we we have heard today. we have had some hearings on these issues, three in the house administration committee and although the elections subcommittee that has been so active did not focus entirely on

these issues, they did touch also on these issues and in fact, earlier this week in the house administration committee, there have been 11 of those hearings. to say that this bill threlten -- threatens first amendment rights is simply incorrect. now i value the acla. 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 and i'll quote again, in the entire thing, the justice cav -- 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 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 who are 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'd like to note also that the elements in this bill would do a lot to have prevented some of the misconduct or problems that occurred in the 2016 election. i was interested, my colleague expressed concern that we didn't hear from some of the platforms, we didn't hear from mark zuckerberg, he's 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 expected money from -- from russian influencers to place ads that harm our democracy.

this bill requires them to make a reasonable effort to find out that the ads 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 have the chairman of the trump campaign, mr. manafort, sharing internal polling data with a russian agent. sharing the playbook for the states to play with a russian agent. i 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. -- so requires campaign

campaigns to report to the f.b.i. about this we know the russians contacted the trump campaign and the president's son said if you have what you say, i love it. they had d -- they supposedly had dirt on the democratic opponent. they were going to funnel information into the campaign. did the campaign tell the f.b.i.? no, they did not. this bill -- if this bill had passed there would have been a requirement to notify the f.t.c. and the f.b.i. that the russians were trying to interfere in the campaign. i would think that that would be something most people would think you'd do anyway that we shouldn't need a law to require it. but apparently we do. this bill would include that. i want to mention the honest ad

act because the honest ad act has been introduced with a broad bipartisan group to make sure that there is disclosure. now we've 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's a mistake because as information migrates to the digital world we need to have disclosure there too. and the honest ads act does that. it's incorporated in the shield act. it's important. it requires the platforms to maintain copies of the ads for four years. it requires that there be a discle sure 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 go, there was an initiative to control smoking in restaurants. it was polling at like 80% or something of that nature. then it came out that the backers of the initiative were the tobacco companies and they were doing it to undercut local ordinances that were stricter than what they were going to put into place at a 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 and -- have a right to know who is spending money to influence them. i would just 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. so mr. chairman, i would urge adoption of this act, i think it's important for our country, i think it's actually essential for our democracy, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for yen debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu they have amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on house administration printed in the bill, it shall be order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute condition cysting of the text of rules committee print 116-35, modified by the amendment printed in part a of house report 116-253. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of house

report 116-253. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment and shall in the be subject to demand for division of the uestion. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 116-253. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house by mr. 6-253, offered by l nay of california -- mr. desaulnier of california.

the chair: the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. deis all snay -- mr. desaulnier: i don't want to belabor points that have been brought up. i want to say as someone who has been in elected office in the san francisco bay area for a listening time where so much innovation around social plat forms and communications have taken place, much of it in ms. lofgren's district, how proud i've been of them but how, now, appropriately, i think, skeptical i am of their ability to do unilaterally or merely by themselves to ennorse proper protections for american democracy. that's why i think this bill and this discussion is so very important. we know from the mueller report hat 126 million americans were contacted directly or indirectly just on facebook by the russians. .

mr. mueller said it was a systematic attempt by the we know, also, that the president's appointee s f.b.i. director has said recently, quote, russia attempted to interfere with the last election and continues to malign influence in operations to this day. we need to take extremely seriously, and to fierceand respond to the determinations -- their fierce determinations and focus. mr. chairman, we also have talked a lot about the last few about the role of the federal government, state governments and local i agree with nd how diffused our historic but here's an re instance i think my amendment is simple one. it will give local jurisdictions

he information they need to be aware of some of the influences that are afforded by this bill. so my bill is very simple. the f.e.c. is n made aware of credible targeted campaigns that affected states must be notified within 30 days. fairly simple a amendment. i would hope in the spirit of ipartisanship my colleague would agree with that. in as jefferson said we america don't have government by the majority. we have government, jefferson, by the majority who participate. we know this -- disinformation hurts participation when done effectively, as it was just a short time ago in the recent presidential election. know that effective oversight at the federal level, level, when we afford transparency, the american participate more at a knowledgeable rate.

threat to ion is a the participation that is vital success as a ed democracy. it's our responsibility to act, and i urge my colleagues to upport this simple amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. does the urpose gentleman seek recognition? mr. davis: mr. chair, i rise in opposition to the amendment from my good friend from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized, mr. davis. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chair. core function of the federal election commission is to be the agency ent regulatory charged with administering and enforcing campaign finance law. has jurisdiction of the financing of campaigns for the u.s. house, the senate, the residency, and the vice-presidency. we do think states should be notified of disinformation by foreign actors. but the f.e.c. is not equipped to investigate, much less make a determination, that foreign nationals have meddled in an election. this is better left to law nforcement and intelligence agencies. one way in that they are not equipped is that the f.e.c.

the ssioners do not have authority to obtain clearances o access certain classified information. which would make it impossible for any commissioner or the .e.c. to make such a notification to states. not to mention the fact that the chair's too busy attacking the president to spend time on additional notification requirements. it's also worth noting that the majority of the committee -- the also worth noting that majority of the committee's position has been that the f.e.c. is dysfunctional. even to the point that they oted to make it a five-member partisan commission in h.r. 1. he department of justice, the f.b.i., d.h.s., and other national security agencies are address the to problem of foreign meddling in our elections, which is exactly to do in the them honest elections act, my bill, that i certainly hope some on side of the aisle would co-sponsor, and for theseness are, i urge a no vote

nd i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desaulnier: i first would like to say i appreciated my friend from illinois's baseball earlier. and i would say that in this disagree and i think your call is wrong. this amendment is a simple strike. s you know, the bill requires other agencies to give the information to the f.e.c. collector in a many instances of the information, so they're the ppropriate body just to disseminate that information. that's what my amendment does. i don't disagree or think that appropriate to debate your other aspects, which may be true r not, based on your perspective. the amendment's basically consistent with the bill that the information goes here and it be disseminated to the states. so with that i would be happy to my d back the balance of time. the chair: the gentleman yields

back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. i davis: you know, appreciate my colleague from california offering amendments, process.ting in this it's not every time we have not only nts on legislation but amendments like this. this believe that amendment needs to be clarified before it should be put into law just as the shield act, i believe, should go back to the to beg board and we ought able to have more hearings to find out the effect on free speech in the united states of but also -- also give us a chance in a bipartisan way to media n the social platforms that we want to work with us to protect this nation meddling.gn for the reasons i mentioned reasons i or the stated just now, i'm going to urge a no vote on this amendment amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the amendments on offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

thehe opinion of the chair, ayes have it. to.amendment is agreed it's now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 116- -- part b of house report 116-263. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? chair, i rise in -- mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 of house part b report 116-253 offered by mrs. arizona. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 650, the gentlewoman mrs. lesko, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the arizona.man from mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chair. i rise in support of my 4617, which h.r. would strike from the bill a u.s. n that gives the attorney general unprecedented power to involve him or herself state and local elections. this should be a concern for all as it stays washington nows best when it comes to our local elections. not only does this section federal a massive overreach, it is also vague. the section requires the attorney general to determine whether state and officials have taken adequate steps to ommunicate information to address misinformation. what are adequate steps? doesn't say. what is misinformation? the united rns states attorney general into a

fact checker. this section also requires the attorney general to communicate any means to by misinformation. taken together, this language would grant the united states general power without congress,s, and we, as should find this concerning. n addition to the troublesome substance of this section, it also arrived on the floor deficient process. as a member of the judiciary inmittee, i have an interest ensuring legislation under my is ittee's jurisdiction considered in the judiciary committee. here.s did not happen despite the request from judiciary committee ranking this section of the legislation was not afforded markup by nity of a the judiciary committee, despite it having jurisdiction.

in fact, this is at least the thish piece of legislation year that ranking member collins but was to mark up denied an opportunity by the hairman of the judiciary committee. because this section is a state andtrusion into local elections and came to the loor through a deficient process, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strike section, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from arizona reserves the balance of time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. i recognize to take the time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. chair, i do amendment. i think the amendment strikes what's really a commonsense underlying bill. section 313, beginning on page 49, line 11, comes from the

eceptive practices and voter intimidation act, and it first gives deference to local and to combat ials deceptive practices in their localities if there's a credible report made that materially false information has been ommunicated to the public regarding federal elections, such as the time, place, or holding an election. section 313 provides the first falls on state and local officials to false the materially information. it's -- it's only if they fall making the correction that the attorney general would ensure that voters don't fall deceptive practices. i don't believe this is an example of federal interference or overreach. it's an example of putting to use all levels of government to and our oters democracy. let's be clear. section 313 is at its core enhancing transparency and disclosure, the sort of activity

we're talking about here is merely providing factual information to voters to ensure deceived, that they're adequately informed, and have a fair chance of their pating in democracy. section 313, on page 51, directs attorney general to work in partnership with the election assistance commission, and local officials, and others to come up with for howes and standards to take corrective action if this is' an instance of false information regarding voting. it's not just whatever he or she thinks at the time. this is going to be said in advance. the rocedures in partnerships determines exactly in when .g. will step there is false information being spread. communicated by the a.g. also should be designed any o favor or disfavor particular candidate, organization, or political

party. clearly this is an example of how local, state, and ederal levels of government could work together to protect voters in our democracy. this is not an academic issue. situations where online or elsewhere information spread to people that certain people, for example, one other, would be allowed to vote on a day that wasn't election day. corrected needs to be or people will be disenfranchised if they believe saw it on the internet. so request -- so with that, i'm sure well intended, i think this amendment is a mistake. i reserve defeat, and the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. is gentleman from illinois recognized. i mean, the gentlewoman from arizona. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chair. yield two minutes to my good friend from illinois, mr. davis.

the chair: the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chair. from to my good friend arizona, mrs. lesko. this amendment is a very well-intended amendment. my colleague from california, it is a very well-intended amendment that's correct, i tually believe, what would be an unintended consequence if this were to ever become law. -- this section that is being amended today provides power to the attorney general to intercede in or she races when he believes state and local officials have not taken, quote, dequate steps to correct misinformation. chair,ing the attorney general -- madam chair, attorney general is a nonpartisan official. attorney general barr