Protecting Our Democracy Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5314, the ``Protecting Our Democracy Act,'' spearheaded by my friend and colleague on the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Adam Schiff.

This bill bolsters congressional oversight authority and the important powers vested in Congress by Article I of the Constitution. It also includes a host of other good-government measures to make our entire government more ethical and more accountable to the people we serve.

As chairman of both the Committee on Homeland Security and the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I know firsthand how important congressional oversight is to our legislative process. And I have seen how dedicated the forces aligned against representative democracy are.

Protecting our democracy is protecting our homeland, and protecting our homeland means protecting our democracy.

I am particularly supportive of title IV of this bill, which amends the United States Code to reaffirm the House's right to enforce its subpoenas through civil suits in Federal court. The title would also expedite consideration of those suits in the courts and enhance penalties for noncompliance with congressional subpoenas.

While I firmly believe the House already possesses the ability to seek civil enforcement of its subpoenas, some recent court decisions have questioned it. This bill leaves no room for such doubt.

Almost a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Congress needs information to govern wisely and effectively, and it must often seek out others--often by compulsion--to obtain it. To effectively exercise our legislative duties, the Constitution implicitly grants enforcing processes.

Madam Speaker, this bill furthers our ability as legislators to do our job wisely and effectively. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for the ``Protecting Our Democracy Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to discuss briefly the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17 to Rules Committee Print 117-20, the Protecting Our Democracy Act (H.R. 5314), introduced by Congressman Schiff of California, the Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

This Jackson Lee amendment improves the bill and strengthens an important guardrail in the pillars upholding and protecting our democracy by providing that any person who, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the United States, as a member of a State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, is finally convicted of violating laws prohibiting foreign interference in American elections, specifically section 304(j) of the Federal Election Campaign.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act is a sweeping package of reforms to prevent presidential abuses and to restore the Constitutional system of checks and balances.

Madam Speaker, the actions of the past Administration revealed serious vulnerabilities in our democratic systems--vulnerabilities that can and will be exploited again if we do not act urgently to address them.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act will take immediate steps to safeguard and strengthen our democracy so no future president-- regardless of political party--can act as if they are above the law.

And it will restore the accountability and transparency of our institutions so that the American people can have confidence in our government's ability to address the challenges we face.

Let me briefly highlight some of the important provisions of this vitally important legislation that should be enthusiastically supported by all Members. TITLE I--ABUSE OF THE PARDON POWER PREVENTION

The Abuse of the Pardon Prevention Act is designed to deter abuses of the pardon power, first, by requiring transparency in circumstances where the President uses that power for potentially self-serving purposes or in a manner that could undermine the functions of Congress.

And second, by amending the federal bribery statute to make explicit that offering or granting a pardon or commutation may serve as the basis for finding criminal culpability under the statute.

Finally, the Abuse of the Pardon Prevention Act makes explicit that a president may not issue a self-pardon. TITLE II--ENSURING No PRESIDENT Is ABOVE THE LAW

The No President is Above the Law Act would suspend the statute of limitations for any federal offense committed by a sitting president or vice president, whether it was committed before or during their terms in office and thus ensure that presidents and vice presidents can be held accountable for criminal conduct just like every other American and not use their offices as a shield to avoid legal consequences. TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT EMOLUMENTS CLAUSES OF THE FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC EMOLUMENTS CLAUSES

Madam Speaker, the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits federal officers from receiving ``presents'' or ``emoluments'' from foreign nations unless Congress first provides its consent, while the Domestic Emoluments Clause bars the President from receiving any emoluments from the United States government or from any state government.

The Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Enforcement Act codifies these foundational anti-corruption provisions and provides enhanced enforcement mechanisms for Congress and for entities within the Executive Branch. TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS

The Congressional Subpoena Compliance and Enforcement Act reinforces Congress's Article I powers by strengthening its tools to enforce lawfully issued subpoenas.

First, the bill affirms the House's and Senate's authority to enforce their subpoenas through civil suits and provides expedited processes for these actions, as well as enhanced penalties for noncompliance.

Second, it specifies the manner in which subpoena recipients must comply, including by creating an express requirement to testify and produce subpoenaed information and, to the extent any information is withheld, to produce a detailed log describing the basis for non- compliance. TITLE V--REAsSERTING CONGRESSIONAL POWER OF THE PURSE

Madam Speaker, in drafting the Constitution, the Framers built checks and balances into the foundation of our democracy to protect against monarchy.

Vesting Congress with the power to make funding decisions--the ``power of the purse''--is a critical component of that founding principle.

Congress has crafted longstanding, foundational laws to protect its authority like the Antideficiency Act (ADA) and the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) to prevent federal agencies from misusing federal funds.

But over time, Presidents and Executive Branch agencies have pushed the boundaries of these and other laws designed to prevent executive overreach, exploiting secrecy and limitations on enforcement to push their own agenda.

That is why as a member of the Budget Committee, I am very pleased that the reforms embodied in the Congressional Power of the Purse Act are incorporated in the legislation before us and will help Congress reclaim its Constitutional spending authority and safeguard our nation's separation of powers.

Specifically, the Act would restore Congress' central role in funding decisions by preventing the President from effectively rescinding funds without congressional approval; requiring the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) to release funding at least 90 days before it expires, whether or not the funding is part of a Presidential rescission or deferral request; and closing a budget law loophole that essentially lets the President unilaterally block the spending of enacted appropriations designated as emergency.

The Act would put an expiration date on Presidential declarations of national emergencies and any special executive authorities triggered by those declarations; declarations would expire unless Congress extends them.

The Act would increase transparency in the Executive Branch by requiring OMB to make apportionments (legally binding documents that make funding available to agencies to spend) publicly available and to publish the positions of officials with delegated apportionment authority; requiring the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to publish opinions instructing agencies on budget and appropriations law; requiring the Executive Branch to make public amounts and explanations of cancelled or expired fund balances, and amounts and legal justifications of obligations incurred by agencies during a lapse in their appropriations; and requiring the Executive Branch to report violations of the ICA and ADA identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to Congress.

The Act would also add enforcement mechanisms to budget law and deter lawbreaking by strengthening and expediting GAO's ability to obtain information from agencies to assess compliance with budget or appropriations law; expediting GAO's ability to sue agencies to release funds being impounded in violation of the ICA; authorizing administrative discipline for officials found to have violated the ICA, including suspension without pay or termination of employment; and requiring the DOJ to review reports of ADA violations and investigate whether a violation occurred knowingly and willfully.

TITLE VI--SECURITY FROM POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN JUSTICE

Since Watergate, every Administration has issued guidance limiting contact between the White House and DOJ in order to limit political interference in criminal and civil enforcement matters.

Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen numerous instances where that norm was ignored.

The Security from Political Interference in Justice Act seeks to help ensure that these norms are followed in the future, by requiring that the Attorney General (AG) maintain a log of certain designated contacts between the White House and DOJ that is to be shared with the DOJ Inspector General (IG) on a semi-annual basis, with an additional requirement that the IG share any inappropriate or improper contacts with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. TITLE VII--PROTECTING INSPECTOR GENERAL INDEPENDENCE

The Inspector General Independence Act would protect Inspectors General (IGs) from being removed by the President based on political retaliation.

President Trump removed or replaced numerous IGs in what appeared to be retaliation for investigating misconduct of his own Administration.

The Inspector General Independence Act would only allow an IG to be removed for a limited number of causes and would require that the President, before removing the IG, provide Congress with documentation of the cause. TITLE VIII--PROTECTING WHISTLEBLOWERS

The Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act would strengthen the law to ensure that federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse are protected from retaliation.

The Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act would clarify that no federal official may interfere with a federal employee's ability to share information with Congress.

This measure would also limit disclosure of a whistleblower's identity, prohibit retaliatory investigations, expand whistleblower protections to all noncareer appointees in the Senior Executive Service, and provide access to jury trials for whistleblowers. TITLE XII--PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL TAX TRANSPARENCY

Title XII requires sitting presidents and vice presidents and major party candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency to publicly disclose their 10 most recent federal income tax returns. TITLE XIII--FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS

Title XIII of the Act requires political campaigns, parties, and political committees like political action committees (PACs) and Super PACs to report attempts by foreign governments, foreign political parties, and their agents to influence our elections to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

It requires the FBI to report on these notifications annually to the congressional intelligence committees.

It also requires campaigns to establish compliance mechanisms.

It ensures violations of these foreign contact reporting requirements can incur criminal or civil liability.

Title XIV of the Act works to eliminate foreign interference in U.S. elections by making clear that the Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits the acceptance of opposition research, polling, and other non-public information relating to a candidate for federal, state, or local office by foreign governments and political parties for the purpose of influencing an election.

It provides for enhanced criminal penalties for violations of this prohibition.

It ensures that members and employees of political campaigns will be on notice of this prohibition by requiring the FEC to provide a written explanation of the prohibition to political campaigns, and for campaigns to certify their receipt and understanding of the explanation.

Last, the legislation extends the ban on foreign national contributions to federal, state, and local elections to include ballot initiatives and referendums.

Madam Speaker, I believe this excellent legislation would be even stronger had Jackson Lee Amendment No. 17 been made in order.

This Jackson Lee amendment would improve the bill and strengthen an important guardrail in the pillars upholding and protecting our democracy by providing that any person who, having previously taken an oath as an officer of the United States, as a member of a State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, is finally convicted of violating laws prohibiting foreign interference in American elections, specifically section 304(j) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (as added by section 1301(a)), section 304(b)(9) of such Act (as added by section 1301(b)), or section 302(j) of such Act (as added by section 1302), shall be deemed to have given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States for purposes of ineligibility to hold public office under section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

This concern is particularly salient when there is clear, convincing, and overwhelming evidence of interference by a hostile foreign power to secure victory for its preferred candidate.

Madam Speaker, there is compelling reason for the Congress to pass the Protecting Our Democracy Act by overwhelming margins in the House and Senate to send a clear message to the world that unlike the immediately previous Administration, the current President and his Administration is determined and resolute in taking effective action to deter and prevent interference by foreign powers in American elections.

Let us remember that the Intelligence Community Assessment (``ICA'') of January 2017 assessed that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election in which Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Democratic presidential candidate and implacable foe of Vladimir Putin, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, facilitate the election of Vladimir Putin's preferred candidate, Donald J. Trump.

Russia's interference in the election processes of democratic countries was not new but a continuation of the ``Translator Project,'' an ongoing information warfare effort launched by Vladimir Putin in 2014 to use social media to manipulate public opinion and voters in western democracies.

But instead of supporting the unanimous assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the 45th President attacked and sought to discredit and undermine the agencies and officials responsible for detecting and assessing Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election as well as those responsible for investigating and bringing to justice the conspirators who committed crimes against the United States our law enforcement.

And to add shame to insult and injury, at a meeting in Helsinki, Finland, rather than embracing the conclusions of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the 45th President of the United States sided with Russian President Vladimir Putin in heaping scorn on the IC's assessment regarding Russian interference and called the U.S. Justice Department investigation into Russia's interference led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller ``the greatest political witch hunt in history.''

As the Mueller Report concluded, ``The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.''

In his only public remarks made since he was appointed at his farewell press conference held at the Department of Justice on May 29, 2017, Special Counsel, Robert Mueller reiterated the ``central allegation of our indictments--that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election'' and that ``allegation deserves the attention of every American.''

Madam Speaker, American elections are to be decided by American voters free from foreign interference or sabotage, and that is why any person who having previously taken an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States, knowingly and willingly acts to aid, abet, or facilitate foreign interference in an American election can, should, and must be deemed to have given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States for purposes of ineligibility to hold public office under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I urge all members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 5314, the Protecting Our Democracy Act.

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source