Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for A Lasting Democracy Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, as the first amendment, I don't want to belabor many of the points that have been brought up in the general debate by my friend from Illinois and my very good friend from the Bay Area. I do want to say, as someone who has been in elected office in the San Francisco Bay Area for a long time, where so many of the innovations around social platforms and communications have taken place--much of it in Ms. Lofgren's district--how proud I have been of them. But how now--appropriately I think--skeptical I am of their ability to unilaterally, or merely by themselves, enforce the proper protections for American democracy. That is why I think this bill and this discussion are so very important.

We know from the Mueller report that 126 million Americans were contacted, either directly or indirectly, just on Facebook by the Russians. We also know the outcome of the Presidential election was based on less than 80,000 votes in three key States in the electoral college. We know that Mr. Mueller said that this was a systematic attempt by the Russians. And we know also that the President's appointed FBI director has said recently, ``Russia attempted to interfere with the last election and continues to engage in malign influence operations to this day. This is a threat we need to take extremely seriously and to tackle and respond to with fierce determination and focus.''

Mr. Chairman, we also have talked a lot, in the last few years, about the role of the Federal Government, State governments, and local communities, and I agree with how diffused our historic relationships are. But here is an instance in my amendment. It is a simple one. It is to give the States and local jurisdictions the information they need to be aware of some of these influences that are afforded by this bill.

My amendment is very simple. It requires that when the FEC is made aware of credible targeted disinformation campaigns, that affected States must be notified within 30 days. I think that is a fairly simple amendment. I would hope, in the spirit of bipartisanship, my colleagues would agree with that.

Thomas Jefferson famously said that, ``We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.''

We know that disinformation hurts participation when done effectively, as it was just a short time ago in the recent Presidential election. And we also know that effective oversight and this government's engagement of both parties at the Federal level, the State level, and the local level, when we are open, honest, and afford transparency to American voters, they will participate at a higher rate and also at a more knowledgeable rate.

It is our responsibility to recognize that disinformation is a threat to the participation that is vital to our continued success as a democracy, and it is our responsibility to act.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from Illinois' baseball metaphor earlier, and I would say that for this metaphor, I disagree. I think his call is wrong.

I think this amendment is a simple strike. As he knows, the bill requires other agencies to give the information to the FEC. They are merely a collector, in many instances, of the information, so they are the appropriate body to disseminate that information.

That is what my amendment does. I don't disagree or think that it is appropriate to debate the gentleman's other aspects, which may be true or not, based on his perspective. The amendment is basically consistent with the bill that the information goes here, and it should be disseminated to the States.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from California offering an amendment and participating in this process. It is not every time that we have disagreements on not only legislation, but amendments like this.

I believe that this amendment needs to be clarified before it should be put into law. And just as with the SHIELD Act, I believe it should go back to the drawing board and we ought to be able to have more hearings to find out the effect on free speech in the United States of America, but also give us a chance in a bipartisan way to question the social media platforms that we want to work with us to protect this Nation from foreign meddling.

For the reasons I mentioned above and for the reasons that I stated just now, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source