Interior, Environment, Financial Services, and General Government
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, one of the interesting developments in our public debate in America today is Russia and the elections of 2016. Lost in all the noise and all the debate and all the legitimate issues that arise from it is this perception that if you are taking on Russian interference, that is a Democratic position or an anti-President Trump position, and that if you think this is all much ado about nothing, then you are taking a pro-President position. Nothing could be further from the truth. Vladimir Putin is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. He is not interested in making America great; he is interested in making America weak.
The reason Vladimir Putin is interested in making America weak is because while America is not at war with Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Putin is at war with America. You may say: Well, that doesn't sound right because war means bullets, rockets, missiles, aircraft, and launching attacks. This misses the broader point. For Russia, under the Russian doctrine of conflict, information is a weapon; information war is a part of war. We are not in an armed conflict, but sadly, while we Americans go on about our lives and do not spend all day obsessing about Russia--until 2016 and some of the issues that arose there-- Vladimir Putin is obsessed with America, and those in his government who surround him are as well.
We Americans look at Russia and say they are an important country. They have nuclear weapons and significant conventional military capabilities. But they have a very small economy of $2 trillion--about the size of Italy's or Spain's. They are not really geopolitically relevant in many parts of the world. They still can't project power the way they used to during the Soviet Union. Yes, they are involved in Syria and other places, and they are doing more of that than ever before, and they have a veto vote on the United Nations Security Council. They are not really a relevant nation. Culturally, their people have much to be proud of and have contributed a tremendous amount to the world. On a daily basis, Russia may be a nuclear and somewhat military peer competitor of the United States but not economically, not commercially.
But the Russian Government's view of America is very different. They view America as an aggressive power that seeks to destroy Russia. I know that sounds bizarre to Americans who know that we spend little, if any, time thinking about how to go to war with Russia, but in their mindset, we do. They view us as an aggressive power that wants to fight and degrade them. They hold us responsible for the end of the Soviet Union, which, to them, represented power--not so much ideology, but power--for the current leaders. They blame us for expanding NATO in a way they feel encircles them. They blame us for the color revolutions throughout Europe, and they believe we want one of those to happen in Russia as well. Most of all, they think we are seeking to take advantage of Russia and humiliate them. This is the view of Russia's leaders. This is why, while we are not at war with Russia on information, Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is at war with the United States.
We keep talking about this issue as if it were espionage. I have had people come to me and say that everybody spies on everyone. This is not about espionage--trust me. Many countries in the world spy, and on each other, including our allies. This is not about espionage; this is about information warfare.
Information warfare is a part of the Russian doctrine of confronting an enemy and weakening them from within. What happened in 2016 and what is happening now is nothing less than an information war against America-- not for purposes of electing Donald Trump President or having Republicans win or vice versa but for purposes of dividing us among each other so they can weaken us from within, opening a permanent front domestically in order to hurt this country.
They do this all over the world. They do this in Eastern Europe. They do it all over the world where they have an interest, and it takes different forms. In many of the countries in which Russia is involved in information warfare, one of the things they do is openly and strongly financially support pro-Russian candidates, pro-Russian parties, or they may support pro-Russian separatists the way they did in parts of Ukraine.
We don't have a pro-Russia party in the United States. We don't really have pro-Russian constituencies in American politics--certainly not in large numbers that yield any power or influence. Instead, the way to weaken us is to divide us from within by pitting us against each other. The weapons they use in this war are their goals. Let me start with their goals.
How do they weaken us? The first is they seek to amplify political and social divisions in our country. You will see that both in 2016 and in the current efforts I am about to show that they focus largely on issues of race, immigration, and gun control. They know the issues that pit Americans against each other. They know the hot-button issues that get us to fight and call each other names and accuse one another of horrible things, and that is why they focus on those issues.
Another goal they have is to undermine confidence in our democracy-- to be able to go around saying that our elections are rigged--so that we may come to doubt that a winner of an election really won.
The third is that they seek to weaken our image globally--for example, making up stories about how American troops in some country are killing civilians or committing war crimes and things of that nature, doctoring photos and video, and spreading fake news through their Russian propaganda outlets.
This is how they seek to weaken us. The methods they use are enlightening because they used them in 2016, and they are using them even at this very moment that I am speaking to you now. How do they amplify our political and social divisions? What do they do to get us to fight with one another? Because if they just put a bunch of segments on RT--everyone knows RT is the Kremlin's television station, but they are keen watchers of American habits. What do they know? They know a significant and growing percentage of Americans get their news and their information from social media.
In the old days, if you wanted to start a rumor, you started a rumor, and people had to tell someone else. Propaganda and informational warfare is not new. What is new is the ability to spread it to millions of people instantaneously by using platforms that were not available just a short time ago. They know Americans increasingly, as I said, get information from social media.
The first thing they do is they develop networks of followers for fake social media accounts. ``Fake'' meaning they are real accounts but fake in that it is not the person. It is a Russian operative who creates a social media account. Initially, the account may not even have anything to do with politics. It might have a variety of different topics in order to attract people to follow it, until you get to 10,000 15,0000, 20,000, 30,000 followers. Once they have reached a critical mass--and they have dozens of these--then, they use those platforms to inject divisive or false content or memes. They can use that, for example, to just sow instability and get us to fight with one another, but they can also use it to target specific candidates.
For example, they are using these networks, potentially, to leak stolen documents from a computer they hacked; or email doctored documents, where they change a few words and make it sound like you said something you never said; or, an even greater and growing threat, potentially, one day develop deepfake videos that you will watch on your news feed. You will look at the video, and it looks like someone saying and doing something, but it was carefully doctored and only an expert can tell. By the time a campaign or candidate bats it down, the election has passed, and that video has been spread far and wide and probably even found its way into regular media.
They know how the metrics work. How does the story pop up on your news feed, for example, on Facebook? It is based on how many people click and look at it. They unleash automated bots and even potentially paid advertising to drive traffic to those sites so those fake stories or that false content and that divisive content begins to rise on the news feed, meaning more people will read it. The result is, you have started a massive internet rumor that you know is going to get Americans to fight against one another.
This is not a relic of 2016. This is happening now. This is happening today. We were reminded of it earlier this morning, earlier today.
I want to show you two slides that Facebook revealed--two slides of content that Facebook has now removed because they have identified it as the work of Russian intelligence and their informational war against the United States.
Our first slide, under a fake account named Resisters, was posted on the 1st of September of last year. It says: Millions of indigenous people died during the conquest of America. History is history. But if we want integrity and equality, we have to erase these bloody memories and start over. Congratulations, Louisiana.
What it posts is a picture--a picture with a sign on it that says: Christian terrorism begins in 1492.
Sorry. It says, Congratulations Los Angeles because what it was referring to was Los Angeles canceled Columbus Day. Columbus Day is no more in the Nation's second-largest city.
Why do they put that on Facebook? Why would they post that? Because they know it is going to get us to fight. Some people will see that and be outraged about Christian terrorism. It will make them angry that this kind of thing is happening, and they will ascribe this as the work of the political left. Others, potentially who agree with this message, will send it to their group of followers, saying: Look, this is exactly right. This is what we have been saying all along.
The point is, this is a message that would divide Americans against each other. It will get us to fight along religious lines and potentially ethnic lines. That is the purpose of this kind of stuff--a fake account they boosted with automated bots so it got on people's news feeds.
By the way, they do dozens and dozens of these sorts of posts. This is just one example of it. This may reach 4,000 there, 18,000 people over there. This stuff adds up.
Let me show you a second slide. This is a slide from Aztlan Warriors. As you can see, it is pictures and the names of various Native American figures from America's past giving thanks to our vets in the 500-year war against colonialism.
Look at that one. Why would they post that? Geronimo, Crazy Horse, Chief Joseph, and the like. Why would they post that? Again, this is just two examples of things they were pushing to get people to fight. Maybe they are hoping some political or well-known figure will like it and then create a scandal about them in the press, but they know this will outrage people.
This is an outrageous message. This is a message designed to generate outrage. This is not a pro-Trump message or pro-Democratic message; this is an outrage message. This is informational warfare. They know we have a First Amendment. This is protected speech, oftentimes. They use it against us. You can't do that in Russia. This stuff is censored in Russia, but they have figured out how to use this information to get us to fight against one another.
There are dozens of other ads like this that today were removed. One of them attacks President Trump as a Nazi--a divisive message designed to get us to fight. Again, these are not ads designed to win a campaign.
This ad is not going to lead you to directly go out and vote for your Congressman or against him or for your Senator or against him. This is designed to drive conflict, along lines in this country that they know drives conflict. These are conflict messages. This is informational warfare. This is what they are doing now year-round. In campaigns, they may tailor it for something else, but this is what they are doing to us year-round.
This is what they did in 2016, with the primary objective of getting us to be divided, with the primary objective of ensuring that no matter who won that election--Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump--the next President of the United States was going to take office with a dark cloud over their head and a nation continually debating these issues and divided over it.
This is how you weaken an adversary from within. This is 21st century information warfare, and this is what is happening to our country. The target of this campaign is not the Democratic Party. It is not the Republican Party. It is you, the American people. A foreign country, under a foreign dictator, is coming into your homes, across your computer screen and your mobile phones, and targeting you for psychological and informational warfare. That is what we have to fully accept, as well as the implications it has for our country, for its future, for our Republic, for our elections, and for our ability to do work here.
They are better at this today than they were 2 years ago. Imagine when they start using that to try to influence the debates in the Senate or the House--contemporary issues. It is coming.
I don't have a magic solution for how to stop it. This is a 21st century reality. We have to address it and be prepared for it. I know this. I don't like Vladimir Putin. I don't respect Vladimir Putin. I don't consider him to be a great leader or anything like that. I largely consider him to be a weak and very corrupt man whose government is largely based on corruption and the ability to provide wealth to those who surround him, as long as they give him some of their money. He is largely an organized crime figure in charge of a nuclear arsenal and a great nation of great people. He has empowered himself with that. I do know he is a calculated actor. We have every reason to believe he makes decisions by weighing the benefits and the costs.
I believe, in 2016, he looked at the efforts in 2016 and said: I think weakening America from within through an informational warfare campaign will yield great benefits at a cost I am willing to pay.
I believe as we get closer to 2018 and future elections, he will have to make that decision again. I believe one of the things we can do is something that the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, spoke about earlier and we are working on together; that is, we have to do what we can to ensure that when he makes a decision about what to do in 2018 or beyond, the price of doing it is substantially higher than the benefit he thinks he will gain from informational warfare.
That is the purpose of the DETER Act, a bill we have filed together and continues to gain cosponsors. It is to make sure Vladimir Putin knows how high the price will be in comparison to the benefit before he decides what he wants to do about 2018 or beyond.
The bill is pretty straightforward. It doesn't deal with 2016. It doesn't look backward. It looks forward. It says two things. The first is, after every election, the Director of National Intelligence has to issue a report, after consulting with the Attorney General, with the White House, with all the heads of the intelligence agencies, about whether Russia attempted to interfere in our elections.
I am not talking about five Russian guys on Twitter. I am talking about a real campaign to interfere in our elections and conduct informational warfare for the purposes of disrupting our election, for the purposes of undermining confidence in the ballot box, for the purposes of driving divisions in America. If the answer is yes, it defines very clearly a set of specific, very hard-hitting sanctions in waiting--sanctions in waiting--that will be imposed if, but only if, there is interference. Sanctions are important as a penalty for what has been happening in the past, but deterrence happens when people know it is going to happen in the future.
He has already paid the price for 2016. Those sanctions are already in place. That is already baked into the equation now. You can't reimpose the same sanctions. Vladimir Putin is well aware what will happen if he conducts a massive cyber attack on our infrastructure. He is well aware of what will happen if he launches a rocket, a missile against one of America's cities. He knows very well what will happen if he tries to shoot down one of our airplanes.
Right now, he is kind of wondering what will happen if ``I did this again because they seem pretty divided about this whole thing. Maybe I can get away with it.''
We have to change that equation, and that is what this bill is about. The best way to prevent these things is to change that calculus. The best way to deal with this or any problem is to prevent it from happening in the first place. I cannot guarantee that if we pass a strong deterrence bill, he will not still wage informational warfare, but I can almost guarantee that if we don't, he will at some point in the future, and the target could be the Republicans the next time or anyone, for that matter. Vladimir Putin is not a Republican. He is anti-American, and he seeks to destroy this country from within, with driving an informational warfare campaign.
We are prepared to change and tailor our bill. There are some parts of that bill that need to be altered and refined. We recognize that. We are working to do that. We are willing to take ideas from anyone. The purpose of this is not to do something reckless or irresponsible. I am not interested, and I know Senator Van Hollen is not interested, in a talking point or a messaging exercise. We want to pass a law, which means it has to have 60 votes in the Senate, a majority in the House, and something President Trump can sign.
We are willing to change the bill so long as it can pass, and it will actually have strong enough deterrence. That is good public policy without unintended consequences. That is the purpose of this.
I will close where I began. We make a terrible mistake if we think this somehow is an effort by Vladimir Putin to engage himself in a partisan competition in the United States. His goal is not to elect one party or any individual candidate. His ultimate goal is to divide us against each other.
I ask everyone this. If a stranger came into your home--no matter what problems you may have with your family member or your children-- and actively encouraged you to fight with your spouse and fight with your kids and fight with your relatives, constantly trying to instigate, I know most people would tell this person: Listen, we are family, and we argue with one another, but you are not. You have no place to come into our home and get us to fight with one another.
We need to do that with our country. We need to do that with America. That is what we are hoping we can do here; 2016 is being dealt with. The Intelligence Committee that I sit on continues to do its work. We learn more every day that I think will help us be stronger for the future.
Is the independent counsel doing his work? I think the best thing that could happen is that all the truth can come out. The best thing for the President, the best thing for the country is that he be allowed to finish his work and that we know everything that happened in detail. The truth, I truly believe, is what is in the best interest of everyone, including the President of the United States.
We can't change the past. We can react to it, but we can't change it. We have a chance to influence the future, and that is the point of the DETER Act and why I hope we can make progress.
The election in the fall is less than 100 days away now. We are running out of time to put in place the things we need to put in place to ensure that this does not continue to happen.
We already are pretty irritated about these issues in America. The last thing we need is for some foreign, malign power, which seeks to weaken us, to have a foothold in making things worse and, in cases like what I just showed, getting us fighting with one another over things that aren't even real. We are the target of a psychological and informational war. It is time we stand up for ourselves, and I hope we will pass something like the DETER Act to do so.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source