Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment.

This amendment would strike section 7070(d) from the bill, removing language banning the State Department and other agencies from identifying, classifying, or facilitating the classification of any communication by a United States person as misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation, and banning the Federal Government from partnering with nonpartisan, nonprofit, outside experts to identify these threats.

On January 7, 2021, a day after the January 6 insurrection, the National Intelligence Council, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, NSA, and the State Department disseminated a then-classified report entitled, ``Foreign Threats to the 2020 U.S. Federal Elections.''

That report was declassified 2 months later, and in it, the best minds of our intelligence community wrote, ``. . . Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian Government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the U.S.''

It went on to say that: ``Unlike in 2016 . . . A key element of Moscow's strategy this election cycle was its use of proxies linked to Russian intelligence to push influence narratives--including misleading or unsubstantiated allegations. . . .''

Mr. Chair, in the wake of the chaos and destruction caused by the former President and his followers on January 6, I fear these facts are being forgotten.

So why are we here today with multiple appropriation bills that prevent the Federal Government of the United States from even acknowledging misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and getting that information to the American public no matter who it is spouted by, whether it is domestic or foreign threats?

Seems to be that my colleagues across the aisle want to use First Amendment rights as a blanket for those kinds of words and uses that are going to destroy the American people. We are not saying that people cannot say these things; what the Federal Government needs to be able to do is inform the American people where that information comes from, if it is, in fact, not factual, if it is conspiracy theories.

I fear that this is being allowed because some empowered corners of our Republican Caucus know another Presidential election is coming and they have been given a cookbook on how to keep chaos in our society.

We know that page one of that cookbook, that first recipe, is Russian propaganda and its penetration of the American people. Let's be clear: It is not only the Kremlin that wants in on this mis-, dis-, and malinformation game, this meal that they are trying to cook for the American people, Iran and China want to get into the kitchen, too.

We know foreign influence efforts are already active and we know many more are coming. Let's make sure that our Federal Government has the expertise and the research to be able to stop it.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to approve my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, let me just say that private media companies acting in their own business interest and in the understood interest of public health in the midst of global pandemics are going to do what they think is best for their bottom line. That is what drives them.

As for Orwellian cries, that is absolutely ludicrous that you would be concerned with that. You are only concerned with free speech now because it is impeding conspiracy theories that you want to put forward.

Free speech is not an absolute protection. That is one of the first things you learn in law school in constitutional law. It is not an absolute. It is not an absolute when it is going against the American people and our democracy, and when it is malicious speech.

Additionally, we are not saying that people cannot say these words; we are saying that where the information comes from and how it is used, our Federal Government should be allowed to track that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source