During House Floor Debate, Rep. Stansbury Speaks Out Against GOP’s “Putin Protection Act”

VIDEO LINK: Link is available here.

WASHINGTON—Today, U.S. Representative Melanie Stansbury (N.M.-01), a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, highlighted the national security concerns embedded in House Republicans’ H.R.140 during the bill’s floor amendment debate. Rep. Stansbury voted to amend the legislation in a markup last week to defend the nation’s democratic elections and the First Amendment. Those amendments received no Republican votes.

Rep. Stansbury spoke out against two amendments to the bill that require New Mexico’s nearly 30,000 federal employees—and all federal employees across the nation—to comply with bureaucratic hurdles before defending Americans from foreign election interference or malicious misinformation. The Republican’s “Putin Protection Act” prevents federal employees from using their official capacities to share information with social media companies that might affect their content moderation decisions. 

On Rose #9, mandating an additional annual training for federal employees to implement the bill:

“This bill does not secure the freedoms and safety of the American people—it endangers them,” said Rep. Stansbury. “It imperils our democracy itself by handcuffing the ability of our law enforcement, national security, and intelligence officials to provide factual, critical information to social media companies and the public—information that might be used to prevent a crime or take down nefarious Russian propaganda campaigns.”

On Rose #10, requiring Inspectors General to publicly report the number of complaints and tips received related to the legislation, the number of investigations opened, and statistics on how investigations were managed and resolved:

“Our inspectors general conduct vital work on behalf of the American people, helping to safeguard taxpayer dollars and government operations from waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement,” said Rep. Stansbury. “To ask them to waste their finite resources on an annual reporting requirement for a bill that actually threatens the freedoms and security of the American public, is… in itself is an act of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.”

On the bill’s wider threat to national security by requiring a waiting period of at least 72 hours before law enforcement officials can act to prevent or respond to most crimes or threats they identify on or involving social media platforms:

“Imagine you’re a federal official and you see information being shared online that indicates a sexual assault is imminent. Under this bill, you’d have a decision to make. Do you write and file a lengthy report with Congress and then wait 72 hours, when it’ll be too late? Or do you act immediately, knowing that you might be subject to a $50,000 fine, or you might be barred from federal service for ten years, and you’d become a publicly reported example as someone who, quote, “censored” free speech, as this amendment seeks to do?

Rep. Stansbury’s full remarks as prepared for delivery are below.

On Rose #9:

Mr. Speaker, a training requirement to ensure an Act is implemented correctly is perfectly reasonable when the Act itself is reasonable. But as my colleagues have clarified extensively, nothing about this bill is reasonable, and nothing about the process for bringing this bill to the Floor has been reasonable.

This bill does not secure the freedoms and safety of the American people—it endangers them. It imperils our democracy itself by handcuffing the ability of our law enforcement, national security, and intelligence officials to provide factual, critical information to social media companies and the public—information that might be used to prevent a crime or take down nefarious Russian propaganda campaigns.

This is not some unintended consequence of the bill, but rather its entire point, as my Republican colleagues have conceded. When we marked up this bill in the Oversight Committee, Chairman Comer produced two emails from a single FBI agent to Twitter and said that they were, quote, “the purpose of the bill.” 

What terrible censorship of conservative voices was contained in those emails?  They simply identified Twitter accounts and tweets that appeared to be providing misleading information on the time, place, or manner of voting in the upcoming election. We want our public servants to be able to do their jobs to protect the freedoms of Americans, including the fundamental democratic right to vote in our elections.

Democrats sought to address this and other grave flaws in the bill by submitting 43 amendments for Floor consideration. Only one was made in order.

Republicans submitted only 20 amendments. Many, like this one, ignore the glaring dangers of the bill, do nothing to improve it or protect American freedoms from its vast Orwellian consequences, and simply tinker around the edges.

Why are we voting on this amendment, and not Congressman Torres’s amendment to ensure the bill does not prohibit federal officials from preventing or addressing cyberattacks?

Why are we voting on this amendment, and not Congressman Lynch’s amendment to ensure the bill does not prohibit federal officials from protecting national security?

Why are we voting on this amendment, and not Congressman Goldman’s amendment to ensure the bill does not prohibit federal officials from fighting foreign election interference?

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which does nothing to improve this deeply dangerous bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

On Rose #10:

Mr. Speaker, our inspectors general conduct vital work on behalf of the American people, helping to safeguard taxpayer dollars and government operations from waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

To ask them to waste their finite resources on an annual reporting requirement for a bill that actually threatens the freedoms and security of the American public, is gravely antithetical to their missions and purpose—and in itself is an act of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Nobody could act in good conscience to support this amendment.

One of the most concerning aspects of this bill is that it creates a waiting period of at least 72 hours before law enforcement officials can take action to prevent or respond to most crimes or threats they identify, either on or involving social media platforms.

Imagine you’re a federal official and you see information being shared online that indicates a sexual assault is imminent. Under this bill, you’d have a decision to make. Do you write and file a lengthy report with Congress and then wait 72 hours, when it’ll be too late?  Or do you act immediately, knowing that you might be subject to a fifty thousand-dollar fine, or you might be barred from federal service for ten years, and you’d become a publicly-reported example as someone who, quote, “censored” free speech, as this amendment seeks to do?

Thanks to the excellent bipartisan work of Congresswoman Houlahan and Congresswoman Mace, we could have been considering a very different kind of amendment here on the Floor today—one that would have made sure this bill still allowed law enforcement officials to act immediately in this exact case.

But my Republican colleagues would not allow it to come to the Floor today, choosing instead to waste our time on this amendment. They chose a do-nothing, wasteful reporting requirement over a bipartisan amendment to protect the safety—in many instances, the very lives—of women in this country. It’s outrageous, and we won’t stand for it.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.