[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 10, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4743-S4744]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ELECTION SECURITY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, later today, all Senators will have 
the opportunity to receive a classified briefing on an issue of huge 
national importance: the security and integrity of our elections.
  It is fitting that today's session be one bipartisan, all-Member 
briefing because, while it is a cliche to say that certain priorities 
ought to be above partisan squabbling, I know that every one of us 
shares a genuine concern in maintaining the process through which 
American democracy plays out.
  Those of my colleagues who have read the January 2017 intelligence 
assessment and the Mueller report will understand that it is precisely 
our unity and our faith in our democratic system that Vladimir Putin 
seeks to undermine.
  Along with Americans' First Amendment rights to express themselves 
and speak out, there are few things more fundamental to the maintenance 
of our Republic than the electoral process itself.
  Thomas Paine wrote, ``The right of voting for representatives is the 
primary right by which other rights are protected.''
  So preserving and protecting the elections that our State and local 
authorities conduct is a crucial task. From the Federal Government's 
perspective, States are firmly in the lead, but sometimes that means 
lending a hand to local authorities. Obviously, during the Civil Rights 
era, for example, some Federal guidelines were necessary to preserve 
integrity.
  But many other times, doing the right thing means defending against 
interference, be it political interference in the constitutionally 
protected role of the States to conduct elections by politicians and 
bureaucrats here in Washington or, certainly, interference from 
America's adversaries abroad.
  In 2016, Vladimir Putin sought to interfere in our elections. I have 
read the intelligence reports. I have read the Mueller report. I have 
talked with our Intelligence Committee, which has investigated this 
indepth and has a report coming out soon.
  It is important to put Putin's efforts to interfere in our democracy 
in context because he didn't just decide in 2016 to take such a bold 
step. He kind of worked up to it, undermining an array of U.S. 
interests slowly but surely over 8 years of the previous 
administration's misguided approach to Russia.
  Under President Obama, the U.S.-Russia relationship seemed to be 
defined by two constants: Putin's growing assertiveness in foreign 
meddling and the administration's failure to confront it.
  Putin's 2008 invasion of the sovereign country of Georgia was met by 
the so-called reset in 2009, which swept the aggression under the rug. 
The United States may have reset our policy to

[[Page S4744]]

business as usual, but Putin's aggression continued full bore.
  There was the failure to respond to Putin's efforts to strangle 
democracy in his own country by shuttering western NGOs, arresting 
dissidents, or possibly ordering the murder of political opponent Boris 
Nemtsov.
  To the extent that the United States responded to the torture and 
murder by Russian authorities of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, it was due to 
congressional pressure.
  There was also President Obama's response to Putin's invasion of 
Ukraine in 2014. Do any of my colleagues believe the administration's 
response to that outrageous assault on the sovereignty of Ukraine was 
sufficiently tough to defend against Putin's outrageous assault on 
fundamental principles of sovereignty and the international order?
  There was the debacle with the President's redline in Syria, which 
turned out to be more like a red carpet for Russian influence in Syria 
and the Middle East.
  And there was the President telling Putin's puppet Medvedev that he 
could have more ``flexibility'' to treat Russia differently once he 
became a lameduck.
  All this was under a President who thought it was a clever laugh line 
to mock our now-colleague Senator Romney for correctly labeling Russia 
as a threat.
  The consequences of American weakness toward Russia were numerous. 
The more Obama gave, the more Putin took.
  Among those consequences, as we all know, was that Putin felt 
sufficiently emboldened to seek to interfere in our 2016 Presidential 
election. Through efforts to divide Americans on social media and to 
hack a political party, agents of a foreign government sought to inject 
division, doubt, and chaos into our democracy--a sad and embarrassing 
episode.
  President Trump has expressed an interest in a better relationship 
with Russia, but the actions his administration has taken--which he has 
authorized--demonstrate that such a relationship will not prevent 
America from pushing back against Russian aggression.
  The administration has pushed back against Russia in meaningful ways, 
imposing new costs on Putin and his cronies for their malign activities 
and improving our defenses against Russian active measures. We have 
adopted new national security and defense strategies that treat Russian 
aggression like the serious threat that it is. We have begun to rebuild 
our military strength, which was eroded by years of budget cuts and 
further damaged by sequestration. We have taken steps to provide 
Georgia and Ukraine with arms to defend against Russian aggression--
weapons denied to them by the previous administration despite 
bipartisan support from Congress. We worked to block Moscow's efforts 
to increase European reliance on Russian oil and gas. Secretary Mattis 
led efforts--continued by his successors--to reform and strengthen 
NATO.
  So important changes are underway at the strategic level. Now we are 
back to projecting the strength, principle, and resolve that America 
ought to project.
  In addition, the Trump administration has also punched back in very 
specific ways in response to the election interference that happened on 
the Obama administration's watch. Thanks to the work of the Special 
Counsel and the Department of Justice, 28 Russian nationals, 
intelligence officers, and corporate interests were indicted for their 
participation in the interference. And in 2018, the administration 
expelled another 60 Russian agents in response to the poisoning of a 
former official living in the United Kingdom. These agents are no 
longer free to conduct intelligence operations or active measures here 
in America.
  These are all tough, important steps that pertain to our broader 
foreign policy efforts to defer future threats, but there has also been 
significant work done specifically on our election security. The 
administration worked quickly to address vulnerabilities and ensure 
that 2018 wouldn't be a reprise of 2016.
  The administration directed resources through the Department of 
Homeland Security to help local election authorities implement stronger 
cybersecurity measures. Information sharing was streamlined between 
DHS, FBI, and State and local officials.
  They worked hard to gain the trust of State election officials in my 
State of Kentucky and around the country and provide them with valuable 
information through a voluntary information-sharing program that has 
seen participation from all 50 States and 1,400 localities.
  Here in Congress, we appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars in 
additional aid for State governments to strengthen their systems, and 
our efforts continue. This year's Defense and Intelligence 
authorization bills include provisions that will help defend ourselves 
and our allies against Russian aggression.
  The administration will brief us today in classified session about 
the many steps U.S. agencies have taken since 2016 to improve our 
defenses and bolster our deterrence against adversaries who seek to 
undermine our democracy.
  The smooth and secure execution of the 2018 election illustrates the 
success of these measures. This was not a coincidence.
  Congress has taken even further action since then, building new 
legislative safeguards to increase transparency and coordination with 
the intelligence community on election security.
  In short, it is abundantly clear that the administration and Congress 
take this issue seriously. I look forward to hearing more from the 
administration today about what steps have led to this greater success 
and what even further safeguards they are working on in advance of 
2020.
  Of course, Congress will need to continue closely monitoring the 
progress and assess whether future legislative steps might be needed as 
well. But, as with any time when Washington politicians are clamoring 
to grab greater control over something this important, we need to make 
sure this conversation is clear-eyed and sober and serious.
  I remember it was President Obama's first Chief of Staff who said: 
``You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.'' In other words, bad 
news can give politicians cover to do things they have wanted to do for 
a long time.
  Remember, it was only months ago that the new Democratic majority in 
the House decided their top priority for the entire Congress was a 
massive bill I called the Democratic politician protection act--a 
sprawling Federal power grab over election law and citizens' political 
speech.
  Among other provisions, it would make the FEC, the currently 
nonpartisan body that regulates political speech, into a partisan 
weapon.
  They also want to give Washington more power to prohibit citizens 
groups from weighing in on politicians' job performance. They have 
twice passed bills aimed at centralizing election administration 
decisions in the Federal Government, in part on the hope that election 
attorneys, not voters, will get to determine the outcome of more 
elections--provision after provision that would erode longstanding 
safeguards. That was the huge proposal just a few months ago.
  In light of this, it is interesting that some of our colleagues 
across the aisle seem to have already made up their minds before we 
hear from the experts later today that a brandnew, sweeping Washington 
intervention is just what the doctor ordered.
  I, for one, am looking forward to listening to the experts, to 
hearing more about why the Trump administration was more successful in 
2018 than the Obama administration was in 2016. I look forward to 
ensuring that any additional Federal action actually addresses the 
problems at hand; that it preserve, rather than undermine, the careful 
checks and balances that have long been key parts of American democracy 
since the beginning.

                          ____________________