[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 167 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5937-S5941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Election Security Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Mueller report made crystal clear that 
the Russian Government interfered in the Presidential election of the 
United States of America in the year 2016. They called it a ``sweeping 
and systematic fashion'' of interference.
  I know this better than some because, in my home State of Illinois, 
the Russian intelligence service literally hacked into our State Board 
of Elections' voter file and gained access to a database containing 
information on millions of voters in my State. Then the Russians 
extracted the data on thousands of those voters. They also targeted 
other State election authorities, county governments, and election 
equipment and technology vendors.
  Federal law enforcement and intelligence officers have repeatedly 
warned us that these interference efforts will continue into the 
election of 2020. In fact, former KGB Agent Vladimir Putin recently 
mocked us and openly joked that Russia would definitely interfere again 
in the U.S. elections. Congress cannot sit back and ignore this threat. 
We must take action to help State and local election officials prepare 
for the 2020 elections and those beyond.
  I am pleased that the leader, Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, finally 
relented on his opposition to any further funding to assist State and 
local election officials with election security efforts. Yet the $250 
million included in the fiscal year 2020 Financial Services and General 
Government appropriations bill is clearly inadequate. We need to boldly 
invest in our election security. It is literally the cornerstone of our 
democracy, and we need to provide sustained funding to State and local 
election officials so they may respond

[[Page S5938]]

to these threats that are far beyond any State's capacity to deal with.
  There are 40 of us who cosponsored the Election Security Act that 
Senator Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, introduced in May. I was proud to 
join her as one of the original cosponsors.
  The legislation would provide critical resources to election 
officials through an initial $1 billion investment in our election 
infrastructure, followed by $175 million every 2 years for 
infrastructure maintenance. It would also require the use of voter-
verified paper ballots, strengthen the Federal response to election 
interference, and establish accountability measures for election 
technology vendors.
  Let me bring this down to Earth in simple words. If we cannot trust 
the outcome of an election to accurately reflect the feelings of those 
in America, we have lost the cornerstone of our democracy. There are 
nations, including Russia, that have proven they are doing everything 
in their power to stop us from having safe, accurate election counts.
  The question for this Senate and for this Congress is, Do we care? Do 
we care enough to spend the resources so our States can protect the 
integrity of voters? I am not just talking about blue States from the 
Democratic side of the aisle. Every State, red and blue alike, would 
benefit from this legislation. If the Republicans want to demonstrate 
that they are joining us in putting country over party, they should 
join us today and protect our democracy by passing this legislation.
  I have been asked to make a unanimous consent request at this point 
before I finish my remarks, and I thank the Senator from Louisiana for 
being on the floor.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1540

  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 1540, the Election Security Act; that the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a 
third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object and with 
all of the respect I can muster, this bill has more red flags than the 
Chinese Embassy. Despite my great admiration for the senior Senator 
from Illinois, I am objecting for three reasons.
  The first reason I can best explain by telling you a story.
  An oilman was talking to his banker one day, and the banker said: Mr. 
Oilman, you know, the bank loaned you $1 million to rework all of your 
old oil wells, and they went dry.
  The oilman said: It could have been worse.
  The banker said to the oilman: Mr. Oilman, we loaned you a second $1 
million to drill brandnew wells, and they all went dry. What do you say 
about that?
  The oilman said: It could have been worse.
  Then the banker said to the oilman: Our bank loaned you a third $1 
million to buy new drilling equipment, and it all broke down. What do 
you say about that?
  The oilman said: It could have been worse.
  The banker was now very upset. He said: What do you mean it could 
have been worse? We loaned you $3 million, and you lost all of it. What 
do you mean it could have been worse?
  The oilman said: It could have been my money.
  The cost of this bill is $1 billion--nine zeros. If I started 
counting to a billion right now by one numeral a second, I wouldn't 
finish until 2051. I would be dead as a doornail. I wouldn't make it. A 
billion is a lot. We toss around ``a billion'' these days like it was a 
nickel. A billion seconds ago, it was 1986. Ronald Reagan was 
President. That is how much a billion is. A billion minutes ago, the 
Romans were conquering Mesopotamia. As I made the point the other day 
on the Senate floor, a billion hours ago, the Neanderthals were roaming 
the Earth. A billion is a lot.
  We have a $22 trillion deficit--12 zeros. We have to pay this money 
back. I am running out of space, and we are probably going to run out 
of digits if we keep borrowing.
  My first concern is the money. Now, if we had not given any money to 
our colleagues at the State level, that would have been one thing. Yet, 
as my good friend knows, 2 years ago, we gave the States $380 million 
to combat election fraud. They haven't even spent it all yet. So, yes, 
I have concerns about the money.
  Point No. 2, we did have problems in 2016, and I join the senior 
Senator in wanting to do everything we possibly can to keep it from 
happening again, which we did in 2018. We all had a classified briefing 
down in our room. I don't know the particular name of it, but it is in 
the Capitol Visitor Center. It is classified. You have to leave your 
phone and your iPad outside. We had the Director of National 
Intelligence there and the FBI Director, and I think we had every 
general there from the Western Hemisphere. We went over the 2018 
elections. They went off without a hitch.
  Have you read any articles about our having problems in 2018 like we 
had in 2016? No. Do you think if we had problems in 2018 that the 
members of our press would have pounced on it like a ninja? Yes. Yet 
you haven't seen those articles because 2018 went off without a hitch. 
This was, in part, because we gave the States $380 million to solve the 
problem, and they have not spent it all. So a reasonable person would 
wonder why we would want to give them another $1 billion of American 
taxpayer money at this juncture.
  We also asked the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, and 
every general who was there: Are you ready for 2020? Every single one 
of them said, categorically, unequivocally, unconditionally, yes. Every 
single Senator, both my Republican friends and my Democratic friends, 
walked out of that classified hearing impressed.
  The third reason I, regretfully, have to object to this bill--and I 
am not ascribing this intention to the Senator from Illinois. I am 
not--is that some of my friends on Capitol Hill would like nothing 
better than to take over elections in America, to have our election 
system federalized. Right now, we don't have one election system; we 
have 50 election systems. Every State runs its elections its own way, 
usually by the Secretary of State. Now, I believe that is a matter of 
federalism. I don't see anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or in the 
Federalist Papers where it reads the U.S. Government ought to be 
running elections for States.
  No. 2, our States do a great job. Yes, we had a lot of activity on 
Facebook and Google and within other aspects of social media, but we 
haven't heard one allegation--or at least any proof of an allegation--
that any votes were stolen in 2016, much less in 2018. That is because 
our Secretaries of State did a good job. It is also safer to have every 
Secretary of State and every State in charge of its own election system 
because, if a foreign government wants to hack your system, it has to 
go to 50 different States. It has to do it 50 times. If we nationalize 
elections--yet again, give the Federal Government more power--all a 
foreign national has to do is to hack one system.
  Again, I am not ascribing this motive or this intent to my good 
friend from Illinois. I am not. Yet there are some who would like 
nothing better than to nationalize State elections and have them run by 
the Federal Government. Then the Federal Government could tell the 
States what to do--what kinds of machines to use, whether they need 
paper ballots, how to order the ballots. If they have electric machines 
and one has to walk into a booth, the Federal Government could tell the 
States what kinds of and what color of curtains they would have to 
have. Then they would have a Federal agency get involved, and it would 
start promulgating regulations. Before you would know it, casting a 
vote would be like building a bridge.
  It is a matter of federalism. Those who disagree with me will say: 
Oh, Kennedy. You are exaggerating. This bill doesn't do that. It 
doesn't federalize elections.
  Yes, it does.
  Do you know how we federalize things around here? We get the object 
of the federalization hooked on the money. Those who want the Federal 
Government to run everything never go right at it. They sneak up on 
them. We say we are going to give them $380

[[Page S5939]]

million, and they get a little addicted. Then we are going to give them 
$1 billion, and they get a little more addicted. Sooner or later, they 
are addicted to the money, and then the Federal Government has got 
them.
  And that is what worries me about this bill.
  I am going to offer another bill after we are done today that I hope 
my good friend from Illinois will at least consider supporting. This 
bill is not going to cost $1 billion, I can assure you. This bill is 
going to require the chief election official of every State--usually, 
that is the Secretary of State, as the senior Senator knows better than 
me--to disclose to the Election Assistance Commission the identity of 
any known foreign national who has physically handled ballots, 
machines, or has had unmonitored access to storage facilities or 
tabulation centers used to support elections or unmonitored access to 
election-related information or communication technology.
  What does that really mean? That means that if a foreign national at 
any stage of the chain of custody has access to the machine or has 
access to the ballot, that has to be disclosed.
  Now, if you want to do something to stop foreign nationals from 
interfering with our elections, we don't need to spend $1 billion. We 
need to pass this bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there an objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. I am getting to that.
  For the reasons I described and with great respect for the senior 
Senator from Illinois, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. First, let me say this. I do respect the Senator from 
Louisiana. We have been cosponsors on important legislation. I hope we 
will be again. We see eye-to-eye on many things but not on this bill.
  A billion dollars? The Federal Government spends $1,500 billion every 
year. Is the integrity of our voting system worth $1 billion?
  Do you know what it has cost us to reach this point in our history 
where our democracy is reliable and respected around the world? It has 
cost more than money. It has cost the lives of men and women who went 
to war to fight for that, to make sure that we had the last word when 
it came to the future of our democracy.
  A billion dollars is an overwhelming number; right? Divide it by 50, 
and understand what is at stake here. What is at stake here is whether 
we care enough to invest money in our election process--not with 
Federal mandates. We say to the States: You decide how to spend it. You 
have the authority over the State election procedure and the color of 
the curtain on your booth. If you want to mandate that by State law, be 
my guest.
  But what it comes down to--and I have to disagree with my friend from 
Louisiana--is that the money we have sent to the States already has all 
been obligated, and it is going through the purchasing and procurement 
policies of each of the States. It isn't as if they can't figure out 
what to do with it.
  Upgrading our voting machines to make sure that they reflect 
technology today makes a difference. Have you bought a new cell phone 
recently? Have you watched any ads on television talking about the 
security of your cell phone? Have you listened to anyone talk about the 
privacy of you as an individual? It is because every single day, every 
single minute, and every second someone is trying to figure out how to 
get into your mind and into your life, and we are trying to keep 
technology up with this reality.
  Now, what is the reality of the technology we use for voting? In my 
State, we have paper ballots to verify what is actually cast, but our 
technology is 20 years old. The Russians know that; the Iranians know 
that; and the Chinese know that, and they are mocking us. They are 
laughing.
  If you were amused by the story of the Senator from Louisiana--and he 
is the best storyteller in the Senate--think about how amused Vladimir 
Putin is to listen to this debate.
  We can't afford to spend the money to ward off Vladimir Putin's next 
attack in 2020. That is what I hear from the other side of the aisle. I 
disagree. I think what is at stake here is so basic and so fundamental 
that shame on us if we will not invest the money to make sure we keep 
up with the attackers.
  Now, people say: Well, 2018 went off without a hitch. It was not only 
the good work of State election officials. It was the hard work here in 
Washington of our intelligence agencies, and the Senator knows that. We 
didn't sit back and say: Well, I sure hope they don't hit us again. We 
went after them. I can't be more specific because we are told not to be 
more detailed in our response.
  We invested a heck of a lot of money in stopping them from ruining 
the 2018 election, and we are bound to do it again, and I hope we do. 
But to say we can't afford to protect the integrity of our vote--then, 
what is a democracy worth? What is it worth?
  It is worth human lives, and it is worth our investment in this 
generation to make sure that those votes count, whether you live in a 
red State or a blue State. I am not talking about just sending this to 
Democratic State officials. I am talking about across the country. I 
want an election to truly reflect the way the American people feel 
about candidates and issues that are before them, and that is why I am 
so disappointed by the Senator's objection.
  Yes, I will carefully consider his bill. Maybe there is some room 
here. But when we say $1 billion disqualifies you from being considered 
seriously, when it comes down to the integrity of our voting system--$1 
billion is too much--it turns out the Republican leader has suggested 
one-fourth of that amount, and nobody blinked.
  I happen to think $1 billion is more realistic in terms of helping 
our voting systems across this country. Shame on us if the result of 
the Presidential election is later found to have been tampered with by 
our enemies overseas. Shame on us if we didn't do everything we were 
supposed to do in the Senate, in the House, and in this government to 
protect that God-given right for a democracy that we cherish so much.
  The Mueller report made crystal clear that the Russian Government 
interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a ``sweeping and 
systematic fashion.''
  In Illinois, the Russian intelligence service hacked into our State 
Board of Elections, gained access to a database containing information 
on millions of Illinois voters, and then extracted data on thousands of 
those voters.
  They also targeted other State election authorities, county 
governments, and election equipment and technology vendors.
  And Federal law enforcement and intelligence officials have 
repeatedly warned that these interference efforts will continue in 
2020.
  In fact, former KGB Agent Putin recently mocked us, openly joking 
that Russia would definitely interfere again in the U.S. election.
  Congress cannot sit back and ignore this ongoing threat--we must take 
action to help State and local election officials prepare for future 
elections.
  I am pleased that Leader McConnell finally relented on his opposition 
to any further funding to assist State and local election officials 
with election security efforts.
  But the $250 million included in the FY 2020 Financial Services and 
General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill is not nearly enough.
  We need to boldly invest in our election security--and we need to 
provide sustained funding to State and local election officials to 
respond to these evolving threats.
  That is why 40 of us have cosponsored the Election Security Act, 
which Senator Klobuchar introduced in May. I was proud to join as a 
lead cosponsor.
  The legislation would provide critical resources to election 
officials through an initial $1 billion investment in our election 
infrastructure, followed by $175 million every 2 years for 
infrastructure maintenance.
  It would also require the use of voter-verified paper ballots, 
strengthen the Federal response to election interference, and establish 
accountability measures for election technology vendors.
  If Republicans want to demonstrate that they are capable of putting 
country over party, they should join us

[[Page S5940]]

today and protect our democracy by passing this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I agree so much with what the Senator 
from Illinois has said, but we are on top of this.
  Let me say it again. We gave the States $380 million to address the 
problems in 2018. They haven't spent all of it. It is 3 gallons of 
crazy to give them another billion dollars.
  We have been assured by all of the relevant Federal officials that we 
are ready for 2020. I am going to repeat once again: We had no problems 
in 2018.
  If I thought for a second that our voting system was in jeopardy, I 
would be joining with my good friend the Senator, but I am not much for 
just spending taxpayer money, with a $22 trillion deficit, just to be 
spending it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
speak for up to 15 minutes, followed by Senators Johnson, Risch, and 
Menendez, for 5 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the 
                      Republic of North Macedonia

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, today, we will vote on whether or not to 
admit North Macedonia into NATO. I, for one, think we already have 
enough dead weight in NATO and that adding North Macedonia to NATO adds 
absolutely nothing to our collective security.
  In his farewell address, George Washington stated: ``It is our true 
policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the 
foreign world.'' This was echoed by Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural 
address, who wished for ``peace, commerce, and honest friendship with 
all nations . . . entangling alliances with none.'' As we watch the 
most recent developments in Syria unfold, it is a good moment to 
remember the guidance that Washington and Jefferson attempted to pass 
along.
  Turkey, a nation that we have been locked in a permanent alliance 
with since the Cold War, has launched an offensive, a war of choice, by 
further invading Syria.
  While they are clearly acting in their own self-interest, their 
actions place our Nation one mistake or one small incident away from a 
hot war with at least one major global power. Does it make sense for 
American men and women to potentially have to defend Turkey over their 
war of choice?
  I believe that when Jefferson spoke of entangling alliances, one 
could not pick a better example than how we have expanded NATO. Since 
2004, we have expanded NATO ever closer to the border of Russia. In the 
process, we have added the so-called military might of countries such 
as Slovenia, Latvia, Albania, Montenegro, and now, today, North 
Macedonia.
  What benefit is it to the United States to add countries that barely 
have enough military might to defend themselves? I say that adding 
North Macedonia to NATO adds absolutely nothing to our national 
security.
  The best-case scenario we can hope for with these countries is that 
an incident that triggers a major land war never occurs. If you think 
this is far-fetched, remember that World War I began when a Serbian 
nationalist assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. 
Within months, the very system of entangling alliances that our 
forefathers warned about turned Europe into a killing field, which 
ultimately killed upward of 19 million people. Adding yet another small 
country to NATO does nothing to dissipate the chances of catastrophic 
war and, in fact, encourages that possibility.
  What military capabilities does North Macedonia bring to the table? 
Some 8,200 active-duty soldiers. Additionally, in 2018, they spent a 
whopping $120 million a year on their military. By comparison, the 
Chicago Cubs spent $221 million on their payroll. Additionally, 15 
other Major League Baseball teams spent more on their rosters than 
North Macedonia spends on defense. Even if North Macedonia brought 
their military spending in line with NATO guidelines, it would still 
only be $227 million.
  But if the goal of NATO is to have these countries spend 2 percent, 
why don't we wait until they are spending 2 percent to admit them 
instead of admitting them and saying: Please, increase your defense 
spending.
  If they come up to 2 percent, they would only be spending $227 
million, which is $103 million less than Bryce Harper's contract with 
the Philadelphia Phillies.
  NATO is supposed to be about mutual defense, not just blanket 
security guarantees to smaller states.
  How much would North Macedonia give in monetary terms to NATO? Less 
than $1 million. We foot the bill. We pay for everything. We are going 
to get less than $1 million of direct contributions from North 
Macedonia. It doesn't seem hardly fair; does it?
  It is clear that North Macedonia adds little, if any, value to the 
NATO alliance in terms of manpower or military capabilities, which 
means that the only reason they are being added is to be a tripwire 
that would only ensnare us in a rapidly escalating wider war in which 
they would not be able to carry their own weight. So I don't think 
North Macedonia adds anything to our national security, but they are 
out there on the edge of Europe as a tripwire to ensnare us in a wider 
war.
  If the recent events involving Turkey were not enough to validate the 
guidance laid down by our Founding Fathers, then adding North Macedonia 
to a tangled network of permanent alliances certainly is. We would be 
wise to revisit and heed our Founding Fathers, who said getting 
involved in entangling alliances in Europe does not add to our 
security; it threatens our security.
  I urge a ``no'' vote. I don't think we need to expand NATO. We 
certainly don't need more people that the American taxpayer will be 
asked to pay for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of North 
Macedonia's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  North Macedonia's path to NATO accession has been a long one. Despite 
being regarded early on as a leading candidate for NATO membership, 
Macedonia's name dispute with Greece became a huge roadblock. A 
disagreement over a country's name may not seem like a big deal to 
those looking in from the outside, but getting over this hurdle 
required significant political courage.
  In 2017, Greece's Prime Minister Tsipras and Macedonia's Prime 
Minister Zaev displayed that level of political courage when they 
committed to settle the nearly three decades-long dispute. Because of 
their leadership, these two nations signed the Prespa agreement last 
year. Greece agreed to remove its objection and approve Macedonia's 
accession to NATO in exchange for Macedonia agreeing to change its name 
to North Macedonia.
  This dispute resolution between Greece and North Macedonia 
demonstrates that NATO is not only an effective defensive alliance, but 
it has been a tremendous force for stability in Europe. North Macedonia 
is poised to soon become NATO's 30th member because it worked to 
resolve a longstanding bilateral disagreement.
  I support NATO's longstanding open-door policy, and I hope that the 
goal of NATO membership will continue to guide other aspirants to solve 
longstanding disputes, fight corruption, and make difficult necessary 
domestic reforms.
  Beyond North Macedonia's accession, I would like to speak more 
broadly on how important the NATO alliance is to the United States. 
NATO is based on the principle of collective defense. Article 5 of the 
North Atlantic Treaty states that an attack against one member is an 
attack against us all.
  NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg detailed NATO's value when he 
addressed a joint meeting of Congress earlier this year and both 
started and ended his speech by saying: ``It is good to have friends.'' 
I couldn't agree more.
  In the wake of the attacks of 9/11, our friends, our NATO allies, 
invoked article 5 for the first and only time in the alliance's 
history. Our NATO allies and many of the aspirants stood shoulder to 
shoulder with us in Afghanistan. They lost 1,000 of their sons and 
daughters in honoring their commitment by fighting alongside us. The 
United States should never forget our NATO allies' contribution and 
sacrifice.

[[Page S5941]]

  A strong NATO alliance is just as important and relevant today as it 
was at its founding in 1949. I am pleased that the full Senate is 
taking up this measure to approve North Macedonia's accession to NATO, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor with a resounding yes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.