[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 10, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6930-S6933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      EXECUTIVE SESSION--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume executive session.
  The Senator from Maryland.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1060

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, after a discussion that we will have 
on the Senate floor, I intend to ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
pass S. 1060, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation called the 
DETER Act.
  What is the DETER Act? The DETER Act is legislation that I introduced 
with Senator Rubio. It has bipartisan sponsorship, and it is designed 
to send a very clear and simple message to Russia or any other 
countries that are thinking about interfering with our elections and 
undermining our democracy that, if we catch you, you will suffer a 
severe penalty. It won't be a few

[[Page S6931]]

sanctions against a few of the oligarchs. It will hit big parts of your 
economy. It will hit your banking sector. It will hit your energy 
sector. It will hurt, so you better think before you try to interfere 
in any future election.
  Now, Senator Rubio and I introduced this legislation a number of 
years ago, and in response to concerns that were raised, we made a 
number of important changes, but despite those changes, we are still 
here in the U.S. Senate with less than 1 year to go before a national 
election, and we have not passed this bill to deter foreign 
interference in our elections.
  We know what Vladimir Putin's ambitions are. He wants to sow division 
in our electorate. He wants to make our political process even more 
polarized. He wants to undermine the public faith in the democratic 
process. That is not just my conclusion. That is the unanimous verdict 
of the U.S. Intelligence Committee and the community after the 2016 
election, but it is not just them.
  Our own Senate Intelligence Committee, on a bipartisan basis, issued 
its findings. It also found that those were Putin's intentions, and it 
found that, in 2016, Russia interfered in all 50 of the States, to a 
greater or lesser extent--all 50 of the States. And what Vladimir Putin 
clearly has learned and taken away from all of this is that he can 
attack our democracy and attack our elections with impunity because the 
rewards are high. He creates division. He accomplishes his objectives. 
And the price is zero. There is currently no cost to Vladimir Putin 
from interfering in our elections.
  So what the DETER Act is designed to do is to raise the costs for the 
coming elections, to make it clear that, if we catch you next time, 
there will be a penalty to pay. We know that Putin hasn't gotten this 
message because there is no penalty right now, and that is why, on 
November 5, just a few weeks ago, we got another unanimous prediction 
from U.S. intelligence agencies. All of them jointly stated:

       Russia, China, Iran, and other foreign malicious actors all 
     will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence 
     voter perceptions. Adversaries may try to accomplish their 
     goals through a variety of means, including social media 
     campaigns, directing disinformation operations or conducting 
     disruptive or destructive cyber-attacks on state and local 
     infrastructure.

  That was just a few weeks ago--unanimously, from the intelligence 
agencies. Clearly, Vladimir Putin hasn't gotten the message. What the 
DETER Act is all about is sending that message that he will now know 
that there will be a penalty to pay upfront.
  Look, there are only two ways we can protect our elections, and we 
need to do both. One is to harden our election infrastructure here at 
home, which is to try to make it harder for somebody to use cyber 
attacks to get into our election systems and make it harder for them to 
abuse our social media platforms. This is a case where the best defense 
is a good offense because we can harden our systems, but you can be 
sure that the Russian Government cyber security folks will always be 
looking for a way around it, just like the arms race. So just like the 
arms race, deterrence is the best way to protect the integrity of our 
democracy by letting them know upfront that there will be this very 
tough price to pay.
  We hoped and thought we could address this issue in the National 
Defense Authorization Act. What better place is there to defend the 
integrity of our democracy than in the legislation that is designed to 
protect our national security? In fact, the U.S. Senate unanimously 
passed the resolution I have in my hand, S. Res. 330, which says very 
clearly that we wanted folks at the NDAA conference to require the 
administration--any administration, future administration--to promptly 
submit a report on Russian interference or other interference following 
every Federal election, and that would include a detailed assessment of 
the foreign governments that were involved in that interference. The 
Senate, as part of that resolution, also voted to promptly impose 
sanctions on any foreign government determined to have interfered in a 
future Federal election, including individuals and entities within that 
country's territories.
  Let me emphasize that point. Every Senator here supported that--or at 
least nobody objected to that. We have been working for over 2 years to 
get this done, and we keep hearing that the Trump administration 
doesn't want to do it. Of course, we haven't been told by the Trump 
administration why they object. Even Secretary Pompeo, in testimony 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he supported the 
concept. In fact, every witness in the Senate Banking Committee and 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked about this and supported this 
legislation. You have to ask the question why: Why is there such 
opposition? If it is because of President Trump, we need to be doing 
our job here in the legislature, not the bidding of the White House.
  I yield to the Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maryland for 
his diligence in this issue of utmost importance to the integrity of 
our elections, to our national security, and basically for trust in 
government. If the American people feel that a foreign country can 
interfere in their elections and, particularly, that their President is 
OK with that, I worry and pray for our democracy.
  For the past few years, Senate Democrats have sought to pass 
legislation to improve the security of elections. There are many ways 
to do this--hardening our election infrastructure, shoring up cyber 
defenses, and requiring paper ballots. One of the most important has 
been advocated with passion and vigor by my colleague from Maryland, 
and that is deterring foreign adversaries from trying to interfere with 
elections in the first place.
  For the past year, Democrats have been pushing legislation that would 
do just that by instituting mandatory crosscutting sanctions against 
any adversary--Russia, China, Iran, North Korea--that even dared to 
attempt to meddle in our democracy. It is a bipartisan idea. Senator 
Van Hollen has legislation that is cosponsored by Senator Rubio. We 
tried hard to pass this measure in the annual defense bill. Senate 
Republicans and Leader McConnell blocked the provision from the final 
agreement.
  Here we are today, asking our Republican colleagues to relent and 
allow this bipartisan legislation to pass the Senate on its own. Our 
top national security officials have warned us that our adversaries are 
right now--right now, as we speak--working on ever more sophisticated 
methods to meddle in our elections. That is what Putin does. He doesn't 
have the military power or the economic power, but he has long 
tentacles and clever ways to undermine our democracy. Are we going to 
stand there benignly and let it happen? That is outrageous.
  Why have Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans opposed it? I hope 
it is not because the Russian Foreign Minister is in town this week. I 
hope it is not because anyone wants to invite foreign interference.
  I am worried that it is just as my colleague from Maryland said: 
Donald Trump, who has shown no regard for the rule of law, for 
fairness, for decency, or for honor, if he thinks Russian interference 
will help him, he says: Let's do it. What is bothersome is that my 
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle move forward on his 
wishes, right to the undermining of our democracy.
  I guarantee that if Leader McConnell would allow the vote on this 
legislation, it would pass almost unanimously. Remember, the motion to 
instruct conferees on NDAA to include this legislation passed nearly 
unanimously. I would plead with my good friend--he is a good man from 
Idaho, Senator Crapo--and I would plead with Leader McConnell: Stop 
this now. If Trump is getting you to do this or if the White House is, 
which I suspect is true, that is not your duty to this country, and you 
must put that higher than your duty to President Trump.
  I yield back to my friend.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I thank the minority leader. As he 
indicated, the Russian Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Lavrov, is in 
town. There is a report saying that Secretary Pompeo said to the 
Russians: Don't interfere in our elections.
  Wagging your finger is not enough to scare off Vladimir Putin. That 
is why you need the DETER Act.
  Of course, saying that is a big advance over the President of the 
United States, who has been denying Russian

[[Page S6932]]

interference in our elections. It is not enough to scold the Russians. 
It is not enough to scold Foreign Ministers. It is not enough to scold 
Vladimir Putin. You have to raise the price for interference, and they 
need to do it upfront.
  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged 
from further consideration of S. 1060 and the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read 
a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I think the record really needs to be set 
straight. The picture that is being painted here is that the 
Republicans or President Trump or both don't care about the fact that 
Russia is and has been trying to interfere in our elections and that, 
for some reason, our refusal to allow this specific act to move forward 
until it is fixed is evidence of that.
  In support of that, he said that there is no penalty on the Russians 
because of their actions. I will remind my colleagues that I am the 
chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over economic 
sanctions. On this floor, last Congress, we had this very debate. I was 
making the case then that we needed a broad, strong sanctions law 
against Russia for its election interference and not only for its 
election interference but also for its invasion of Crimea and for its 
cyber security attacks on the United States.
  What happened then? We passed what I believe is probably the 
strongest, most extensive legislation putting into effect sanctions on 
Russia for election interference, for cyber security violations, for 
invasion of Crimea, and other malign conduct. Under that legislation, 
the administration has been active.
  I want to read you just a little--I think that President Trump has 
probably put more sanctions on the Russians than any other President in 
our history. The Treasury's Russia sanctions program is among the most 
active of the sanctions programs that the United States has. This 
administration has sanctioned 335 Russian-related individuals and 
entities, 317 of which were sanctioned under Treasury authority.
  By the way, the bill I referred to has an acronym. It is the 
Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA. That 
is the legislation that the administration is using to deter Russian 
election interference and other activities in addition to other malign 
conduct.
  Now, I want to state again, as my colleague knows, I agree and have 
agreed that we can work on further legislation, but we need to get it 
right because economic sanctions legislation is a two-edged sword. It 
hurts the United States and our allies often as much as it hurts the 
entities sanctioned, and because of that, we have to have the ability 
to be flexible in when to apply, how to apply, and how to adjust the 
impact of our sanctions; otherwise, we will see that we will do more 
damage to ourselves and our allies than to Russia.
  By the way, we don't just need legislation dealing with Russia. We 
need legislation dealing with the same types of activities from Iran 
and China and North Korea, to name just a few of the others. We need to 
do it with the appropriate mechanisms.
  The mechanisms in this bill have been designed more to attack the 
Trump administration and Republicans than to attack the Russians and 
those who would attack our country and our elections. I have said again 
and again and again that if we can fix the mechanisms so that they will 
work effectively to work against our enemies and protect America and 
our allies, as our current sanctions regimes do, then we can move 
forward with legislation that will even enhance what we did in CAATSA.
  I will also remind my colleague that in addition to CAATSA, one of 
the reasons we have been so active in the United States is that we have 
passed significant additional legislation. I remind my colleagues and 
everyone that in addition to CAATSA and the already existing IEEPA 
legislation, which are very broad and powerful international emergency 
economic authorities that have previously existed in the United States 
to help our administrations push back against malign conduct from our 
enemies, we have also passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act. I 
referenced Crimea earlier. We have passed the Magnitsky Act. President 
Obama, President Trump, and I believe President Bush, before them, have 
issued significant Executive orders on their own with their Executive 
order authority to expand sanctioning authority.
  To create the picture that there is no deterrent is false. To create 
the picture that the Trump administration is trying to turn a blind eye 
to Russia's malign conduct is false. To create the picture that the 
Republicans, because they want to get a mechanism that works properly, 
are therefore willing to turn a blind eye to Russia is false.
  When we can finally stop trying to play politics with this issue, 
when we can stop trying to make it anti-Trump or anti-Republican or 
make politics out of the problems that Russia truly is creating for us, 
maybe we can come together and pass yet another strong piece of 
legislation to move forward--but not as long as it is done with 
mechanisms and with lack of flexibility that actually undermine our own 
economic security and our system in applying the sanctions. Because of 
that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I want to address some of the 
comments made by the chairman of the Banking Committee and start by 
saying that I have appreciated the conversations he and I have had on 
this legislation over the years. Let me just address some of the 
comments that were made.
  One is to say that, currently, the CAATSA scheme is enough to deter 
future Russian interference in our elections. If that were true, you 
would not have had every single one of our intelligence agencies just a 
few weeks ago predict that Russia will interfere in our elections 
again, along with other foreign malign actors.
  If the laws on the books could deter that interference, why did they 
predict just a few weeks ago that they are coming for us in the 
upcoming elections?
  Second, this is not a partisan attack on President Trump. This is a 
bipartisan bill. This bill not only has Senator Rubio as the chief 
author, coauthor of the legislation, there are a number of other 
Republican and Democratic Senators on this bill as cosponsors. In fact, 
they are evenly matched on this legislation.
  This has nothing to with President Trump. In fact, this determination 
and this law would not even kick in until after the 2020 elections. I 
don't know who is going to be President then. This has nothing to do 
with President Trump. This has to do with protecting our elections. Is 
it informed by what happened in 2016? You bet it is. We know--again, 
from all our intelligence committees and community agencies, every one 
of them headed by somebody nominated by President Trump--that the 
Russians attacked us in 2016. A few weeks ago they said the same thing 
will happen in 2020, and that will happen especially if we don't raise 
the price.
  The CAATSA legislation, as the Senator knows, was put in place by an 
overwhelming veto-proof vote in the U.S. Senate. It was required 
because the Russians interfered, but it was retrospective. So, yes, we 
punished some of the oligarchs who were close to Vladimir Putin, but 
that is not enough, clearly, to raise the price to Vladimir Putin from 
deterring him from doing it again.
  Again, we just heard that from our own intelligence agencies. If you 
want to raise the price for future interference, you need to not just 
hit a few oligarchs, you need to let them know, some of those Russian 
Government banks are going to get hit; their energy sector is going to 
get hit.
  By the way, there is actually more flexibility in this bill than I 
would like. As the chairman of the committee knows, the original bill 
Senator Rubio and I introduced did not have waiver authority for the 
President of the

[[Page S6933]]

United States. The version that is before us right now contains waiver 
authority for every single one of the sanctions if the President makes 
a national determination and says the waiver will not hurt our national 
security.
  It has more flexibility than I would like because my view is you need 
to set up a machine that is almost automatic. If we catch you 
interfering, there will be a price to pay. Under this bill, if we catch 
them, yes, there will be sanctions, but the reality is, the President 
can decide to waive those sanctions.
  We have come a long way. This is a bipartisan bill. This is about 
protecting our democracy. It is not about any particular individual or 
any particular President. It wouldn't even kick in until after the next 
elections, and those sanctions will only kick in if there is 
interference. The whole purpose of this bill is to have sanctions that 
are tough enough so Putin doesn't interfere or another foreign 
government doesn't interfere and so they don't go off the sanctions. 
That is the whole purpose.
  I hope we will vote on this. The clock is ticking. I am going to be 
on this floor week after week until we come together and pass something 
that actually has some teeth and will deter that very foreign 
interference that every intelligence agency predicted will happen as 
recently as 5 weeks ago. That will happen unless we act.
  I yield floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, not to belabor the point, but I just want 
to respond briefly. Yes, there are Republicans and Democrats on this 
bill, but many of the Members who are on this bill have told me they 
are ready and willing to amend and make it work.
  I have offered and have tried now for months to get that done. I am 
willing to continue trying to improve and strengthen this bill, but the 
notion that this is just somehow trying to protect the President from 
having to make tough choices is simply false.
  I will read today--as has been indicated, we have leaders from Russia 
in America today, and in response to that, our Secretary of State 
Pompeo said:

       The Trump administration will always work to protect the 
     integrity of our elections, period. . . . Should Russia or 
     any foreign actor take steps to undermine our Democratic 
     processes, we will take action in response.

  All of the authorities in this legislation we are debating right now 
exists already under CAATSA. I guess the argument is that President 
Trump will not use them. Well, the reality is he will. Secondly, I have 
indicated my willingness to work on this legislation.
  Rather than continuing to stand on the floor and debate why we like 
or don't like what President Trump is doing, I think we ought to get 
down to the serious business of legislating.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I hope we will get down to the 
serious business of legislating. As I indicated in the hearings that 
have been held in the Senate Banking Committee and Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, there was overwhelming support for moving forward 
with the DETER Act; that is, deter Russian interference in our 
elections.
  I will say it again. This authority, this sanction, if there is 
interference, does not kick in until after the next Presidential 
election. It is not designed to focus on any particular President. It 
is designed together on a bipartisan basis--and this is a bipartisan 
bill--to set up a mechanism in advance to let Vladimir Putin or other 
malign foreign actors know, if they interfere, there will be a price to 
pay. Not maybe, not let's just guess about it, there will be a price to 
pay unless a President decides to waive it, which, as I said, was a 
concession we made to address people's concerns about some flexibility, 
but we need to send the upfront message that at least initially these 
sanctions will take effect, and they will hurt. That is the only way to 
deter someone like Vladimir Putin and the Russians from interfering in 
our elections: raise the price and make it clear they will pay it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.