[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S974-S977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Election Security

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the 2020 primary elections are already 
underway, and the national election is only 9 months away. We know that 
foreign entities--Putin, China, perhaps others--are already scheming to 
undermine the public confidence in our elections. The threats to our 
next elections are real and growing nearer each day.
  Last week the Senate concluded an impeachment trial of the President, 
who was accused of abusing the powers of his office to solicit the help 
of a foreign power in his reelection--solicit the help. It didn't just 
happen. He was soliciting it.
  My Republican Senate friends refused to hold the President 
accountable for his misconduct--refused to even hold a fair trial. Now, 
what do we think the President will conclude after the Senate 
Republican majority let him off the hook for trying to cheat in our 
elections? He will conclude that he can try to do it again. Anyone who 
knows him knows that is what he will do.
  Because Senate Republicans chose to look the other way, the need for 
election security legislation is greater now than ever before. We 
cannot trust this President to stand up for the integrity of our 
elections. So Congress must stand up in his stead.
  In a few moments, my colleagues Senator Warner, Senator Wyden, and

[[Page S975]]

Senator Blumenthal will ask for unanimous consent to pass crucial 
election security legislation. They will talk about what their 
legislation will do. But know this: Protecting our elections should not 
be partisan. It should not be controversial. It should earn the 
unanimous support of every Member.
  The very wellspring of our democracy is the principle of free and 
fair elections. Will our Republican colleagues stand up for free and 
fair elections today or will they once again block commonsense 
legislation to defend our democracy?
  I yield to the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader.
  I am here today because I think, as we all know, our elections remain 
vulnerable to foreign election interference. Russia attacked our 
democracy in 2016, with the goal of undermining confidence in our 
system, a system of free and fair elections--literally, the bedrock of 
our democracy.
  Their cyber attacks and disinformation efforts continue to this day, 
and our own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, has reassured or, 
potentially, warned us that they will be back in full force this year. 
Not only that, but we will have to contend with potential interference 
from China, Iran, North Korea, and others who have basically copied the 
Russia playbook.
  The threat is real, it is ongoing, and we are not doing enough to be 
ready. Time and again we hear these same warnings from our intelligence 
community leadership, from companies like Facebook, from the special 
counsel, and many others. The truth is that the alarm bells are going 
off, and we are running out of time to actually do something about it.
  Unfortunately, the White House and the U.S. Senate seem to be the 
only ones not taking this threat seriously. Since 2016, this body, 
which we all have the honor to serve in, has failed to vote on a single 
piece of standalone election security legislation. Three times last 
year I came to the floor in an attempt to pass bipartisan election 
security legislation by unanimous consent, and each time these efforts 
were blocked by some of my Republican colleagues--blocked and actually 
earned applause from the President on Twitter for their actions.
  Well, I am back again today because the security of our elections 
cannot wait. In a moment, I will ask unanimous consent to pass my 
legislation known as the FIRE Act. This bill would simply say to all 
Presidential campaigns going forward that if a foreign power reaches 
out to your campaign offering assistance or offering dirt on a 
political opponent, the appropriate response is not to say thank you. 
The appropriate response is to call the FBI.
  I introduced this bipartisan legislation months before the facts came 
to light about the President pressuring Ukraine into announcing a 
politically motivated investigation into the Bidens.
  Now, I am not here to rehash the impeachment trial, but I do want to 
note one thing. A number of my Republican colleagues justified their 
votes by saying that, while not impeachable, it was wrong for the 
President to solicit foreign interference in our elections. I take my 
colleagues at their word that they believe foreign interference has no 
place in our elections, but if I take you at your word, you have got to 
put your money where your mouth is. We are under attack from our 
adversaries, who see this new era of cyber warfare and disinformation 
as a unique and golden opportunity to undermine American democracy.
  We cannot afford to have a system that allows any Presidential 
candidate to welcome this kind of interference with open arms. If we 
can't trust the President of the United States and his campaign to do 
the right thing and report foreign interference, then we need to 
require it by law.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2242

  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 
2242, the FIRE Act; that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; 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 with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I would like to articulate the reason 
for the objection to the legislation brought forward by the minority.
  You would think that, after spending weeks in this Chamber litigating 
the finer points of their disagreements with the President's foreign 
policy, our friends in the minority would be weary of picking another 
partisan fight. But here we go again.
  They are attempting to bypass this body's Rules Committee on behalf 
of various bills that will seize control over elections from the States 
and take it from the States. And where do they want to put it? They 
want it to rest in the hands of Washington, DC, bureaucrats.
  As I have said on this floor before, I served on a local election 
commission. I know how hard our friends and neighbors and our local 
election commissions and our State election commissions work to ensure 
the integrity of the ballot box.
  What would these bills that are going to be brought forward this 
morning do? They would centralize control over the vote, and what we 
have seen is big centralized out-of-control government. We would end up 
having a less safe electoral process. It would be more vulnerable to 
attack.
  It is absolutely baffling to me that the minority would fight so hard 
for such a disastrous vision, but, as I said, here we go again. Their 
actions show complete contempt for the progress that Congress, the 
intelligence community, and State-level authorities have made to 
protect our elections without resorting to a Federal power grab.
  Since fiscal year 2018, Congress has invested $805 million in 
protecting the vote. This is the largest investment in elections since 
the 2002 Help America Vote Act. And do you know what? It is making a 
difference. It is making a difference.
  Why, then, would the minority continue to demand changes that would 
redirect that investment to support groups like the Iowa Democratic 
Party, whose mishandling of their own caucus ended in what has been 
termed by everyone as an unmitigated disaster?
  They know it is not necessary, and yet time and again they are trying 
to force this issue. They feel like only the bureaucrats in Washington, 
DC, can handle this.
  So in response to this gross hypocrisy, today I am filing my own bill 
directing the Government Accountability Office to look into the debacle 
in Iowa.
  I send a bill to the desk, and I ask that it be appropriately 
referred.
  This is not an attack. This is a recognition that any complex process 
comes with the risk of mistakes or mismanagement. We are all 
vulnerable. We must recognize this. We must investigate allegations of 
fraud and mismanagement, and, of course, there should be lessons 
learned from the past. To ignore these problems is to resign ourselves 
to a fatally flawed democratic process.
  On that note, I do object to the motion, and I ask my colleagues to 
remember that we have reached a bipartisan consensus on the importance 
of securing our elections. We are all against election interference. We 
are all against foreign interference in elections. We are all for free 
and fair elections, and we are all for protecting the ballot box.
  So I hope my Democratic colleagues do not resort to sending out more 
fundraising letters saying that the Republicans are opposed to a secure 
election process, because that is a falsehood. We are not. We are for a 
fair process. We do not believe federalizing that process and taking 
the power away from local governments and State governments is the way 
to do that.
  So let's focus on the bipartisan consensus, and let's not throw that 
away in the name of having another partisan grudge match.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's comments about

[[Page S976]]

State and local election security, which I support.
  I see two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on the floor, 
and I am extraordinarily proud of the bipartisan, unanimous work that 
we have done to point out what happened in 2016 and to lay out with a 
great deal of specificity what we need to do as a nation to protect 
ourselves in 2020.
  This legislation I am proposing today is really kind of the simplest, 
lowest hanging fruit. I think we all say that we don't want foreigners 
interfering in our elections. All this legislation says is if a foreign 
government or foreign agents interfere to try to help or hurt any 
Presidential candidate, we ought to make sure there is no ambiguity 
that the appropriate response is not to say thank you but the 
appropriate response is to call the FBI.
  That is the message we have heard from Director Wray. That is the 
message we have heard from the intelligence community. If we can't 
agree on that, gracious, where are we?
  And, candidly, in other times we might not have needed this kind of 
legislation. It seems so patently obvious.
  I am disappointed with the objection. We will keep trying.
  With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2238

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank the vice chair of the 
Select Committee on Intelligence and pick up on his remarks.
  For my colleagues, I believe they have asked that I give my remarks 
before I offer my unanimous consent request, and that is what I will 
do.
  Mr. President, America is 266 days away from the 2020 elections, and 
Majority Leader McConnell has yet to take any concrete steps to protect 
our foreign elections from hacking or foreign interference. Thanks to 
this legislative blockade, the Senate has been totally derelict in its 
duty to stop foreign cyber attacks on our election.
  I want to give just one concrete example, having listened to my 
colleague from Tennessee. There is not one single nationwide, mandatory 
election cyber security standard on the books. That means there is not 
even a prohibition on voting machines having an open connection to the 
internet. Colleagues, that is the equivalent of stashing our ballots in 
the Kremlin. There is no such cyber security prohibition.
  The election security debacle of 2016 was 4 years ago, but still this 
body has refused to act. We know Russian hackers probed all 50 State 
election systems. They hacked at least one election vendor. Russians 
penetrated two Florida county election systems, according to Florida's 
Governor. That is just what we know about.
  Despite all the ways foreign hackers have already made it into our 
election infrastructure, the Congress has refused to arm State and 
county officials with the knowledge and funding they need to secure 
their systems.
  I will state what I tell my constituents at townhall meetings at 
home--and I have more of them scheduled this weekend--I believe, as of 
today, the 2020 election is going to make 2016 look like small 
potatoes. The list of threats and vulnerabilities ought to be a wake-up 
call--a wake-up call--for every Member of this Senate. There were the 
ES&S voting machines that for years came with preinstalled remote-
access software. There is the fact that Russia hacked an election 
vendor called VR Systems in the summer of 2016. VR Systems electronic 
poll books in North Carolina malfunctioned on election day that year, 
and one polling place had to shut down for hours. It was 2\1/2\ years 
before the Department of Homeland Security even investigated what had 
happened, and the government still has not adequately responded to 
questions I and Senator Klobuchar have asked about this.
  Right now, many election officials across the country are buying 
election systems that they believe in good faith are high tech, but 
they are in fact vulnerable to hacking and are outdated the moment they 
come out of the box. There is the alarming trend of states using mobile 
voting apps, like Voatz, that haven't been vetted by top security 
experts.
  This is the reason why so many cyber security experts have been 
sounding the alarms for years, warning that putting computers between a 
voter and their ballots is a prescription for disaster. What happens 
when a ``glitch'' changes a candidate's vote totals by just 2 percent 
or 5 percent instead of 50 percent? What happens when a glitch shuts 
down machines in some precincts and not others, disenfranchising voters 
and skewing election results?
  Five States still exclusively use hackable, paperless voting 
machines, and nine other States still use paperless machines in some 
counties.
  These are serious problems, but there are some clear solutions. I 
proposed a bill called the PAVE Act, which has three key priorities 
that are universally supported by people who are knowledgeable in the 
election security field: paper ballots, routine post-election risk-
limiting audits, and mandatory Federal cyber security standards for 
election systems.
  Last year, the House passed a major election security bill called the 
SAFE Act, which included most of the PAVE Act. Senator Klobuchar and I, 
on behalf of colleagues on this side of the aisle, introduced the 
Senate version of the SAFE Act. The SAFE Act has all three key elements 
recommended by our Nation's top cyber security experts--paper ballots, 
security standards, and postelection audits--as well as the funding 
necessary to make sure States can live up to the new standards.
  The SAFE Act, in my view, represents the most comprehensive 
commonsense defense against foreign election hacking. I strongly urge 
my colleagues to reconsider their opposition to this vitally important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Rules and Administration Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 2238, the SAFE Act; that the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration; 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 with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Just to give a brief response, I think it is unfortunate 
that my colleague is not even willing to engage in this discussion with 
respect to this.
  I just want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to think 
about their claims. They are saying, for example, that, well, they are 
sympathetic to the idea that there should be more money for election 
officials. The recent appropriations funding doesn't even have a 
requirement that it be spent on election security. States can buy brand 
new, insecure paperless voting machines that are pretty much useless 
when they come out of the box. They can even use the money to buy 
office chairs or a water cooler for the election office.
  Again, I come back, and I hope my colleague from Tennessee will 
reflect on this because she is somebody who has spent a lot of time on 
technology issues.
  The idea that this Senate is willing to say ``You know, we are not 
even going to do something. We are not even going to act'' when you can 
have voting machines with an open connection to the internet--it is 
just like stashing our ballots in the Kremlin. Something really is out 
of whack, and we ought to be coming together and passing the SAFE Act. 
We at least ought to be talking about it. What we have is a specific, 
documented case for an important piece of legislation, and the majority 
just says: That is the way it is. We are happy to say that you can have 
voting machines with an open connection to the internet. We are not 
even going to talk about it.
  I think it is very unfortunate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1247

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Rules and Administration Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 1247 and the Senate proceed 
to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a 
third time and

[[Page S977]]

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 Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I really regret there is an objection 
again to this bill which we have been seeking for floor consideration 
in this body to debate and pass.
  We have been asking for floor consideration of various election 
security bills in the last several months--the PAVE Act, the Honest Ads 
Act, and the SHIELD Act--but, sadly and unfortunately for the country, 
the majority continues to stonewall. Our decisions are under attack, 
our elections are under siege, and 2016 was only a dress rehearsal.
  Just yesterday, Attorney General Barr announced that Trump's personal 
attorney, Rudy Giuliani, is going to be feeding the Department of 
Justice unverified dirt from Ukraine on the President's political 
rival. In effect, the Department of Justice will become a political 
tool for the President. He is weaponizing law enforcement for his 
personal political end, and the Attorney General of the United States 
is becoming an aider and abettor to that polarization and 
politicization of the Department of Justice.
  Only last week, for the first time in our Nation's history, we saw 
bipartisan support for removing the President from office. The basis 
for that bipartisan vote was, in fact, President Trump's illegal 
solicitation of election interference from a foreign government.
  As Senator Romney put it last week, Trump's demands of Ukraine 
constitute a ``flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national 
security and our fundamental values,'' noting that ``corrupting an 
election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and 
destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine.'' He 
is right. We cannot allow this abuse to become the new normal, and it 
is fast becoming normalized.
  My other Republican colleagues are running out of time to be on the 
right side of history. Others have conceded that what the President did 
was ``wrong. Inappropriate . . . crossing the line,'' as Senator 
Alexander put it.
  Senator Murkowski stated that she believed that ``the President's 
behavior was shameful and wrong. His personal interests do not take 
precedence over those of this great nation.''
  Senator Collins, who first claimed that Trump learned his ``lesson,'' 
has since admitted that she ``may not be correct on that'' after the 
President refused to admit any wrongdoing.
  Now that Senate Republicans have let President Trump off the hook, 
there is no doubt that he will only be emboldened in his efforts to 
illegally enlist foreign governments in his reelection campaign.
  What is happening with Rudy Giuliani, Senator Graham has said, may be 
that he has been ``played by the Russians.'' That, in fact, is likely 
what is happening, but the President's personal attorney, Rudy 
Giuliani, may also be playing the President, and the President most 
certainly will be playing the country if he uses the Department of 
Justice for his personal political aims and enlists foreign 
interference in our election.
  That is why this bill is so critically important. The Duty to Report 
Act offers my Republican colleagues the opportunity to start redeeming 
themselves for their votes last week.
  If they really believe the President's actions were wrong, they 
should support this legislation. It is a very simple idea. Really, it 
is so simple that a lot of people believe it is already the law--if you 
see something, say something. If you see a violation of law with a 
foreign government interfering in our election, if you see an attempt 
to enlist that foreign government, if you see an acceptance of 
assistance, report it.
  The Duty to Report Act would require campaigns, candidates, and 
family members to immediately report to the FBI and the Federal 
Election Commission any offers of foreign assistance. Simple. It 
codifies into law what is already a moral duty, a patriotic duty, and 
basic common sense.
  It is already illegal to accept foreign assistance during a campaign. 
It is already illegal to solicit foreign assistance during a campaign. 
All this bill does is require campaigns and individuals to report what 
is already illegal to the FBI so law enforcement can protect our great 
Nation. This legislation would ensure that if the Trump campaign or any 
campaign were offered assistance from a foreign, hostile government in 
a future election, the FBI would be informed and could act to protect 
our country.
  Let me repeat: 2016 was a dress rehearsal for what our intelligence 
community is already reporting as ongoing right now in election 
interference, and it is more than Russia. It is other nations. Already, 
Iran has proved to be an active and present disrupter, and other 
nations will follow their lead.
  With the 2020 election looming, we need to stop this kind of foreign 
interference and ensure that it is the American people, not Russia, 
China, Iran, or any other nation, who decides who our leaders will be 
and the direction of our democracy--and not just decide but also 
influence and impact in ways that are opaque and concealed, pernicious 
and insidious. We need to act to provide a duty to report.
  I regret the objection to our unanimous consent request, and I, 
certainly, along with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, will 
continue this effort to fight to protect our Nation against foreign 
interference.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that before we 
recess, I be allowed to finish my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.