[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 191 (Monday, November 9, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6616-S6617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Elections

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last week record numbers of Americans 
exercised the right which generations risked everything to hand on to 
us. I want to spend a few minutes this morning talking about what we 
saw last week, where we are now, and where our great country will go 
from here.
  There is one aspect of last week that has gotten lost that I want to 
single out right at the start. By every indication, the 2020 election 
appears to be have been free from meaningful foreign interference. 
There is no suggestion that our foreign adversaries were allowed to 
undermine the integrity of our process.
  According to the Director of the Cyber Security and Infrastructure 
Security Administration, ``we have no''--no--``evidence any foreign 
adversary was capable of preventing Americans from voting or changing 
vote tallies.''
  GEN Paul Nakasone, the head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command 
reported Tuesday night, ``The actions we have taken against adversaries 
. . . have ensured they're not going to interfere in our elections.''
  The Trump administration and the Senate spent 4 years supporting the 
State and local election authorities on the frontlines: new tools and 
information-sharing partnerships; unprecedented coordination; hundreds 
of millions in new funding; new, painful consequences for bad actors, 
like Russia, if they interfere.
  The absence of any reports of foreign interference is a ringing 
endorsement--a ringing endorsement--of our bipartisan work, and it 
slams the door on the embarrassing, irresponsible rhetoric that some 
Washington Democrats spent 4 years broadcasting.
  Too many voices tried to talk down our progress, urged Americans 
actually not to have confidence, and smeared anyone as unpatriotic who 
opposed far-left proposals to rewrite election laws.
  Well, the people who pushed this hysteria could not have more egg on 
their face than they do right now. None of their demands became law--
none of them. The Speaker of the House did not get to personally 
rewrite election law. And yet, because of the sensible, bipartisan 
steps that some of us championed, our defenses and countermeasures 
proved to be in radically better shape than back in 2016.
  So let's talk about where we are now. According to preliminary 
results, voters across the Nation elected and reelected Republican 
Senators to a degree that actually stunned prognosticators. Likewise, 
the American people seemed to have reacted to House Democrats' 
radicalism and obstruction by shrinking the Speaker's majority and 
electing more Republicans.
  And then there is the Presidential race. Obviously, no States have 
yet certified their election results. We have at least one or two 
States that are already on track for a recount, and I believe the 
President may have legal challenges underway in at least five States.
  The core principle here is not complicated. In the United States of 
America, all legal ballots must be counted, any illegal ballots must 
not be counted, the process should be transparent or observable by all 
sides, and the courts are here to work through concerns.
  Our institutions are actually built for this. We have the system in 
place to consider concerns, and President Trump is 100 percent within 
his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his 
legal options.
  Let's go back 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, when Florida came down 
to a very thin margin, we saw Vice President Gore exhaust the legal 
system and wait to concede until December.
  More recently, weeks after the media had ``called'' President Bush's 
reelection in 2004, Democrats baselessly disputed Ohio's electors and 
delayed the process here in Congress.
  In 2016 election laws saw recounts or legal challenges in several 
States.
  If any major irregularities occurred this time of a magnitude that 
would affect the outcome, then every single American should want them 
to be brought to light. And if the Democrats feel confident they have 
not occurred, they should have no reason to fear any extra scrutiny.
  We have the tools and institutions we need to address any concerns. 
The President has every right to look into allegations and to request 
recounts under the law, and, notably, the Constitution gives no role in 
this process to wealthy media corporations.
  The projections and commentary of the press do not get veto power 
over the legal rights of any citizen, including the President of the 
United States.
  Now, more broadly, let's not have any lectures--no lectures--about 
how the President should immediately, cheerfully accept preliminary 
election results, from the same characters who just spent 4 years 
refusing to accept the validity of the last election, and who 
insinuated that this one would be illegitimate too, if they lost 
again--only if they lost. So let's have no lectures on this subject 
from that contingent.
  In late August, Secretary Hillary Clinton said: ``Joe Biden should 
not concede under any circumstances . . . I think this is going to drag 
out, and . . . he will win it if we don't give an inch.''
  That same month, Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leader both 
stated: ``[President Trump] needs to cheat to win.''
  In October, when Speaker Pelosi was shopping some conspiracy theory 
about the Postal Service, she recklessly said--listen to this: ``I have 
no doubt that the president . . . will lie, cheat, and steal, to win 
this election.''
  Now, does this sound like the chorus that has any credibility 
whatsoever to say a few legal challenges from President Trump represent 
some kind of crisis?
  At this time last week, small business owners in cities across 
America were boarding up their windows in case President Trump appeared 
to win and far-left mobs decided to reprise their summer rioting.
  Suffice it to say, a few legal inquiries from the President do not 
exactly spell the end of the Republic.
  Here is how two professors from Fordham Law School and New York Law 
School put it: ``For centuries, we have asked people who are unhappy 
with their fellow citizens or government agencies and institutions to 
bring their claims to court.'' President Trump's is ``a traditional 
response that affirms rather than undermines American institutions.''
  This process will reach its resolution. Our system will resolve any 
recounts

[[Page S6617]]

or litigation. In January, the winner of this election will place his 
hand on a Bible, just like it has happened every 4 years since 1793.
  What we know for sure is that the outcome is guaranteed to delight 
tens of millions of Americans and disappoint tens of millions of 
Americans. But we also know that we will wake up on January 21, still 
blessed to live in the greatest Nation the world has ever seen. And in 
no small part, that is because we respect the rule of law, we trust our 
institutions, and neither of those things is outweighed by 
pronouncements from partisans or the press.