On the recordFebruary 11, 2020
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.…
Source
govinfo.gov




