Key Senate panel approves $250 million for election security | TribLIVE.com
Politics Election

Key Senate panel approves $250 million for election security

Associated Press
1696288_web1_AP19213555170395
AP
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined at left by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., rips a copy of the committee rules of procedure on Capitol Hill in Washington on Aug. 1, 2019.

WASHINGTON — A key Senate panel on Thursday approved $250 million to help states beef up their election systems, freeing up the money after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell came under criticism from Democrats for impeding separate election security legislation.

The Kentucky Republican announced in a floor speech in advance of the Appropriations Committee vote that he would support the funding, claiming the Trump administration has “made enormous strides” in protecting the nation’s voting infrastructure.

The committee approved the money on a bipartisan voice vote. The panel’s top Democrat, Patrick Leahy, said “funding election security grants is a matter of national security.”

Democrat Chris Coons said the funding would help states invest in updated voting systems and combat cyberattacks from foreign actors such as Russia, whose widespread efforts on behalf of President Trump’s campaign were documented by special counsel Robert Mueller.

“We are simply responding to what I know to be an unmet need,” Coons said. “In 2016 we all know the Russian government’s military intelligence branch directed extensive activity against our election infrastructure and I think there is important undone work in providing modest federal support that will make some progress in assuring that our election infrastructure is protected.”

An earlier version of a spending bill that funds the Federal Election Assistance Commission did not include the money. But Leahy appeared to have GOP allies on the powerful Appropriations panel and the committee’s top Republican opted for bipartisan negotiations.

“Funding election security grants is a matter of national security, preserving our democracy, and maintaining full faith in our elections,” Leahy said, calling the grants “a vital issue this Committee has not funded since fiscal year 2018, despite a persistent — and confirmed — threat of interference in our elections by foreign adversaries.”

The House has passed significantly broader election security legislation, but McConnell opposes the measure and has discouraged the Senate Rules Committee from acting on a companion bill.

“The Trump administration has made enormous strides to help states secure their elections without giving Washington new power to push the states around,” McConnell said.

Justin Goodman, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said “it is significant that Sen. McConnell and Republicans have finally backed down and acknowledged the Senate must act to secure our elections from foreign interference.”

But Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said there is about $250 million in unspent funds from a $380 million appropriation for the 2018 budget year. He said oversight is needed given the loose strings on the grants to states.

Democrats and their allies in liberal interest groups have taken to calling McConnell “Moscow Mitch” over his refusal to bring the separate election security measure up for a Senate vote.

Categories: News | Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.