[Pages H8016-H8034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TERMINATING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND AND ELECTION ASSISTANCE
COMMISSION
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 477, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3463) to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by
terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and
party conventions and by terminating the Election Assistance
Commission, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3463
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--TERMINATION OF TAXPAYER FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
CAMPAIGNS
SECTION 101. TERMINATION OF TAXPAYER FINANCING OF
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
(a) Termination of Designation of Income Tax Payments.--
Section 6096 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2010.''.
(b) Termination of Fund and Account.--
(1) Termination of presidential election campaign fund.--
(A) In general.--Chapter 95 of subtitle H of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 9014. TERMINATION.
``The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with
respect to any presidential election (or any presidential
nominating convention) after the date of the enactment of
this section, or to any candidate in such an election.''.
(B) Transfer of excess funds to general fund.--Section 9006
of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(d) Transfer of Funds Remaining After Termination.--The
Secretary shall transfer all amounts in the fund after the
date of the enactment of this section to the general fund of
the Treasury, to be used only for reducing the deficit.''.
(2) Termination of account.--Chapter 96 of subtitle H of
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 9043. TERMINATION.
``The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any
candidate with respect to any presidential election after the
date of the enactment of this section.''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The table of sections for chapter 95 of subtitle H of
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``Sec. 9014. Termination.''.
(2) The table of sections for chapter 96 of subtitle H of
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``Sec. 9043. Termination.''.
TITLE II--TERMINATION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
SEC. 201. TERMINATION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION.
(a) Termination.--The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42
U.S.C. 15301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new title:
``TITLE X--TERMINATION OF COMMISSION
``Subtitle A--Termination
``SEC. 1001. TERMINATION.
``Effective on the Commission termination date, the
Commission (including the Election Assistance Commission
Standards Board and the Election Assistance Commission Board
of Advisors under part 2 of subtitle A of title II) is
terminated and may not carry out any programs or activities.
``SEC. 1002. TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS TO OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET DURING TRANSITION.
``(a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall, effective upon the Commission termination
date--
``(1) perform the functions of the Commission with respect
to contracts and agreements described in subsection 1003(a)
until the expiration of such contracts and agreements, but
shall not renew any such contract or agreement; and
``(2) shall take the necessary steps to wind up the affairs
of the Commission.
``(b) Exception for Functions Transferred to Other
Agencies.--Subsection (a) does not apply with respect to any
functions of the Commission that are transferred under
subtitle B.
``SEC. 1003. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.
``(a) Prior Contracts.--The termination of the Commission
under this subtitle shall not affect any contract that has
been entered into by the Commission before the Commission
termination date. All such contracts shall continue in effect
until modified,
[[Page H8017]]
superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked in accordance
with law by an authorized Federal official, a court of
competent jurisdiction, or operation of law.
``(b) Obligations of Recipients of Payments.--
``(1) In general.--The termination of the Commission under
this subtitle shall not affect the authority of any recipient
of a payment made by the Commission under this Act prior to
the Commission termination date to use any portion of the
payment that remains unobligated as of the Commission
termination date, and the terms and conditions that applied
to the use of the payment at the time the payment was made
shall continue to apply.
``(2) Special rule for states receiving requirements
payments.--In the case of a requirements payment made to a
State under part 1 of subtitle D of title II, the terms and
conditions applicable to the use of the payment for purposes
of the State's obligations under this subsection (as well as
any obligations in effect prior to the termination of the
Commission under this subtitle), and for purposes of any
applicable requirements imposed by regulations promulgated by
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall be
the general terms and conditions applicable under Federal
law, rules, and regulations to payments made by the Federal
government to a State, except that to the extent that such
general terms and conditions are inconsistent with the terms
and conditions that are specified under part 1 of subtitle D
of title II or section 902, the terms and conditions
specified under such part and such section shall apply.
``(c) Pending Proceedings.--
``(1) No effect on pending proceedings.--The termination of
the Commission under this subtitle shall not affect any
proceeding to which the Commission is a party that is pending
on such date, including any suit to which the Commission is a
party that is commenced prior to such date, and the
applicable official shall be substituted or added as a party
to the proceeding.
``(2) Treatment of orders.--In the case of a proceeding
described in paragraph (1), an order may be issued, an appeal
may be taken, judgments may be rendered, and payments may be
made as if the Commission had not been terminated. Any such
order shall continue in effect until modified, terminated,
superseded, or revoked by an authorized Federal official, a
court of competent jurisdiction, or operation of law.
``(3) Construction relating to discontinuance or
modification.--Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to
prohibit the discontinuance or modification of any proceeding
described in paragraph (1) under the same terms and
conditions and to the same extent that such proceeding could
have been discontinued or modified if the Commission had not
been terminated.
``(4) Regulations for transfer of proceedings.--The
Director of the Office of Management and Budget may issue
regulations providing for the orderly transfer of proceedings
described in paragraph (1).
``(d) Judicial Review.--Orders and actions of the
applicable official in the exercise of functions of the
Commission shall be subject to judicial review to the same
extent and in the same manner as if such orders and actions
had been issued or taken by the Commission. Any requirements
relating to notice, hearings, action upon the record, or
administrative review that apply to any function of the
Commission shall apply to the exercise of such function by
the applicable official.
``(e) Applicable Official Defined.--In this section, the
`applicable official' means, with respect to any proceeding,
order, or action--
``(1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
to the extent that the proceeding, order, or action relates
to functions performed by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget under section 1002; or
``(2) the Federal Election Commission, to the extent that
the proceeding, order, or action relates to a function
transferred under subtitle B.
``SEC. 1004. COMMISSION TERMINATION DATE.
``The `Commission termination date' is the first date
following the expiration of the 60-day period that begins on
the date of the enactment of this subtitle.
``Subtitle B--Transfer of Certain Authorities
``SEC. 1011. TRANSFER OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION FUNCTIONS TO
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.
``There are transferred to the Federal Election Commission
(hereafter in this section referred to as the `FEC') the
following functions of the Commission:
``(1) The adoption of voluntary voting system guidelines,
in accordance with part 3 of subtitle A of title II.
``(2) The testing, certification, decertification, and
recertification of voting system hardware and software by
accredited laboratories, in accordance with subtitle B of
title II.
``(3) The maintenance of a clearinghouse of information on
the experiences of State and local governments in
implementing voluntary voting system guidelines and in
operating voting systems in general.
``(4) The development of a standardized format for reports
submitted by States under section 102(c) of the Uniformed and
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the making of such
format available to States and units of local government
submitting such reports, in accordance with section 703(b).
``(5) Any functions transferred to the Commission under
section 801 (relating to functions of the former Office of
Election Administration of the FEC).
``(6) Any functions transferred to the Commission under
section 802 (relating to functions described in section 9(a)
of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993).
``(7) Any functions of the Commission under section 1604(a)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1277; 42 U.S.C. 1977ff
note) (relating to establishing guidelines and providing
technical assistance with respect to electronic voting
demonstration projects of the Secretary of Defense).
``(8) Any functions of the Commission under section
589(e)(1) of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973ff-7(e)(1)) (relating to providing technical
assistance with respect to technology pilot programs for the
benefit of absent uniformed services voters and overseas
voters).
``SEC. 1012. EFFECTIVE DATE.
``The transfers under this subtitle shall take effect on
the Commission termination date described in section 1004.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE X--TERMINATION OF COMMISSION
``Subtitle A--Termination
``Sec. 1001. Termination.
``Sec. 1002. Transfer of operations to Office of Management and Budget
during transition.
``Sec. 1003. Savings provisions.
``Sec. 1004. Commission termination date.
``Subtitle B--Transfer of Certain Authorities
``Sec. 1011. Transfer of election administration functions to Federal
Election Commission.
``Sec. 1012. Effective date.''.
SEC. 202. REPLACEMENT OF STANDARDS BOARD AND BOARD OF
ADVISORS WITH GUIDELINES REVIEW BOARD.
(a) Replacement.--Part 2 of subtitle A of title II of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15341 et seq.) is
amended to read as follows:
``PART 2--GUIDELINES REVIEW BOARD
``SEC. 211. ESTABLISHMENT.
``There is established the Guidelines Review Board
(hereafter in this part referred to as the `Board').
``SEC. 212. DUTIES.
``The Board shall, in accordance with the procedures
described in part 3, review the voluntary voting system
guidelines under such part.
``SEC. 213. MEMBERSHIP.
``(a) In General.--The Board shall be composed of 82
members appointed as follows:
``(1) One State or local election official from each State,
to be selected by the chief State election official of the
State, who shall take into account the needs of both State
and local election officials in making the selection.
``(2) 2 members appointed by the National Conference of
State Legislatures.
``(3) 2 members appointed by the National Association of
Secretaries of State.
``(4) 2 members appointed by the National Association of
State Election Directors.
``(5) 2 members appointed by the National Association of
County Recorders, Election Administrators, and Clerks.
``(6) 2 members appointed by the Election Center.
``(7) 2 members appointed by the International Association
of County Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers.
``(8) 2 members appointed by the United States Commission
on Civil Rights.
``(9) 2 members appointed by the Architectural and
Transportation Barrier Compliance Board under section 502 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792).
``(10) The chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights
Division of the Department of Justice or the chief's
designee.
``(11) The director of the Federal Voting Assistance
Program of the Department of Defense.
``(12) The Director of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology or the Director's designee.
``(13) 4 members representing professionals in the field of
science and technology, of whom--
``(A) one each shall be appointed by the Speaker and the
minority leader of the House of Representatives; and
``(B) one each shall be appointed by the majority leader
and the minority leader of the Senate.
``(14) 4 members representing voter interests, of whom--
``(A) one each shall be appointed by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on House Administration of
the House of Representatives; and
``(B) one each shall be appointed by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules and Administration
of the Senate.
``(b) Manner of Appointments.--
``(1) In general.--Appointments shall be made to the Board
under subsection (a) in a manner which ensures that the Board
will be bipartisan in nature and will reflect the various
geographic regions of the United States.
``(2) Special rule for certain appointments.--The 2
individuals who are appointed
[[Page H8018]]
as members of the Board under each of the paragraphs (2)
through (9) of subsection (a) may not be members of the same
political party.
``(c) Term of Service; Vacancy.--Members of the Board shall
serve for a term of 2 years, and may be reappointed. Any
vacancy in the Board shall be filled in the manner in which
the original appointment was made.
``(d) Executive Board.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the day on
which the appointment of its members is completed, the Board
shall select 9 of its members to serve as the Executive Board
of the Guidelines Review Board, of whom--
``(A) not more than 5 may be State election officials;
``(B) not more than 5 may be local election officials; and
``(C) not more than 5 may be members of the same political
party.
``(2) Terms.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), members
of the Executive Board of the Board shall serve for a term of
2 years and may not serve for more than 3 consecutive terms.
``(3) Staggering of initial terms.--Of the members first
selected to serve on the Executive Board of the Board--
``(A) 3 shall serve for 1 term;
``(B) 3 shall serve for 2 consecutive terms; and
``(C) 3 shall serve for 3 consecutive terms,
as determined by lot at the time the members are first
appointed.
``(4) Duties.--The Executive Board of the Board shall carry
out such duties of the Board as the Board may delegate.
``(e) Bylaws; Delegation of Authority.--The Board may
promulgate such bylaws as it considers appropriate to provide
for the operation of the Board, including bylaws that permit
the Executive Board to grant to any of its members the
authority to act on behalf of the Executive Board.
``SEC. 214. POWERS; NO COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE.
``(a) Hearings and Sessions.--
``(1) In general.--To the extent that funds are made
available by the Federal Election Commission, the Board may
hold such hearings for the purpose of carrying out this Act,
sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony,
and receive such evidence as the Board considers advisable to
carry out this title, except that the Board may not issue
subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses
or the production of any evidence.
``(2) Meetings.--The Board shall hold a meeting of its
members--
``(A) not less frequently than once every 2 years for
purposes selecting the Executive Board and voting on the
voluntary voting system guidelines referred to it under
section 222; and
``(B) at such other times as it considers appropriate for
purposes of conducting such other business as it considers
appropriate consistent with this title.
``(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Board may
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the Board considers necessary to carry out
this Act. Upon request of the Executive Board, the head of
such department or agency shall furnish such information to
the Board.
``(c) Postal Services.--The Board may use the United States
mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as a
department or agency of the Federal Government.
``(d) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Executive Board, the Administrator of the General
Services Administration shall provide to the Board, on a
reimbursable basis, the administrative support services that
are necessary to enable the Board to carry out its duties
under this title.
``(e) No Compensation for Service.--Members of the Board
shall not receive any compensation for their service, but
shall be paid travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Board.
``SEC. 215. STATUS OF BOARD AND MEMBERS FOR PURPOSES OF
CLAIMS AGAINST BOARD.
``(a) In General.--The provisions of chapters 161 and 171
of title 28, United States Code, shall apply with respect to
the liability of the Board and its members for acts or
omissions performed pursuant to and in the course of the
duties and responsibilities of the Board.
``(b) Exception for Criminal Acts and Other Willful
Conduct.--Subsection (a) may not be construed to limit
personal liability for criminal acts or omissions, willful or
malicious misconduct, acts or omissions for private gain, or
any other act or omission outside the scope of the service of
a member of the Board.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Membership on technical guidelines development
committee.--Section 221(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
15361(c)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking clauses (i) and (ii)
and inserting the following:
``(i) Members of the Guidelines Review Board.'';
(B) by redesignating clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) as
clause (ii); and
(C) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``Standards Board or
Board of Advisors'' and inserting ``Guidelines Review
Board''.
(2) Consideration of proposed guidelines.--Section 222(b)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15362(b)) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Board of Advisors and
Standards Board'' and inserting ``Guidelines Review Board'';
and
(B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the
following:
``(2) Guidelines review board.--The Executive Director of
the Commission shall submit the guidelines proposed to be
adopted under this part (or any modifications to such
guidelines) to the Guidelines Review Board.''.
(3) Review of proposed guidelines.--Section 222(c) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 15362(c)) is amended by striking ``the Board
of Advisors and the Standards Board shall each review'' and
inserting ``the Guidelines Review Board shall review''.
(4) Final adoption of proposed guidelines.--Section 222(d)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15362(d)) is amended by striking ``the
Board of Advisors and the Standards Board'' each place it
appears in paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting ``the
Guidelines Review Board''.
(5) Assistance with nist review of testing laboratories.--
Section 231(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15371(c)(1)) is
amended by striking ``the Standards Board and the Board of
Advisors'' and inserting ``the Guidelines Review Board''.
(6) Assisting fec with development of standardized format
for reports on absentee ballots of absent uniformed services
and overseas voters.--Section 703(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1973ff-1 note) is amended by striking ``the Election
Assistance Commission Board of Advisors and the Election
Assistance Commission Standards Board'' and inserting ``the
Guidelines Review Board''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by amending the item relating to part 2 of
subtitle A of title II to read as follows:
``Part 2--Guidelines Review Board
``Sec. 211. Establishment.
``Sec. 212. Duties.
``Sec. 213. Membership.
``Sec. 214. Powers; no compensation for service.
``Sec. 215. Status of Board and members for purposes of claims against
Board.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the Commission termination date
described in section 1004 of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (as added by section 201(a)).
SEC. 203. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TRANSFER OF
CERTAIN AUTHORITIES TO FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION.
(a) Development and Adoption of Voluntary Voting System
Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Part 3 of subtitle A of title II of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15361 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 223. TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY TO FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION.
``(a) Transfer.--Effective on the Commission termination
date described in section 1004, the Federal Election
Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as the
`FEC') shall be responsible for carrying out the duties and
functions of the Commission under this part.
``(b) Role of Staff Director.--The FEC shall carry out the
operation and management of its duties and functions under
this part through the Office of the Staff Director of the
FEC.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by adding at the end of the item relating to part
3 of subtitle A of title II the following:
``Sec. 223. Transfer of authority to Federal Election Commission.''.
(b) Testing, Certification, Decertification, and
Recertification of Voting System Hardware and Software.--
(1) In general.--Subtitle B of title II of such Act (42
U.S.C. 15371 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 232. TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY TO FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION.
``(a) Transfer.--
``(1) In general.--Effective on the Commission termination
date described in section 1004, the Federal Election
Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as the
`FEC') shall be responsible for carrying out the duties and
functions of the Commission under this subtitle.
``(2) Role of staff director.--The FEC shall carry out the
operation and management of its duties and functions under
this subtitle through the Office of the Staff Director of the
FEC.
``(b) Transfer of Office of Voting System Testing and
Certification.--
``(1) In general.--There are transferred to the FEC all
functions that the Office of Voting System Testing and
Certification of the Commission (hereafter in this section
referred to as the `Office') exercised under this subtitle
before the Commission termination date.
``(2) Transfer of property, records, and personnel.--
``(A) Property and records.--The contracts, liabilities,
records, property, appropriations, and other assets and
interests of the Office, together with the unexpended
balances of any appropriations or other funds
[[Page H8019]]
available to the Office, are transferred and made available
to the FEC.
``(B) Personnel.--
``(i) In general.--The personnel of the Office are
transferred to the FEC, except that the number of full-time
equivalent personnel so transferred may not exceed the number
of full-time equivalent personnel of the Office as of January
1, 2011.
``(ii) Treatment of employees at time of transfer.--An
individual who is an employee of the Office who is
transferred under this section shall not be separated or
reduced in grade or compensation because of the transfer
during the 1-year period that begins on the date of the
transfer.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to
subtitle B of title II the following:
``Sec. 232. Transfer of authority to Federal Election Commission.''.
(c) Development of Standardized Format for Reports on
Absentee Balloting by Absent Uniformed Services Voters and
Overseas Voters.--Section 703(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1973ff-1 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Effective on the Commission termination date described in
section 1004, the Federal Election Commission shall be
responsible for carrying out the duties and functions of the
Commission under this subsection.''.
SEC. 204. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS.
(a) Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.--
(1) Duties of fec.--Section 311(a) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(10) provide for the adoption of voluntary voting system
guidelines, in accordance with part 3 of subtitle A of title
II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15361 et
seq.);
``(11) provide for the testing, certification,
decertification, and recertification of voting system
hardware and software by accredited laboratories, in
accordance with subtitle B of title II of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15371 et seq.);
``(12) maintain a clearinghouse of information on the
experiences of State and local governments in implementing
voluntary voting system guidelines and in operating voting
systems in general;
``(13) carry out the duties described in section 9(a) of
the National Voter Registration Act of 1993;
``(14) develop a standardized format for reports submitted
by States under section 102(c) of the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act, make such format available to
States and units of local government submitting such reports,
and receive such reports in accordance with section 102(c) of
such Act, in accordance with section 703(b) of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002;
``(15) carry out the duties described in section 1604(a)(2)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1277; 42 U.S.C. 1977ff
note); and
``(16) carry out the duties described in section 589(e)(1)
of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (42 U.S.C.
1973ff-7(e)(1)).''.
(2) Authorization to enter into private contracts to carry
out functions.--Section 311 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 438) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Subject to applicable laws, the Commission may enter
into contracts with private entities to carry out any of the
authorities that are the responsibility of the Commission
under paragraphs (10) through (16) of subsection (a).''.
(3) Limitation on authority to impose requirements on
states and units of local government.--Section 311 of such
Act (2 U.S.C. 438), as amended by paragraph (2), is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Nothing in paragraphs (10) through (16) of subsection
(a) or any other provision of this Act shall be construed to
grant the Commission the authority to issue any rule,
promulgate any regulation, or take any other actions that
imposes any requirement on any State or unit of local
government, except to the extent that the Commission had such
authority prior to the enactment of this subsection or to the
extent permitted under section 9(a) of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7(a)).''.
(b) National Voter Registration Act of 1993.--Section 9(a)
of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
1973gg-7(a)) is amended by striking ``Election Assistance
Commission'' and inserting ``Federal Election Commission''.
(c) Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.--
(1) Development of standards for state reports.--Section
101(b)(11) of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff(b)(11)) is amended by striking
``the Election Assistance Commission'' and inserting ``the
Federal Election Commission''.
(2) Receipt of reports on number of absentee ballots
transmitted and received.--Section 102(c) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1973ff-1(c)) is amended by striking ``the Election
Assistance Commission (established under the Help America
Vote Act of 2002)'' and inserting ``the Federal Election
Commission''.
(d) Electronic Voting Demonstration Projects for Secretary
of Defense.--Section 1604(a)(2) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107;
115 Stat. 1277; 42 U.S.C. 1977ff note) is amended by striking
``the Election Assistance Commission'' and inserting ``the
Federal Election Commission''.
(e) Technology Pilot Program for Absent Military and
Overseas Voters.--Section 589(e)(1) of the Military and
Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-7(e)(1)) is
amended by striking ``Election Assistance Commission'' and
inserting ``Federal Election Commission''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the Commission termination date
described in section 1004 of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (as added by section 201(a)).
SEC. 205. OTHER CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO
TERMINATION.
(a) Hatch Act.--Section 7323(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``or the Election
Assistance Commission''.
(b) Senior Executive Service.--Section 3132(a)(1)(C) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or the
Election Assistance Commission''.
(c) Inspector General Act of 1978.--Section 8G(a)(2) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by
striking ``the Election Assistance Commission,''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the Commission termination date
described in section 1004 of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (as added by section 201(a)).
SEC. 206. STUDIES.
(a) Procedures for Adoption and Modification of Voluntary
Voting System Guidelines.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
of the procedures used to adopt and modify the voluntary
voting system guidelines applicable to the administration of
elections for Federal office, and shall develop
recommendations on methods to improve such procedures, taking
into account the needs of persons affected by such
guidelines, including State and local election officials,
voters with disabilities, absent military and overseas
voters, and the manufacturers of voting systems.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a
report to Congress on the study conducted under paragraph
(1), and shall include in the report the recommendations
developed under such paragraph.
(b) Procedures for Voting System Testing and
Certification.--
(1) Study.--The Federal Election Commission shall conduct a
study of the procedures for the testing, certification,
decertification, and recertification of voting system
hardware and software used in elections for Federal office,
and shall develop a recommendation on the entity that is best
suited to oversee and carry out such procedures, taking into
consideration the needs of persons affected by such
procedures, including State and local election officials,
voters with disabilities, absent military and overseas
voters, and the manufacturers of voting systems.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Federal Election Commission shall
submit a report to Congress on the study conducted under
paragraph (1), and shall include in the report the
recommendation developed under such paragraph.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper)
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
General Leave
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include materials on H.R. 3463.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To begin, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall),
for his continued assistance in ensuring these important matters are
considered by the House. He has been a helpful partner.
Mr. Speaker, we live in uncertain times--with job creation stifled by
crushing debt. But there are two things I am certain of: the necessity
of cutting unnecessary spending and the fact that H.R. 3463 is a simple
and straightforward way to do just that. H.R. 3463 cuts unnecessary
spending in two ways:
First, it ends the taxpayer financing of Presidential election
campaigns and party conventions, a program growing
[[Page H8020]]
less and less popular for both taxpayers and candidates. Second, H.R.
3463 terminates the Election Assistance Commission, an obsolete
government agency originally intended to sunset in 2005.
Every Federal program, including these, is there because someone
thinks it is a good idea; but if we do not eliminate some programs,
then a $15 trillion debt will just be the starting point of our decline
into a European-style fiscal crisis. Everyone talks about tough
choices, and we have to make them. Frankly, these choices aren't even
very tough. They are about as easy as we're going to find.
Since 1976 American taxpayers have spent $1.5 billion in funding
Presidential primary campaigns, Presidential election campaigns, and
national party conventions. My colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) has
been a leader in trying to end those campaign subsidies, and I am
pleased to work with him today to continue that effort.
When the taxpayer financing of political campaigns and conventions
was adopted, proponents said it would improve the public's trust in
their government, clean up our politics, and increase the
competitiveness of political campaigns. Sadly, it has failed on all
counts. Now we find that more and more candidates are opting out of the
system altogether. The Federal Election Commission has just this week
confirmed that no Presidential candidate to date has opted to
participate for the 2012 election.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about eliminating a program that
literally no candidate is currently using or preparing to use at this
point. That includes President Obama, who in 2008 famously became the
first Presidential candidate ever to decline to participate in both the
primary and general election phases of the program.
It's not just the candidates who don't like it. As this chart
indicates, support from Americans overall is dramatically low for this
program. Since peaking in 1980, the percentage of taxpayers opting to
participate has declined from a high of 28.7 percent to 7 percent.
It's obviously something that needs to be done away with. That means
that 93 percent of American taxpayers choose not to participate. They
refuse to subsidize political campaigns. Who can blame them? It's bad
enough that they have to watch campaign commercials, but they shouldn't
have to pay for them with taxpayer dollars as well. The money
designated by a check-off on tax returns is diverted from those
taxpayers' payments into this program so that every other taxpayer has
to make up the difference in revenue to the Treasury. The 93 percent of
taxpayers who do not participate have to make up for the money spent by
the current 7 percent who do.
Mr. Speaker, eliminating this system will save taxpayers an estimated
$447 million over 5 years and will immediately return nearly $200
million to the Treasury. This is sensible and long overdue.
{time} 1250
Also long overdue is the elimination of the Election Assistance
Commission. The EAC, created in 2002, as this chart indicates, was
expected to sunset in 2005. Instead, as you see on the chart, despite
its dwindling services, Mr. Speaker, this agency has more than doubled
its employee size in 3 years. This is clearly an abuse of what should
have taken place.
The EAC was established for a noble purpose: to allocate Federal
grants for State voting systems upgrades, to conduct research, and to
test and certify voting equipment. Aside from the certification
services, which can be carried out by another agency, the EAC has
fulfilled its purpose.
Over $3 billion has been sent to States over the years to help them
modernize their voting equipment. Now, the EAC has allocated all of its
remaining election grants and even zeroed out its request for
additional grant funds in its last three annual budget requests.
The National Association of Secretaries of State, a bipartisan group,
the direct beneficiary of the EAC's dwindling services, has passed not
one but two resolutions calling for the EAC's dissolution. As this
chart indicates, the EAC's FY12 budget request devotes 51.7 percent of
its budget to management and overhead costs--more than half. Under this
plan, the agency would use $5.4 million to manage programs totaling
$3.5 million.
This bill would transfer the EAC's remaining valuable service, its
voting system testing and certification program, to an existing agency
instead of paying the overhead costs of a complete agency just to
operate that program. Like its predecessor bill, H.R. 672, this bill
maintains an advisory system to give State and local election officials
input into the testing and certification program.
Mr. Speaker, since December of 2010, the Election Assistance
Commission has not had a quorum. That means it has not been able to
make policy decisions requiring approval by the Commissioners. Has
anyone even noticed? Compared to the real crises facing our country,
has there been harm caused to justify keeping an obsolete agency?
The EAC is not merely obsolete, it's also wasteful. I have spoken to
this House before about the two hiring discrimination lawsuits against
the EAC. Unfortunately, the more time that passes, the more problems
come to light. Just recently we learned that a former EAC Commissioner,
who continued serving for a year after the end of the term and then
resigned, has been collecting unemployment benefits. Neither the
Commissioner's resignation letter nor any facts that we know of
indicate the departure was anything other than voluntary.
When we have millions of people in this country struggling to make
ends meet, how can a senior government official who leaves a job
voluntarily collect unemployment benefits? When we have an agency that
is not needed and produces scandal after scandal, misperformance after
misperformance, it is time for this agency to go.
According to the CBO, dissolving the EAC will save taxpayers $33
million over the next 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, we have a $15 trillion debt. We have to start somewhere.
We now have annual deficits over a trillion dollars. H.R. 3463
eliminates one government program that virtually no one uses and shuts
down an agency that has completed the task that it was assigned.
Amazingly, we've had proposals not to shrink these programs but to
expand them. Only in Washington is the answer to dysfunction expansion.
This bill will not cure all of the problems that we have on its own,
but it is one of many steps we are going to have to take; otherwise, we
will sink deeper and deeper into debt and trap our children and our
grandchildren down into a downward spiral. Today is the time to act,
and this agency and this program are the place to start.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3463, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology,
Washington, DC, November 30, 2011.
Hon. Daniel E. Lungren,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration, Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Lungren: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology in H.R. 3463 (to reduce Federal spending and
the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential
election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating
the Election Assistance Commission) introduced on November
17, 2011.
I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this
legislation before the House of Representatives in an
expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will waive further
consideration of this bill in Committee, notwithstanding any
provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology. This waiver, of course, is
conditional upon our mutual understanding that agreeing to
waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as
waiving, reducing, or affecting the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Additionally,
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology expressly
reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provision
within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference
that may be convened on this, or any similar legislation. I
ask for your commitment to support any request by the
Committee for conferees on H.R. 3463 as well as any similar
or related legislation.
I ask that a copy of this letter and your response be
placed in the Congressional Record during consideration of
H.R. 3463 on the House floor.
I look forward to working with you on matters of mutual
concern.
Sincerely,
Ralph M. Hall,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
[[Page H8021]]
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC, December 1, 2010.
Hon. Ralph Hall,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding your
Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 3463, to reduce
Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer
financing of presidential election campaigns and party
conventions and by terminating the Election Assistance
Commission.
I appreciate your willingness to support expediting floor
consideration of this important legislation, notwithstanding
the inclusion of any provisions under the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. I understand and
agree that your willingness to waive further consideration of
the bill is without prejudice to your Committee's
jurisdictional interests in this or similar legislation in
the future. In the event a House-Senate conference on this or
similar legislation is convened, I would support a request
from your Committee for an appropriate number of conferees.
I will include a copy of our exchange in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 3463 on the House floor.
Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards enactment
of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Daniel E. Lungren,
Chairman,
Committee on House Administration.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 3463.
This is not new territory for this Congress. This proposal to
eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Election
Assistance Commission has already been dealt with in this Congress. The
legislation before us proposes to combine these two really bad ideas.
In an era of rapidly changing election law, both in terms of campaign
finance regulation and voting rights, these two programs are more
important now than ever. The electoral landscape is much different
today than it was even 4 short years ago. The Supreme Court allows
unlimited contributions from special interests, and Super PACs are
raising vast amounts of funds with no government oversight or
regulation. Corporations and special interests are donating massive
sums of money, and some may expect a return on their investment.
Unfortunately, this return often comes at the expense of the American
people and sometimes at the expense of the integrity of this body.
We cannot expect the trust of the electorate if they feel they do not
have a voice. We should provide transparency and accountability, not
secrecy and irresponsibility.
Just last Congress, my colleagues and I passed the DISCLOSE Act,
which called for more transparency in how our elections are financed,
and that bill was killed by Senate Republicans. Members of the House,
such as Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland and Mr. Larson of Connecticut, have
authorized bills that would strengthen public financing of elections,
not weaken it, as this bill does.
When sources of funds are intentionally concealed, what kind of
message does this send to the country? It sends the message that we do
not care where we get our contributions as long as they are substantial
and they are secret, and that is wrong.
We can reform the Presidential Election Campaign Fund without
repealing it. This is the best course of action.
Across the country, States are making it harder for voters to cast
their ballots. New laws requiring voter identifications, strict and
arbitrary voting registration regulations, and eliminating the days
designed for early voting are all part of an effort to limit voter
participation and turnout. Voters have noticed and have already started
to push back.
This was the case in Maine last month when they used the ``People's
Veto'' to throw out a law passed by the Republican legislature and
Governor to eliminate the State's successful same-day voter
registration program which has been in place for 40 years. In other
States, restrictive new laws may be forced onto the ballot for a
possible repeal in referendums in 2012.
If that wasn't bad enough, overworked and underpaid local election
officials and volunteers are expected to keep track of election law
changes while still administrating large, complex, and often
unpredictable elections. The Election Assistance Commission does much
of the heavy lifting for them, establishing and maintaining an
information database for all local election officials to utilize.
The EAC also produces instructional videos and materials, which cash-
strapped election officials claim save them thousands of dollars
annually. And the letters of support for the EAC, which have been also
sent to my colleagues across the aisle, are still rolling in.
The EAC's essential services do not stop there. The Commission is
charged with the testing of certification of voting machines, the only
agency in the Federal Government tasked to do this. Who will ensure
that all of our votes are counted? Who will ensure that everyone has an
opportunity to cast a ballot for their intended candidate? Who will
ensure that we do not repeat the historical debacle of Florida in the
year 2000?
It is important to remember that events led to the establishment of
the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the EAC--the Watergate
scandal of the early 1970s and Florida in 2000, respectively. These
historical controversies eroded the public's faith in our political
system. These measures were meant to restore their faith, to restore
accountability to Washington and, most importantly, to ensure that the
people were heard. All this bill will do is weaken further what little
faith the American electorate has left.
Today I stand with every letter writer that has pleaded with us not
to terminate the EAC. I stand with those who cannot afford to make huge
contributions and would rather speak with their votes than their
wallets. I, along with Democratic colleagues, stand with the principles
that voter inclusion, not voter exclusion, is what we should strive
for, and the attempted disenfranchisement of any eligible voters is
despicable and is beyond words and cannot be tolerated.
On this bill I urge a ``no'' vote.
League of Women Voters
of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 24, 2011.
To: Members of the Committee on House Administration
From: Elisabeth MacNamara, President
Re H.R. 672, To Terminate the Election Assistance Commission
The League of Women Voters urges you to oppose H.R. 672,
which would terminate the Election Assistance Commission and
transfer some of its functions to the Federal Election
Commission. Instead of eliminating the EAC, we believe that
Congress should strengthen the commission and expand its
responsibilities. Moreover, the FEC is dysfunctional;
expanding its role would be a mistake.
The League believes that elections are fundamental to a
functioning democracy and that every effort should be made to
elevate their administration to the highest importance.
Congress should not turn its back on federal efforts to
ensure election integrity, improve voter access to the polls,
and improve election systems. The value of the EAC far
outweighs its monetary costs; in fact, the costs of poorly
run elections are intolerable. It is time for election
administration to move into the 21st Century, not back toward
the 19th.
Unfortunately, elections in our country are still not well-
administered, and we are concerned that many states and
localities are not doing a good job ensuring federally-
protected voting rights. For example, a GAO report on the
2008 election said that there are significant problems for
persons with disabilities in gaining access to the polls.
Physical barriers remain in far too many cases. In fact, 31
states reported that ensuring polling place accessibility was
``challenging.''
There many other areas of election administration that
cause concern, including statewide voter registration lists,
provisional balloting, list cleaning, voting machines and
tabulating, access to registration, and meeting voter
information needs. In addition, there are critical questions
that must be addressed about the application of new
technologies like the Internet to the voting and registration
processes. Each of these areas would benefit from additional
study, data gathering and information sharing among election
officials at every level, the public, and concerned
organizations.
With these continuing problems, now is certainly not the
time to abolish the only federal agency that devotes its full
resources and attention to improving our elections. Let us
not go back to the 2000 election but go forward, improving
each election over the last. We know what needs to be done;
now let us devote the resources to what should be done.
____
The Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights,
Washington, DC, May 24, 2011.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Voting Rights Task
Force of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,
we urge you to oppose H.R. 672, which would terminate the
Election Assistance Commission (``EAC'' or ``Commission'').
As organizations
[[Page H8022]]
that are committed to supporting and expanding the civil and
voting rights of all Americans, we have devoted substantial
resources to the passage of both the National Voter
Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. Terminating
the EAC puts our work at jeopardy and risks reducing the
voting and civil rights of our citizens--rights for which
many have given their lives.
The EAC does valuable work to ensure the reliability and
trustworthiness of our nation's election systems. The
Commission plays a major role in collecting accurate and
comparable election data. With our nation's complex and
diversified election administration system, central data
collection is essential if we are going to improve our
citizens' trust and confidence in election results. The
Commission develops and fosters the training and organization
of our nation's more than 8,000 election administrators.
Through its many working committees and the work it does to
foster robust dialogue among advocates, manufacturers and
administrators, the Commission is improving the
administration of elections. The EAC's award-winning web page
has become the ``go to'' site for election administrators,
advocates, and academics.
The Commission is charged with developing standards for
voting systems, and this precedent-setting work has been
recognized by nations around the world. Several countries are
so impressed with our system that they have signed agreements
with the EAC for technical assistance as they develop their
own voting system standards and certification procedures. The
EAC's certification program uses its oversight role to
coordinate with manufacturers and local election officials to
ensure that existing voting equipment meets durability and
longevity standards. This saves state and local governments
from the unnecessary expense of new voting equipment.
The EAC has also played a central role in improving the
accessibility of voting for the country's more than 37
million voters with disabilities. We still have a long way to
go to achieve the Help America Vote Act's mandate to make
voting accessible. The EAC's leadership is essential to
continuing the effort to offer all Americans the right to
vote ``privately and independently.''
As we approach the 2012 elections, the EAC must continue to
do its important work. Rather than abolishing the agency just
before the 2012 elections, we believe Congress should
strengthen the Commission by broadening its data collection
responsibilities and by giving it regulatory authority to
ensure that persons with disabilities have full access to the
polls.
Thank you for your consideration of our position. If you
have any questions about this letter, please contact
Leadership Conference Senior Counsel Lisa Bornstein, at (202)
263-2856 or Bornstein@civilrights.org.
Sincerely,
Wade Henderson,
President & CEO.
Nancy Zirkin,
Executive Vice President.
____
National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People,
Washington, DC, June 2, 2011.
Members,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's
oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based
civil rights organization, I strongly urge you to do all you
can to support the Election Assistance Commission and to
oppose and vote against efforts to terminate this crucial
tool in our arsenal to strengthen our democracy. The right to
vote is a cornerstone of our democracy and we as a Nation
should do all we can to ensure that every eligible American
can cast an unfettered vote of their own free will and that
their vote is counted.
As established by the 2002 Help America Vote Act, the
Election Assistance Commission provides research and data,
guidance and grants to states and local governments so they
can employ the best practices and the most up-to-date methods
of registering and voting. The Election Assistance Commission
has provided crucial help to many localities in the efforts
to identify and reach groups which had heretofore been
disenfranchised, including racial and ethnic minorities,
members of the Armed Services (especially those serving
overseas), disabled Americans and senior citizens.
We should be supporting and enhancing groups like the
Election Assistance Commission, whose mission is to engage
more Americans in the democratic process so that their voices
may be heard. I therefore must again strongly urge you to
oppose and work against bills such as H.R. 672, which would
terminate the Election Assistance Commission within 60 days
of enactment. Sadly, this shortsighted legislation which is,
in fact, a direct attack on one of the most fundamental
components of our form of government, the right to vote and
have that vote count, was passed out of the House
Administration Committee and may come before you on the House
floor in the very near future.
Thank you in advance for your attention to the NAACP
position: I look forward to working with you to see that we
work toward a more inclusive democracy and to protect the
integrity of our Nation and our government. Should you have
any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact
me at my office at (202) 463-2940.
Sincerely,
Hilary O. Shelton,
Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President
for Advocacy and Policy.
____
Demos,
New York, NY, May 24, 2011.
Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: Demos respectfully urges the members
of the Subcommittee on Elections to oppose H.R. 672,
legislation that would terminate the Elections Assistance
Commission (EAC). Without the EAC there would be no federal
agency focused on improving the quality of elections--a vital
function in ensuring the success of our democratic
institutions.
Demos is a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy
organization committed to building an America which achieves
its highest democratic ideals--a nation where democracy is
robust and inclusive, with high levels of electoral
participation and civic engagement; an economy where
prosperity and opportunity are broadly shared and disparity
is reduced; and a strong and effective government with the
capacity to plan for the future.
The EAC does valuable work to ensure the efficacy,
reliability, and trustworthiness of our nation's election
systems. For example, the Commission plays a major role in
collecting accurate and comparable election data. With our
nation's complex and diversified election administration
system, central data collection is essential to accurately
assess its state and therefore to improve our citizens' trust
and confidence in election results. The Commission also
develops and fosters the training and organization of our
nation's more than 8,000 election administrators. The EAC's
award-winning web page has become the ``go to'' site for
election administrators, advocates, and academics.
Moreover, the Commission is charged with developing
standards for voting systems, and this precedent-setting work
has been recognized by nations around the world. Several
countries are so impressed with our system that they have
signed agreements with the EAC for technical assistance as
they developed their own voting system standards and
certification procedures. The EAC's certification program is
helping state and local governments to save money by using
its oversight role to coordinate with manufacturers and local
election officials to ensure that the existing equipment
meets its durability and longevity potential. This saves
state and local governments from the unnecessary expense of
new voting equipment.
Importantly, the EAC has played a central role in improving
the accessibility of voting for the country's more than 37
million voters with disabilities. Although we still have a
way to go to achieve the Help America Vote Act's mandate to
make voting accessible, the EAC's leadership is essential to
continuing the effort to offer all Americans the right to
vote ``privately and independently.''
We recognize that H.R. 672 would transfer many of the EAC's
functions to the FEC but this would not be wise. The FEC is
dysfunctional. It is overwhelmed by its current
responsibilities, as evidenced by repeated court orders to
correct its regulations to bring them in line with the laws
of the United States. The FEC is starkly divided on partisan
lines, making it particularly inappropriate for election
administration responsibilities. And the FEC is increasingly
unable to make decisions or even to agree on staff-negotiated
recommendations.
Rather than abolishing the EAC, Congress should provide the
EAC with resources and a renewed commitment to sponsoring and
encouraging information sharing among state and local
officials, EAC committees, the non-partisan voting rights
community, technical experts and others.
Elections are the life blood of a democracy. We strongly
urge the committee to strengthen the Election Assistance
Commission instead of terminating it.
Sincerely,
Miles Rapoport,
President.
____
Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights under Law,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2011.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Leader: The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law (``Lawyers' Committee'') writes to express our
opposition to the ``To Terminate the Election Assistance
Commission, and For Other Purposes Act'' (H.R. 672). In the
2000 presidential election, many voters in Florida were
wrongfully denied access to the ballot based on faulty voting
equipment and a lack of discernible standards for vote
counting. This bill would roll back the progress being made
to bring more uniformity and equity to the election process
across the states.
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization, established in 1963 at the request of President
John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal
services to protect the rights of individuals affected by
racial discrimination. The defense of voting rights has been
a core part of the Lawyers' Committee's work since our
founding nearly 50 years ago. We believe that
[[Page H8023]]
abolishing the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) fails to
further voting transparency and reliability that was at the
heart of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Predictably, those
who would be most frequently disenfranchised are also those
least able to advocate for their right to vote, whether poor,
uneducated, infirm or elderly.
Faced with a challenge to our democratic system, Congress
immediately rushed to action to take bold steps to bring our
elections into the 21st century by passing HAVA which
established the EAC. The EAC tests and certifies voting
machines for use in elections to avoid a repeat of the 2000
election debacle in Florida; administers electronic voting
for our brave men and women in uniform fighting overseas so
that they are able to vote abroad; and creates voluntary
voting guidelines for states, instilling confidence in the
democratic process of this country for all voters. Since its
inception, the Lawyers' Committee has been intimately
acquainted with the work of the EAC, especially as Barbara
Arnwine our Executive Director has served on the EAC advisory
board. Our work and experience with the EAC leads us to
believe that its establishment was the right course of
action, and that its existence has helped bring some clarity
to our multi-faceted election process.
The work of the EAC to improve and modernize our election
system is far from over. Moving the functionality of the EAC
to the FEC would not only be ineffective, but costly. The
Federal Election Committee (FEC), institutionally partisan
and consistently ineffective in achieving even its current
mandate, is not the organization we need to test and certify
voting machines, or safeguard the votes of our service men
and women.
With the presidential election on the horizon, it is more
important than ever that we ensure the voice of the people is
heard through a reliable, transparent democratic system.
Termination of the EAC will take us backwards when we are
trying to move forward.
Sincerely,
Barbara R. Arnwine,
Executive Director.
Tanya Clay House,
Director of Public Policy.
____
National Disability Rights
Network,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2011.
Re Opposition to H.R. 672, the Election Support Consolidation
and Efficiency Act.
As the Executive Director of the National Disability Rights
Network (NDRN), I write to express the opposition of NDRN and
the 57 Protection and Advocacy systems it represents to H.R.
672, the Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act
(ESCEA). Voting is a fundamental right, and the Election
Assistance Commission has played an important role since its
creation to ensuring that polling places and the voting
process are accessible to people with disabilities. The ESCEA
would hinder progress toward accessibility of polling places
and the voting process by abolishing the Election Assistance
Commission (EAC).
NDRN is the national membership association for the 57
Protection & Advocacy (P&A) agencies that advocate on behalf
of persons with disabilities in every state, the District of
Columbia, and U.S. territories. For over 30 years, the P&A
agencies have been mandated by Congress to protect and
enhance the civil rights of individuals with disabilities of
any age and in any setting. One area of focus for the P&As is
voting through the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access
Act (PAVA) which charges P&As with helping to ensure the full
participation of individuals with disabilities in the entire
electoral process, including registering to vote, casting a
ballot, and accessing polling places.
The EAC has played a central role in improving the
accessibility of voting for voters with disabilities. A
Government Accountability Office report from 2009 <a href='http://
www.gao.gov/newitems/d09685.pdf'>http://
www.gao.gov/newitems/d09685.pdf</a>) found that 72 percent of
polling places surveyed on Election Day 2008 had impediments
that hinder physical access or limit the opportunities for
private and independent voting for people with disabilities.
This is an improvement over the results of a similar study
done during the 200 election, in which 84 percent of polling
places had impediments. The EAC, established following the
2000 election, has helped improve these results by acting as
a national clearinghouse of information on accessible voting
and providing technical assistance and guidance for election
commissioners and how to make polling places, and the voting
process as a whole, more accessible.
There remains much work to be done not only relating to
physical accessibility, but also relating to other barriers
to voting, such as a lack of voting and registration
materials in accessible formats for people with sensory
disabilities. In some instances, there have been outright
denials of the right to register and vote based on false
assumptions about a person's legal capacity to vote.
Abolishing the EAC at this point in time would be a step back
for people with disabilities and the goal of full
accessibility to the voting process, and prevent people with
disabilities from partaking of this most fundamental civil
right.
As we rapidly approach the 2012 elections, the EAC must
continue to do its important work. Rather than abolishing the
agency just before the 2012 elections, Congress should
strengthen the EAC to ensure that persons with disabilities
fully enjoy the right to vote privately and independently.
Therefore, on behalf of the NDRN and the 57 P&A agencies it
represents, I ask that you oppose H.R. 672 when it is
considered by the full House of Representatives today.
Sincerely,
Curtis L. Decker, JD,
Executive Director.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is clear that what has happened here is that there has been no
response to many of the allegations of mismanagement that we've heard
so far. It is clear from the things that have happened that the EAC, in
particular, it is time for this to come to a conclusion. It is an
agency whose average salary for its employees--and the employee size
has more than doubled since 2007--the average salary is $106,000 for
this agency. Ronald Reagan said that the closest thing on earth to
eternal life is a temporary government program. This was supposed to
last for a period of 3 years.
The National Association of Secretaries of State in 2005 did a
resolution, a bipartisan group, they did a resolution saying bring this
to an end. They renewed that resolution again in 2010, and yet it
remains. If we cannot get rid of an agency like the EAC, then we're
never going to be able to get rid of anything up here.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the bill.
Instead of focusing on jobs and helping middle class families, the
Republican leadership is hard at work today creating additional ways in
which corporations and special interests can dominate our elections
process. Ending the Presidential Election Campaign Fund opens the door
for large political spenders to enjoy an even greater role in the
funding of political campaigns.
The voluntary public finance system for Presidential campaigns was
created in the early seventies as a direct result of the corruption of
Watergate, the largest political scandal of our generation. Stopping
corruption and the appearance of corruption is as important today as it
was during the Nixon years. The level of spending by corporations and
special interests since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United
should give every American reason for concern. Do my Republican
colleagues really believe that more corporate and special interest
money in politics is going to benefit in any way the 99 percent of
Americans who don't have lobbyists?
The current public finance system for Presidential elections has
problems. Most notably, it has not kept pace with the cost of modern
campaigns, so we should fix it instead of eliminating it. And I would
note that the Republican National Committee recently received $18
million from the fund, so if the Republicans think it's such a bad
idea, perhaps they should ask the RNC to return the money.
As for the Election Assistance Commission, the EAC is the only
Federal agency focused on improving Federal elections. This was an
outgrowth of the disastrous process of the 2000 election. Remember, 100
million votes were cast, but it took a decision of the Supreme Court
before a winner was declared. The experience left a black eye on our
elections process. It's not something America should go through again.
As State and local budgets are cut, the value of this commission is
going to grow.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Have there been problems at the EAC?
Yes, there have been problems. What should we do about it? We need
oversight and reform. We shouldn't just abolish this commission because
we are going backwards to the bad old days of inconsistency among
voters. I urge my colleagues to focus on the economy, focus on jobs,
and don't pass bills that give corporations and special interests even
greater influence in our elections.
[[Page H8024]]
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is amazing that there is a reference to the need that we need to
focus on jobs instead of doing something like this. If that's the case,
we've passed about 25 bills this year out of the Republican-led House
that dealt with jobs and dealt with the economy. We have done our job
on that, and now they're sitting over in the Senate who knows where or
why awaiting action. So we have been doing those things, the tough
decisions, the things that will create jobs if the Senate and the White
House would join with us on those things. So that is simply not
accurate to say that we haven't been focusing on jobs because we have
done that since we started this year, and we will continue to do so and
encourage and urge our colleagues over in the Senate to bring these
matters up. They include things that will help on overburdensome EPA
regs, with things that will deal with permitting and drilling in the
Gulf of Mexico and things that will have a direct impact on our economy
and jobs.
You know, it is clear, particularly on the EAC, which was created in
2002 after HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, after the Bush-Gore recount
so that we wouldn't have another hanging chad or butterfly ballot
situation, and this agency administered over $3 billion worth of grants
to the States for machines. When it was passed, it was designed to be a
3-year agency and program. We're 9 years into this. And instead of
trying to say, okay, and we showed the chart a minute ago with $5.4
million worth of management costs, and yet only a little over $3
million in program costs. And the grants for the machines, Mr. Speaker,
are now gone and they are not there.
We have the letter from the National Association of Secretaries of
State which restates their position on the resolution to eliminate the
EAC done in 2005, and again in 2010. Again on the EAC, we have reports
from different agencies. We have an IG report criticizing the
management practices of the EAC. This report was done in March of 2010.
We have a report from the EAC's financial records back in November of
2008 which I dealt with when I first got on the Committee on House
Administration in early 2009. This report is an audit of the Election
Assistance Commission fiscal year 2008 financial statements. The
records were so mismanaged, this agency that the other side wants to
keep instead of trying to make us more efficient, it was so bad that
the agency couldn't be audited. The records were too bad to tell them
how bad it was. So that lengthy report is available to anyone who cares
to read it.
Then we have a report from the Office of Special Counsel that was
done in 2009. The Office of Special Counsel talks about having to
settle a political discrimination case. An agency that is supposed to
talk about fairness and helping in elections themselves get sued for
political discrimination. And one of those that created that problem is
the one that voluntarily resigned and received unemployment benefits
for a voluntary resignation.
We have the organizational chart that shows that the EAC included a
special assistant to a vacant position. I can go on and on, Mr.
Speaker, on the mismanagement of the EAC. It is clearly time to say--
and I understand that there are some things that we need to keep. We
are saying that the essential functions of this group, send them over
to the FEC, and we can take care of those situations on testing and
certification, make the process more efficient, and we'll save money
for the taxpayers.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
3463.
It might sound surprising, but right behind jobs, one of the top
concerns my constituents contact me about is campaign reform. You'd
think that campaign rules would be the very last thing people would
think about when they're worried about their livelihoods, their
mortgages, and their family's health care. But they know that the
electoral process is at the heart of everything their government can do
for them.
The American people are frustrated. They are frustrated by what I
call super-sized campaigns. It's all too much. It's too slanderous.
It's too hard to tell who's paying for what and who's saying what. They
feel that big donors, big corporations, and ideological groups are
running the show, and they're being left out. But the American people
care, and they believe in ``we the people.''
Public financing gives the voice back to the middle class. The
Election Assistance Commission can help election officials better the
process for voters. Neither of these is perfect right now. We
acknowledge that, but we should be improving rather than eliminating
them. Throwing away what public financing we have, what financing
worked for every President from 1976 to 2004 and making it harder to
bring election improvements together is a step in the wrong direction.
{time} 1310
Rather than making it even harder for the average voter to make a
difference, Congress should be improving access to democracy by
expanding public financing, assisting election officials, and
increasing voting opportunities for all Americans.
Our people are our strength, and we have no business shutting them
out. The supporters of this bill say it will save us money. But in
fact, Mr. Speaker, it will mean our democracy is up for sale.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for
yielding.
One of the arguments that's been made about the EAC, Mr. Speaker, is
that it's the Federal Election Commission that ensures every American
citizen's right to vote. If only that were true, Mr. Speaker.
The National Association of Secretaries of State, which is the
organization in each State that oversees the elections, has called for
the dissolution of the EAC. The committee has heard firsthand testimony
from Secretaries of State all across the country. Both in 2005 and
again in 2010, the National Association of Secretaries of State has
called for the dissolution of the EAC.
If the organizations that are actually responsible in each State for
holding the elections, Mr. Speaker, are asking that the Federal agency
that's supposed to help them should be dissolved, I think it would
behoove the Congress to listen to the States and in this case dissolve
this commission.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing attempts to suppress the valid legal
vote of some communities in this country. Earlier efforts to stop
selected Americans from voting, such as literacy tests and poll taxes,
were overturned by this Congress. But while the tactics of these people
have changed, their strategy remains the same--intimidate, discourage,
or otherwise prevent certain groups of American citizens from voting.
Current tactics include burdensome voter ID laws, outrageous
registration requirements, dishonest ``inactive voter lists,'' and
unlawful disenfranchisement of ex-offenders. To these flagrant tactics
proponents of voter suppression have added more subtle approaches,
including disinformation campaigns and behind-the-scenes, quiet--and
unfair--purging of voter rolls.
Now we are presented with their latest plan to deny certain Americans
their right to vote--the elimination of two programs whose sole aim is
to ensure that every American's voice is heard in our election. The
Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Election Assistance
Commission are in need of strengthening, not elimination. They help
make sure that all voices can be heard and that all votes will be
counted. I support improving these programs.
But the only reason to want to eliminate them is to further suppress
votes. The votes are the same groups who were targeted by Jim Crow laws
decades ago. The votes are the same groups who are now targeted by
``inactive voter lists'' and voter ID laws and
[[Page H8025]]
all of the other new tactics designed for a single goal--voter
suppression.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and defeat yet another
attempt to stop American citizens from voting.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I just heard
from my friend from Missouri. Doing away with the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund is not a Jim Crow law. And I'll put my record alongside
his on ensuring voting rights to minorities as the author of the latest
extension of the Voting Rights Act and one who got the 1982 compromise
passed and signed into law by President Reagan.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund was destroyed 3 years ago by
President and then-Candidate Barack Obama. He refused to be bound by
its restrictions. Senator John McCain was. And he was put at a
significant disadvantage in the general election campaign by running
against Candidate Obama, who rejected the Election Campaign Fund's
funds and raised huge and unlimited amounts of money.
Mr. CLAY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I have a limited amount of time. If I have time
left, I will be happy to yield.
This year, so as not to disadvantage themselves, none--that means
none--of the Republican primary candidates have signed up for
Presidential Election Campaign Fund money. The Obama moneymaking
machine is running all around the country. We see this in the
newspapers. We hear it on television. And because the campaign fund
would limit the amount of money that whoever the Republican nominee, if
they took these funds, could use in order to spread his message on why
Obama ought to be replaced by the voters, we ought to just get rid of
this fund altogether. It was destroyed 3 years ago by then-Candidate
Obama. We might as well not spend any more taxpayers' funds on it. May
it rest in peace.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, we already know that in 38 States there is introduced
legislation that would suppress the participation and the votes of
young, minority, and elderly voters. Now we see their allies here in
Congress who are trying to eliminate the only Federal agency charged
with improving the conduct of elections and making sure that every vote
counts. If you like the direction of the State legislatures, you're
going to be thrilled by the legislation before us today to close the
Election Assistance Commission.
The voter's vote should be behind a curtain of secrecy, but the
process by which registration and elections are conducted should be
transparent. If not, voters will cease to believe that the process is
fair and that their vote counts.
Let me remind my colleagues there is nothing more crucial to
democracy than guaranteeing the integrity, the fairness, the
accountability, the accuracy of elections. Democracy works only if the
citizens believe it does. The system must work, and the people must
believe in it; but voting shouldn't be an act of blind faith. It should
be an act of record.
The EAC helps maintain the integrity of the American electoral
process. Too many people across the country have lost confidence in the
legitimacy of the election results. Dismantling the EAC would further
erode that necessary faith in the process.
We've discussed several times--and others have talked about it--if
manipulating the outcome of elections occurs, how much easier will it
be once the EAC is eliminated. Millions of Americans are casting their
votes now on unauditable voting machines and the results of most
elections are not audited.
{time} 1320
Eliminating the EAC would increase the risks that our electoral
process would be compromised by vote manipulation, by targeted voter ID
laws, by voter system irregularities. Can we afford to take that risk?
Certainly not. Do we want problems to go undetected? I would hope not.
Less oversight, lesser standards, less transparency in reporting,
less testing, fewer audience weakens our democracy. Abolishing the EAC
is the wrong way to go.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a distinguished member of the Appropriations and
Budget Committees, who also has been heavily involved in this matter as
a cosponsor and also has done great work on trying to eliminate and
bring to an end the Presidential Election Fund.
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The legislation before us actually does three important things:
First, it eliminates an antiquated, outdated system of public
financing; second, it terminates an obsolete commission; and then
finally, and not incidentally, it actually saves money, something that
we talk a lot about around here but we very seldom actually do.
When the Presidential Election Campaign Fund was actually created in
1973, it was during the time before things like Facebook, YouTube, and
Twitter. The widespread use of the Internet did not exist. That's no
longer the case today. Today, it's pretty easy to actually contribute
money to a Presidential candidate if you want to do it. I would advise
anybody, regardless of their political persuasion, to simply type the
name of the candidate that they like into the Internet and wait and see
what pops up, and they're going to have an immediate opportunity to
donate to that individual.
There is no need to take public money at a time that we're running
$1.5 trillion deficits and divert it to what's essentially political
welfare for Presidential candidates--absolute waste of money. It's so
much a waste that our President, who defends the system but chose not
to participate in the system--in 2008, he did not participate, did not
raise money this way, did not do it during the public campaign,
actually broke precedent and, frankly, the commitment he had made
earlier in the campaign and just chose not to do it. And that's fine.
That was his right. He was certainly more than adequately funded. His
opponent, Senator Clinton, now Secretary Clinton, was also adequately
funded. She did not use the public financing system. The one person who
did, John McCain, was heavily outspent, although I don't think that had
much to do with his defeat.
I think, honestly, Americans know how to contribute to Presidential
candidates. They don't need the Federal Government letting them check
off a portion of their taxes and divert it for that purpose.
In addition, public participation in this system has declined
radically. It's never reached even one-third of American taxpayers that
are willing to do this--peaked at 28 percent, and in 2009 was down to 7
percent of American taxpayers who chose to do it.
So we're not denying anybody the ability to participate. We are
giving very expensive welfare to Presidential candidates and to
political parties at a cost to the taxpayer when that cost can't be
afforded.
Two weeks ago, we had something that occurred that honestly ought to
concern everybody on this floor. And I don't fault either party for it,
but the Democratic Party and the Republican Party both received $17
million for their conventions from the Federal Treasury of the United
States; $17 million for two political parties--actually, 34 in total--
to actually run their conventions from the American taxpayer. Who
really believes that's a needed expenditure? Each one of those
parties--and I can tell you because I used to be the chief of staff of
one of them--will spend over $100 million on its convention. They don't
require additional Federal help. It's simply a waste of time and a
waste of money.
As for the Election Assistance Commission--and I say this as a former
secretary of State--this is a commission whose time has come and gone.
Whatever good it did, it currently spends over 50 percent of its budget
on administration, not on direct assistance to the States. And the idea
that State governments and States who have been running elections for
200 years suddenly need the Federal Government to tell them how to do
it and spend this kind of money I think is just absurd.
Frankly, the National Association of Secretaries of State, which is
the oldest public association of elected officials and appointed
officials in the United States, has twice called for the
[[Page H8026]]
elimination of this. They don't feel the need for it. They certainly
don't see that they're getting any assistance from it.
So whatever good it played in the immediate aftermath of the 2000
election I think is now concluded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. COLE. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Without putting too fine a point on it, this is a system and this is
a commission that simply exists to solve problems that aren't problems.
We have no problem funding Presidential campaigns in the United States.
There's plenty of money--probably too much money--around. There doesn't
need to be taxpayer money. Nor do political parties have a problem
funding their conventions. They can do it themselves. Nor do we need a
commission whose purpose has now passed into history and whose entities
it's supposed to serve, the Secretaries of State around the country,
have actually asked us to abolish it.
So let's just finally prove we can get rid of outmoded programs, end
the expenditures, and actually save the taxpayers some money. And in
doing so, I can assure everybody on the floor that our democracy will
remain healthy, our elections will be fair, and the American people, in
their wisdom, will figure out which candidate to contribute to if they
choose to contribute to any candidate at all.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the third time
this year to oppose a measure that would summarily repeal our system of
public funding for Presidential elections.
Once again, the House majority seems intent on dismantling the few
remaining safeguards we have left against the influence of special
interests in politics following the Supreme Court's Citizens United
ruling. The fact that they are ostensibly bringing this bill forward as
a deficit reduction measure in order to pay for a bill to undermine
workers' rights is the height of cynicism.
This bill before us today would destroy one of the most successful
examples of reform that followed the Watergate scandal. Dare we forget
what that scandal was about? The Committee to Reelect the President,
fueled by huge quantities of corporate cash, paying for criminal acts
and otherwise subverting the American electoral system.
The hallmark of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, enacted at
a time when public confidence in government was dangerously low, was
our voluntary program of public financing for Presidential elections.
To this day, this innovative reform stands as one of the greatest steps
we have taken to bring transparency and accountability to our electoral
system. And it has worked remarkably well, being utilized in the
general election by every Republican and Democratic Presidential
nominee from 1976 through 2004 and by John McCain in 2008, although in
recent years the need for modernization has become evident.
Perhaps the best example of this program's success is President
Ronald Reagan, who participated in Presidential public financing in all
three of his Presidential campaigns--in 1976, 1980, and 1984. The
Reagan case illustrates the positive effects public financing has had
in both parties at both the primary and the general election stages. It
illuminates the way in which the system benefits candidates who
challenge the party's establishment. It also highlights the system's
focus on small donations rather than big bucks from the large
contributors. Note that this is no free ride, no willy-nilly spending
program. Candidates must seek the support of thousands of small donors
during the primary to prove their viability, and only then do they
receive matching funds.
Today one could wish, in light of the positive history of this
program and prior Republican support, for a bipartisan effort to repair
the system and restore its effectiveness. I don't know of any policy
that exemplifies the maxim ``mend it, don't end it'' better than this
one.
Earlier this year, Congressman Van Hollen and I reintroduced a bill
that would do just that. It would modernize the Presidential public
financing system and again make it an attractive and viable option for
Presidential candidates. Our bill would bring available funds into line
with the increased cost of campaigns, adjust the program to the front-
loaded primary calendar, and enhance the role of small donors. The bill
has been carefully designed and deserves deliberation and debate.
{time} 1330
Instead, we're faced with yet another Republican attempt to open the
floodgates for corporate cash and special interest influence to pour
into our political system.
With confidence in government at rock bottom, and the perception of
government corruption through the roof, why is the majority trying to
return us to the dark days of Watergate? Let's instead restore and
improve our public financing system and move on to real solutions to
put our Nation's fiscal house in order.
Let's not use valuable floor time to pass a bill that has no chance
of becoming law. The American people want us to get to work on
important measures to revive the struggling economy and put people back
to work. So I urge the majority to heed that call. Get to work on
passing appropriations bills, fixing the Medicare physician
reimbursement, extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits,
patching the AMT, and reauthorizing the FAA in time for families'
holiday travel.
I'm afraid such pleas are falling on deaf ears in this Chamber these
days. But we need to get to work on the people's business, not on this
flawed bill that threatens to allow big money to play an even larger
role in our politics.
Mr. HARPER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a valued member of the House
Administration Committee.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill in its
entirety but especially to that provision which attempts to eliminate
the Election Assistance Commission.
I need to address a few points that have been made by the proponents
of this bill because I was there when this original bill came up for
consideration years ago, and I've been there for the subsequent
hearings in the committee of jurisdiction.
First of all, when it comes to the secretaries of state, they've been
opposed to the creation of the Election Assistance Commission from its
very beginning. This is nothing new. Their renewal of opposition
basically used a form letter that didn't even change the 2006 date. The
2010 opposition letter actually referred and still used the same letter
of previous years.
But the most important thing to point out is that secretaries of
state have multifaceted responsibilities and obligations. One of them
is to conduct elections. But each one of us in this body knows who
really runs an election, and it's going to be your local election
administrators.
You and I and anybody involved in the electoral process knows that on
Election Day you're not going to find secretary of state personnel at
the polling places. When the ballots are mailed for absentee voting,
you're not going to find anyone from the Secretary of State's Office.
They're not going to count the ballots. They're not going to be there.
It is a local effort, and that's what the Election Assistance
Commission is doing.
It was never meant to have a life span of 3 years. If you read the
bill carefully, and Mr. Hoyer, who will be taking the floor later, will
remind us of the legislative history of that particular bill that
created this commission.
If we are to criticize them for an inordinate amount of their budget
being applied to personnel, then we must look in the mirror as Members
of Congress, because I assure you, because I also sit on a committee,
obviously the same committee, that entertains the budget requests of
the different committees. Each one of those committees and individual
Members of Congress will tell you that they spend a greater proportion
of their budget on personnel than the Election Assistance Commission.
And there's good reason for it.
[[Page H8027]]
It was never really intended to fully fund every effort at the local
level. It's to give advice. That's why I have received in the past,
from local election officials in Maryland, Texas, Florida, and Ohio--
the local experience in Texas, in my county there, was that we saved
$100,000 by the suggestions and recommendations that were issued by the
commission.
Lastly, you criticize the commission for not functioning because it
doesn't have a full body of commissioners. But whose fault is that?
It's the individuals on the other side of the aisle that have blocked
consideration.
That reminds me. When I was a lawyer, we used to have an old joke
about the individual defendant who was there charged with murdering his
parents, and at the end of the trial goes before the jury and asks for
mercy because he's an orphan. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I yield the gentleman an additional 10
seconds.
Mr. GONZALEZ. If you want to help your local election officials, vote
``no'' on this bad bill.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Rokita), who is a distinguished member of the Committee on
House Administration, a former secretary of state for the State of
Indiana, and he has served as president of the National Association of
Secretaries of State.
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, listening to the prior comments, I can't help but wonder
if certain Members of this body can't help but not do more than one
thing at a time. But certainly, your secretaries of state and your
local election officials can multitask, and they do an excellent job of
executing the States' elections.
I want to focus on the portion of the bill that eliminates the
Election Assistance Commission, Mr. Speaker. As has been said, I have a
unique perspective on this. In 2005, as Indiana's secretary of state,
and serving as the president of the National Association of Secretaries
of State, I coauthored the successful resolution that was talked about
earlier to dissolve the EAC after the 2006 election. As the oldest
organization of bipartisan elected officials in the Nation, we at NASS
renewed the call to dissolve the commission in 2010.
And, no, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, from the debates that we had
in that organization, it was not a form letter. It was not a form
renewal.
Furthermore, the vote for the renewal was 24-2, with 13 Republicans
and 11 Democrats calling for its dissolution. This is not a partisan
issue. We recognized, on a bipartisan basis, that the Election
Assistance Commission cannot be justified on the grounds of fairness,
justice, opportunity, or necessity.
EAC bureaucrats do not make elections fair. In fact, EAC makes them
less fair by producing biased, inaccurate reports on the state of
elections in our Nation and offering recommendations based on these
junk studies. EAC bureaucrats do not enfranchise voters. States and
individuals do that, as our Federal Constitution dictates.
Giving unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington more power
over elections does not lead to more just election outcomes. If
anything, it interferes with a just outcome because these bureaucrats,
many with an ideological axe to grind, face little or no accountability
for their actions, and they know it.
Voting is fundamental to our system and the legitimacy of our
government. Ensuring qualified American citizens have an opportunity to
vote is essential. The Constitution tasks the States with execution and
maintenance of elections, not Federal bureaucrats.
Like I said, Mr. Speaker, I believe States do an excellent job. And
by managing elections closest to the voters at the State and local
level, we stand the best chance of ensuring opportunity for all and
correcting injustice if the opportunity to vote is denied or interfered
with.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. As a former secretary of state for the State of Rhode
Island, and now a Member of the United States Congress, I have serious
concerns about this bill.
Mr. Speaker, voter participation is the cornerstone of our democracy
and a fundamental civic duty that empowers every citizen to effect
change within our society. Unfortunately, many individuals with
disabilities have been historically shut out of the voting process due
to lack of accessibility. That's among my particular concerns with this
bill.
We have made impressive strides in recent years to close that gap,
and the Election Assistance Commission, established under the Help
America Vote Act, was an important part of that effort. As a Member of
Congress who lives with a disability, cofounded the bipartisan
Disabilities Caucus, and has worked at both the State and Federal
levels to modernize and make accessible our voting systems, I find it
unconscionable that the Republican leadership is considering this bill
to abolish the Election Assistance Commission, an agency whose
fundamental mission is to promote security, accessibility, and trust in
our electoral process.
Could the EAC use some reforms? Yes. But the Republican solution of
eliminating an agency with such an important mission is unnecessary.
Everyone, Mr. Speaker, should have full faith in our system of
elections including seniors, military members, minorities, and people
with disabilities, and that's exactly what the Election Assistance
Commission seeks to provide.
Mr. Speaker, we have precious little time left before the end of this
Congressional session. Instead of considering a bill that will only
serve to erode America's faith in our democracy, our time would be far
better spent rebuilding it by focusing on job creation, getting this
economy back on track.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and turn our attention to
legislation that will extend tax relief for families and small
businesses, reduce unemployment, and create greater economic stability.
That is exactly what my constituents expect from me, and that's exactly
what the American people expect from this Congress.
{time} 1340
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the distinguished chairman of the
House Administration Committee.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3463 will eliminate the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund and the Election Assistance Commission. That's good news.
The American people have been asking this Congress to get serious about
spending, begging us to take a critical look at government operations
and get rid of the dead weight. Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a
government program or a government agency that is ripe for the cutting,
it is the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and Election Assistance
Commission.
The Election Campaign Fund is an unused government program only
supported by a meager 7 percent of the American people. In other words,
93 percent of the American taxpayers have opted out of participating in
this program. Candidates and nominees have routinely opted out of the
system altogether.
In 2008 we know then-Candidate Barack Obama declined public financing
in the general election. In 2012, it's expected that neither general
election candidate will participate in the program, and no candidate
has requested eligibility thus far in the election cycle.
According to CBO, elimination of this program would save the American
taxpayers $447 million over the next 5 years and return nearly $200
million to the public Treasury for deficit reduction immediately.
I know some people think $500 million isn't much. Where I come from,
that's a lot. We can eliminate something that the American people have
rejected by a vote of 93-7. It seems to me to make sense.
[[Page H8028]]
Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, the Committee on House
Administration held hearings on the issue of taxpayer financing of
campaigns. And one of our witnesses asked this question. He said, if
the voters are not willing to pay for the program, then why should it
continue?
As for the Election Assistance Commission, this agency has been the
subject of two hiring discrimination lawsuits, spends over 50 percent
of its budget on administrative costs, and is asking this Congress for
$5.4 million to manage programs totaling $3.5 million.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill before us eliminates an unused
government program, shuts down an obsolete government agency, saves the
taxpayers $480 million over 5 years, and returns almost $200 million to
the Treasury. How could we not vote for it?
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time
we have.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 7
minutes. The gentleman from Mississippi has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.
After $5.3 billion was spent in the 2008 Federal elections, I never
heard anyone utter a word that said the problem we face today in
Washington is that we need more private money in politics. Never has
anyone said to me, I wish the super-rich had more influence over our
government and elected officials, especially in campaigns for President
and Congress.
I never received a letter from a constituent that expressed a desire
to get further away from one person-one vote and move closer to one
corporation-one vote. What I have heard from my constituents is a
deafening demand to get money out of politics. This bill takes us in
the opposite direction.
We should be chasing the moneychangers out of the people's temple,
not turning our government into an auction house. This legislation is
upside down.
Private financing of elections corrodes our democracy. Private
contributions of Federal elections must end. Private financing equals
government in the private interest. Public financing--the hope of
government in the public interest.
We need to restore our democracy and end private contributions. We
shouldn't have any contributions from special interests. We need
government of the people, by the people, and for the people returned to
this government.
Mr. HARPER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let me just take this from 30,000 feet for a minute
and reiterate what the gentleman from Ohio said.
We have too much private money in the people's House. We can't get
anything done now because it somehow may affect what Wall Street is
doing.
We had a China currency bill on the floor last year, 350 votes, 99
Republicans. We can't even get it up for a vote now in the House
because Wall Street doesn't want it. We're in dire straits with trying
to balance our budget.
We need to ask people making more than a million dollars a year to
help us close this gap so we can reinvest back in our country. Nothing
is happening because Wall Street doesn't want it.
We've got oil and gas still getting benefits when profits are going
through the roof. We can't close that loophole because the oil and gas
industry doesn't want it closed.
There is too much private money in the people's House. We need public
funding of elections. Let every citizen kick in fifty or a hundred
bucks, and we run elections by letting people on the airwaves making
these debates, making these discussions having a little bit of money to
do it.
We've got to reform this country and set us on a path to prosperity.
No wonder we can't invest in public education, public health, public
infrastructure, because the private interests are running the whole
show here.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the
House Administration Committee.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, maybe the President will listen
to the advice of the gentleman from Ohio and sign up for public
financing of his re-election effort.
But mainly I rise today in strong support of the combined efforts of
my good friends, Mr. Harper of Mississippi and Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, to
reduce Federal spending by ending the public financing of campaigns and
conventions and to terminate this Election Assistance Commission.
As Presidential campaigns in this day and age are becoming
increasingly expensive to the tune of billions of dollars, the idea of
having taxpayers contribute matching funds to them has become
ludicrous.
The end of this practice would save $617 million over 10 years, and I
commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for his work to reduce spending.
As far as the gentleman from Mississippi's efforts regarding the
Election System Commission, as a member of the committee of
jurisdiction over EAC, the House Administration Committee, I've learned
firsthand that this agency has outlived its usefulness, it's mismanaged
its resources, all the while costing taxpayers, we the taxpayers,
millions of dollars a year.
Mr. Speaker, the Election Assistance Commission budget request for
2012 devoted 51.7 percent of its budget to management overhead costs.
Let's eliminate this commission and support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, following is my statement in its entirety:
I rise today in strong support of the combined effort of my good
friends, Mr. Harper of Mississippi and Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, to reduce
federal spending by ending the public financing of campaigns and
conventions, and to terminate the Election Assistance Commission.
As Presidential campaigns in this day and age have become
increasingly expensive to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars,
the idea of having taxpayers contribute matching funds to them has
become ludicrous. Ending this practice would save $617 million over 10
years and I commend Mr. Cole for his work to reduce spending.
As far as Mr. Harper's efforts regarding the Election Assistance
Commission, as a member of the committee of jurisdiction over the EAC--
the House Administration Committee--I have learned first-hand that this
agency that has outlived its usefulness and mismanaged its resources--
all while costing taxpayers millions of dollars a year.
In the midst of our record levels of debt, we must scrutinize where
every dollar of taxpayer money is being spent to ensure we are
allocating these funds responsibly and delivering the best possible
value to our citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the Election Assistance Commission's budget request for
2012 devoted 51.7 percent of its budget to management and overhead
costs. It should be hard for anyone to argue that an agency that spends
$5.5 million dollars managing programs totaling $3.5 million dollars is
a responsible use of taxpayer funds.
The EAC has more than doubled in size--without an increase in its
responsibilities--since it was originally supposed to sunset in 2005.
It is long past time, Mr. Speaker, that we allow government programs
that have outlived their usefulness to be shut down, rather than
maintain unnecessary and redundant layers of bureaucracy.
Eliminating this red tape would save American taxpayers $33 million
dollars over five years, while at the same time preserving the EAC's
necessary functions--voting system testing and certification--at the
Federal Election Commission, which can more efficiently handle these
responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, the National Association of Secretaries of State--who
are the direct beneficiaries of the EAC's services--have themselves
called for the EAC's dissolution. This body should follow suit today. I
urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. First of all, we ought to be talking about jobs. The
contention that this bill funds bills that are about jobs is spurious,
in my opinion; and no economist, in my opinion, will assert that that
is the fact. We ought to be dealing with jobs.
But what are we dealing with?
[[Page H8029]]
Now, I know of what I speak, I tell the gentleman from Georgia. I
understand. I was a Member of the House Administration Committee for, I
think, some 15 years. I, along with Bob Ney, was the sponsor of the
Help America Vote Act, which created the Election Assistance
Commission. So I know something about the Election Assistance
Commission.
It was created because in the year 2000 we had a disastrous election
which was resolved finally but not very acceptably by most people,
whether your candidate won or lost. So the Election Assistance
Commission was created for the purpose, for the first time in history,
of having some Federal presence in the oversight of Federal elections.
Not mandatory, but advisory.
Now, what we see, frankly, throughout America in Republican-
controlled legislatures in many, many States is an effort to make
voting more difficult to, in my opinion, suppress the vote, to require
more and more documentation of people who have already registered to
vote and claiming problems that exist that do not exist.
{time} 1350
Now, if you want to obfuscate the election process, if you want to
suppress the vote, if you want to make it more difficult, what is one
of the things you want to do?
Eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, whose responsibility it
is to advise and counsel on best practices to assure that every
American not only has the right to vote but is facilitated in casting
that vote and in making sure that that vote is counted. That's what the
Election Assistance Commission does.
And what do they want to do with the Election Assistance Commission's
responsibility? Transfer it to the Federal Election Commission, whose
sole responsibility is to oversee the flow of money into elections.
They neither have the expertise nor, frankly, do they have the time.
They hardly have the time to do what they're supposed to do right now.
Now, the Bush administration did not fund the Election Assistance
Commission very robustly. Like every agency, it requires and should
have proper oversight, and should, in my view, be more vigorous in the
carrying out of its responsibilities. That is not, however, a reason
for eliminating it. The only reason for eliminating it is to make
voting more obscure, with less oversight and less assurance to our
citizens that they not only have the right to vote but that a vote will
be cast and counted correctly.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member
of the Judiciary Committee and a former judge, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Let's cut to the chase. This is a tax credit for people
who want to contribute to the President's campaign fund. They're told
you can check this box and it doesn't cost you anything. No, but it
takes $40 million-plus a year away from the fund that could be used for
other things, including for Social Security, and it gives it to the
President's campaign fund.
I stand with our President, Barack Obama, on this issue, who found
that that fund is worthless and that it's an impediment to getting
elected. So I stand with President Obama in saying let's get rid of the
fund and not use it anymore, and let the $200 million in that fund go
to something helpful instead of being an impediment to being elected
President.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
The Presidential campaign fund currently has over $190 million. Tens
of thousands of Americans put that money there. They wanted their money
to go for this purpose. We would be fooling and deceiving our very own
citizens if we were to pass this bill. They put that money there to be
able to have the small say that they can--with their $1 or $3 or
whatever it may--and be able to say who they would want to support and
put it towards campaigns. We would be giving it back to the Treasury.
They already put their money in the Treasury. This would be wrong, and
we would be fooling the American people.
We would be telling them, We told you to check off a box and give us
X number of dollars for a campaign. Now we're going to take $100
million of the money we told you to check off to use for that purpose,
and we're no longer going to use it for that purpose.
That's wrong. It's not right. It's deceptive, which is why I urge a
``no'' vote on this bill.
Ohio Association of
Election Officials,
October 12, 2011.
Hon. Rob Portman,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Dear Senator Portman: We are writing today regarding the
possible elimination of the US Election Assistance Commission
(EAC) as part of the Super Committee's recommendations for
budget reductions. The EAC is an independent federal agency
created in the wake of the 2000 election to help solve
election related problems. The EAC provides assistance to
election officials in the form of best practices, guidance,
and the testing and certification of voting systems.
Basically, the EAC provides an outlet and open forum for
election officials to share their experiences, consider
alternatives, deliberate their outcomes, and establish
continuity of process, thus strengthening our democracy by
helping election officials to do their job well. However, if
Congress has its way, the EAC may not provide these services
much longer. There has been movement in the House to
eliminate the agency since last year, labeling it
``wasteful'' and ``unneeded.'' However, election
administrators on the local level feel differently.
Although it has been argued that the EAC has outlived its
usefulness because the Help America Vote Act funding it
oversees has been exhausted, the EAC has become far more than
a distributor and auditor of money; the EAC is a repository
and resource of election management procedures, performance
measures, election materials, and administrative knowledge.
Effective designs of polling place signage, webinars on
topics such as contingency planning, minority language
glossaries of election terminology, Quick Start Guide
publications regarding Developing an Audit Trail, Conducting
a Recount, and Acceptance Testing are all pertinent reminders
for veteran election officials as well as critical learning
tools for those officials newly elected, appointed, or hired.
The EAC is not without its issues. The agency's Voting
System Testing and Certification program was slow to develop
and continues to struggle to certify systems in a timely
manner. As with many federal agencies greater efficiencies of
operation should be considered in order to more effectively
produce election materials at less cost to the public. Also,
as the EAC has grown so has its overhead costs and management
size. These areas should all be addressed through greater
Congressional oversight, not through eliminating the agency.
Ironically, proponents of the elimination of the EAC would
simply reassign the various function of the Commission to
other more bureaucratic federal agencies such as the Federal
Election Commission (FEC). Claims that any savings would be
realized by its elimination are specious at best. We see no
need to eliminate or dismantle the only federal resourc
available to local election officials.
The EAC has never been needed more than now. Election
officials across Ohio and the United States are doing more
with less and it's only going to get worse. As budgets
tighten and voting equipment ages, the chances of another
election disaster increase. Without the EAC's help, another
Florida 2000 election may be inevitable, and Congress will
have no one to blame but itself. With a total operating
budget of just under 18 million dollars the EAC would make up
approximately half a percent of the total federal operating
budget: a small price to pay for helping protect our
democracy. If you think a good election costs a lot, you
should see how much a bad election costs.
We urge you to reject these efforts as part of the Super
Committee review of federal spending.
Respectfully submitted,
Dale Fellows,
President, Ohio Association of Election Officials.
Llyn McCoy,
First Vice President, Ohio Association of Election
Officials.
____
State Board of Elections,
Raleigh, NC, March 27, 2011.
Chairman Gregg Harper,
Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections,
Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Robert Brady,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
Re H.R. 672.
Gentlemen: As with any governmental agency, commission,
department or other entity, methods of improving efficiency,
streamlining procedures, and modernizing responsiveness
should all be considered to maintain viability for
constituents. These
[[Page H8030]]
studies would be beneficial for the Election Assistance
Commission. However, I strongly oppose H.R. 672. Termination
of this Commission is not in the best interests of the
elections process. The EAC serves a vital role in the conduct
of Federal elections as well as the smallest municipal
election. During an election, information sharing is vital--
from clerical administration to public communication. The EAC
can serve as a clearinghouse of information so that local
jurisdictions receive real-time, necessary data during the
conduct of a Federal election.
North Carolina adopted uniform procedures and forms for
Elections Administration while still allowing for local input
and decision-making that fits individual jurisdictions. Many
of the problems Federal elections in the United States face
can be traced to a lack of consistency and efficiency. The
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is the Agency that can
provide that needed consistency and broad guidance. In fact,
in its short history, the EAC already has adopted standards
for voting systems that can allow for nationwide uniformity.
Elections jurisdictions may use those standards as a baseline
when choosing voting systems and vendors.
One of the most disturbing trends occurring in the field of
elections is the rapid turnover of commission officials,
board members and elections staff. Although elections
comprise a mere fraction of a percent of total budgets, the
elections budgets are continually cut and reduced. Already
understaffed, we are reaching a point of compromising our
ability to adequately perform necessary duties. The EAC is
essential, filling a vital role when a local jurisdiction
does not have the personnel or equipment to conduct an
election without assistance.
Even more important is the status of voting systems and
equipment. By transferring the certification of voting
systems to the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and the Voluntary Voting System Standards to the
Federal Election Commission (FEC), the very real possibility
emerges that there will be no communication or compatibility
between the two efforts. This could lead to an impasse. Much
progress has been made in the struggle to uplift voting
equipment standards. The significant work done by the EAC
will be lost amongst the myriad other NIST responsibilities.
Additionally, the FEC is already overburdened,
understaffed, and currently does not handle any aspect of
election administration. How can the FEC effectively advise
state and local officials or provide the necessary support
and guidelines needed for full voter confidence in the
elections process? Piling more responsibility on an already
encumbered agency will only lessen its efficacy and will do a
disservice to taxpayers.
Perhaps a focus of this legislation should be to address
keeping both the EAC and the FEC fully staffed with
Commissioners so that each Agency has the ability to function
at full capacity, providing much-needed guidance to election
administrators while also judiciously stewarding taxpayer
dollars. As H.R. 672 is written, there is no provision for
the election community to provide input to either NIST or the
FEC. This participation and dialogue is critical to make sure
that all future voting systems truly meet the needs of the
voter as well as the requirements and limitations of poll
workers.
The EAC has amassed the most comprehensive public elections
library in the country. Their website is a wonderful tool for
both elections officials and the general public. Similarly,
North Carolina's award-winning website has been heralded as
an invaluable resource for our citizens. These communications
tools are an integral facet of the way election
administrators must interface with the American public in
this rapidly changing technological world. Without dedicated
resources for the public broadcasting of election information
and news, the elections process will become less transparent
and voters will become less aware of processes, procedures
and laws.
Another facet of the elections process in North Carolina is
the concept of the ``Wellness Check.'' Wellness Checks are
audits of our county boards of elections, serving as
preventative maintenance to keep things on the right track
and identify problems before they manifest. Results are
available for public inspection, with the goal of further
increasing voter confidence in elections. This concept could
become a function of the EAC, be carried into other aspects
of elections, and could further strengthen the integrity of
and faith in the national elections process.
Although elections are the responsibility of the States and
of local jurisdictions, they are mandated by Federal law.
Congress needs to do its part to ensure the Federal
government adequately and appropriately contributes to local
responsibilities. The EAC is an excellent way in which
Congress may manifest its support. Reassigning these
responsibilities to other, already strained entities will
diminish the modernization progress accomplished during the
first decade of the twenty-first century.
One of the greatest gifts Congress could give to the nation
is its continued support and investment into the elections
modernization process. By stewarding and tending the process
begun in the earlier years of this decade, Congress can
guarantee that all jurisdictions; large, small and somewhere
in-between, are equally equipped to handle the future of
elections; that each has modern and certified equipment; and
that the resources are available so that every qualified
voter in America has the same access to and confidence in the
elections process.
Respectfully, I ask that you reconsider the submission of
H.R. 672. My opposition to this legislation has been
articulated herein. Please do not hesitate to contact me
should you have any questions or require further commentary.
Yours sincerely,
Gary O. Bartlett,
Executive Director.
____
Election Officials of Arizona,
October 14, 2011.
The Next 2000 Election May be Just Around the Corner
Honorable Members of Congress Representing the Great State of
Arizona.
Is another 2000 election disaster lurking? At this point it
may not be a question of when, but rather a question of
where. While pundits, newspapers and politicians debate
issues like voter ID and early voting, election
administrators across the country are worrying about the
issues that will directly impact an election. The number one
issue facing election officials today is limited and ever-
shrinking budgets combined with aging equipment, technology,
and workers.
Direction on how to address these concerns exists . . . for
now. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an
independent federal agency created in the wake of the 2000
election to help solve these problems. The EAC provides
assistance to election officials in the form of best
practices, guidance, and the testing and certification of
voting systems. Basically, the EAC provides an outlet and
open forum for election officials to share their experiences,
consider alternatives, deliberate their outcomes, and
establish continuity of process thus strengthening our
democracy by helping election officials to do their job well.
However, if some members of Congress have their way, the EAC
may not provide these services much longer. There has been
movement in the House to eliminate the agency since last
year, labeling it ``wasteful'' and ``unneeded.'' However,
election administrators on the local level feel differently.
Although it has been argued that the EAC has outlived its
usefulness because the Help America Vote Act funding it
oversees has been exhausted, the EAC has become far more than
a distributor and auditor of money; the EAC is a repository
and resource of election management procedures, performance
measures, election materials, and administrative knowledge.
Effective designs of polling place signage, webinars on
topics such as contingency planning, minority language
glossaries of election terminology, Quick Start Guide
publications regarding Developing an Audit Trail, Conducting
a Recount, Acceptance Testing are all pertinent reminders for
veteran election officials as well as critical learning tools
for those officials newly elected, appointed, or hired.
The EAC has never been needed more than now. Election
officials across the United States are doing more with less
and it's only going to get worse. As budgets tighten and
voting equipment ages, the chances of another disaster
increase. Without the EAC's help, another Florida 2000
election may be inevitable, and Congress will have no one to
blame but itself. With a total operating budget of just under
18 million dollars the EAC would make up approximately half a
percent of the total federal operating budget: a small price
to pay for helping protect our democracy. If you think a good
election costs a lot, you should see how much a bad election
costs.
We speak out in opposition to the dissolution of the EAC
and the distribution of the remaining functions to the
Federal Election Commission.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration by the
Election Officials of Arizona.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that we haven't done
anything about jobs. Here we have a card that lists 25 different bills
that we've passed which help manufacturing, the economy, energy--bills
that are going to be great job creators. Yet the complaint has been
that the EAC is not dealing with those issues.
Members on the other side of the aisle who said that this is not
appropriate and that it's going to disenfranchise voters should
remember they all voted for this in 2002 when it had its 3-year
provision to sunset after that. So I think that argument will not fail.
In addition, the EAC has no regulatory or enforcement authority.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
H.R. 3463, which simply combines two bills, H.R. 672 and H.R. 359,
previously considered during this Congress. I opposed those bills then
and I oppose them now. Terminating the Election Assistance commission
and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, is a worse idea and a
greater waste of precious legislative time today than they were when
the Republican majority first brought these bills to the floor earlier
this year.
[[Page H8031]]
Mr. Speaker, since its creation, the Federal Election Commission has
served the valuable purpose of preserving the voting and civil rights
of our citizens which was born out of the scandal know as Watergate.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund succeeds in its purpose of
leveling the playing field when it comes to corporate versus public
funding of campaigns. By terminating taxpayer financing of presidential
election campaigns and party conventions, the Republican majority seeks
to permanently tilt the playing field in favor of special interest
groups and corporate money at the expense of the public interest.
Presidential campaigns are currently funded through the voluntary $3
check-off on income tax returns. Given the size of the deficit and the
national debt, the amount of money saving by terminating taxpayer
financing is de minimis--less than $1 billion--but will achieve a goal
long sought by conservatives who have never believed that public
financing of campaigns is a permissible use of federal revenues.
The Election Assistance Commission is charged with developing
standards for voting systems, advising and counseling on best voting
practices, assuring that every American has the right to vote, as well
as to facilitate such vote, and to make sure that every single vote is
counted. The precedent-setting work of the Election Assistance
Commission has been recognized by nations around the world. The
Election Assistance Commission has also played a central role in
improving the accessibility of voting for the country's more than 37
million voters with disabilities.
Let us not forget that the Election Assistance Commission was borne
out of the 2000 presidential election fiasco with its unforgettable
contributions to the political lexicon: ``hanging'' chads, ``pregnant''
chads, ``dimpled'' chads; ``butterfly ballots''; and ``voter intent.''
In response to the 2000 debacle, the Election Assistance Commission
has performed valuable work to ensure the reliability and
trustworthiness of our nation's election systems. It has played a
central role in collecting accurate and comparable election data. With
our nation's complex and diversified election administration system,
central data collection is essential if we are going to improve our
citizens' trust and confidence in election results. The Election
Assistance Commission develops and fosters the training and
organization of our nation's more than 8,000 election administrators.
Mr. Speaker, every vote counts--and every vote should be counted--and
that is why we must preserve the Election Assistance Commission and
oppose this legislation.
It is also important to note that abolishing the Election Assistance
Commission will not save taxpayers money, but rather simply shift costs
to the Federal Election Commission, FEC, and local governments. The FEC
is not an agency that can make decisions in a timely and responsive
fashion due to its partisan divisions. Consequently, transferring the
functions performed by the Election Assistance Commission to the FEC is
inconsistent with the national interest in ensuring election integrity,
improving voter access to the polls, and enhancing the quality of
election systems.
Mr. Speaker, the American people elected us to work on their
priorities and real problems, like the lack of jobs. They do not want
us to waste time on inconsequential matters of interest only to the Tea
Party. H.R. 3463 is unnecessary and a diversion from addressing the
real challenge facing our country. Therefore, I strongly oppose H.R.
3463 and I would urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this
misguided and reckless legislation that puts the integrity of our
election systems, and public confidence in campaign financing at risk.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the last thing we need to do in this House
as this legislative year draws to a close is to further the corrupting
influence of special interest money in presidential campaigns. But this
is what the Republican leadership is determined to do.
Last January, the House Republicans stampeded one part of this bill
through the House--provisions that terminate the system of public
funding of presidential campaigns that was established in the wake of
the infamous Watergate scandals, under Richard Nixon's presidency,
nearly 40 years ago. It's not enough to pass this bill once--the
Republicans insist we pass it again today. It is not enough that
virtually unlimited amounts of private money can now slosh through our
political system--over $280 million last year alone, thanks to the
Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court last year--we have to
pass a bill that asphyxiates the supply of public money in our
presidential campaigns.
The Republicans are also practicing gross hypocrisy. While this bill
ends public financing of presidential campaigns, the Republican Party
is seeking $18 million in public funding to support their nominating
convention next year.
Everyone knows that this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate and
would be vetoed by the President--because it is a corruption of good
government. But that does not impede the Republican leadership in the
House today. Rather than work with us on real legislation that would
deliver real jobs, real investment and real growth to the American
economy, the House Republicans would rather waste our time and continue
to deliver nothing to the American people.
To treat our democracy so cavalierly is disgraceful; to persist in
policies that, should they ever become law, will result in the complete
privatization of the political process by monied special interests, is
shameful.
The other part of this bill would eliminate the Election Assistance
Commission, which was established in the wake of the 2000 election
debacle in Florida. Its mission is to ensure that elections are
conducted properly, with assistance that promotes voter registration,
trained poll workers, and access to the polls by disabled Americans.
There is no justification for terminating this small agency, which
helps ensure our democracy works as intended.
The American people, and our democratic processes, deserve far better
than this legislation in the House today.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, once again, this House is
taking up a proposal that represents a direct attack on the will of the
American people.
Public financing for Presidential elections, which began in the
1970s, is one of the few opportunities where Americans are allowed to
specify how they want their tax dollars spent.
As Members of Congress, we are charged with representing the
interests of our constituents. In this particular instance, however, we
know precisely what the American people want. By voluntarily checking
this box on their tax forms, more than 10 million of our fellow
Americans have made their intentions explicitly clear. The Presidential
Election Campaign Fund exists because individual Americans expressly
opted to dedicate a portion of their taxes to that purpose.
In January, House Republicans voted to ignore the explicit intentions
of the American people and eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign
Fund. Thankfully, the Senate heard Americans' call and killed the bill.
And this year, millions of Americans again checked the box on their tax
forms for calendar year 2010, once again, explicitly telling the
government how they wanted their taxes spent.
Ironically, our Republican colleagues cite their own YouCut website
as a representative site, with at most, a few hundred thousand
followers. They disdain 10 million citizens but revere the few. This is
selective representation in its most rawest and worst form.
The bill before us today, H.R. 3463, will break faith with the
American people by ignoring their direction. Mr. Speaker, I urge my
colleagues to join me in defending the will of American taxpayers by
opposing this bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, while the Republican sponsors of the two
bills before us contend they will create jobs, their claim is spurious.
Economists have told us again and again that easing regulations has a
negligible effect on job creation. The only thing these bills will do
is make it harder for federal agencies to protect Americans through
safety standards and environmental protections.
One of the bills adds 35 pages to what is currently a 45 page law,
and is likely to add 21 to 39 months to the rulemaking process.
Agencies will be tied in knots and leave businesses without the
certainty they need.
To pay for this expansion of the federal regulatory process,
Republicans would have us eliminate the Election Assistance Commission.
I was proud to be one of the authors of the Help America Vote Act,
which established the EAC in order to fix the flawed system that led to
the electoral debacle of 2000. It passed with a strong bipartisan vote
of 357-48. The Commission's sole purpose is to provide states with the
resources they need to ensure everyone eligible to vote can cast their
ballots and have them counted. We cannot risk having our elections
determined by ``hanging chads.''
Instead of trying to erode our ability to protect voters, and instead
of promoting regulatory bills that will not put Americans back to work,
Republicans should join with Democrats to pass real jobs legislation.
Democrats have two plans on the table to create jobs and grow our
economy--the President's American Jobs Act and our Make It In America
plan. We should be debating and voting on those.
I strongly urge the defeat of these bills and hope Republicans will
finally set partisanship aside and work with us to help businesses hire
workers and to invest in our economy's future.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to reaffirm
a fundamental value of our democracy: elections must be decided by the
American people, not the special interests. I come to the floor to
defend the right of American citizens to vote in every election. I come
to the floor on behalf of clean campaigns.
Republicans, instead, have brought to the floor legislation that
would both diminish the
[[Page H8032]]
voting rights of Americans and shift control of our elections into the
hands of secret corporate donors. Once again, Republicans refuse to
focus on creating jobs and strengthening the economy for middle-class
Americans, the 99 percent, but are instead pursuing a narrow agenda to
benefit special interests, the 1 percent.
Last year, the Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent in a
court case called the Citizens United case. Their decision has
undermined our democracy and empowered the powerful by opening the
floodgates to big, secret money, resulting in a corporate takeover of
our elections.
As a result, the Democratic majority in the Congress, working with
President Obama, created the DISCLOSE Act. It would restore
transparency and accountability to federal campaigns, and ensure that
Americans know who is behind political advertisements.
Democrats in the House passed the DISCLOSE Act, but Senate
Republicans blocked its progress.
As a result, secret dollars are flowing into campaigns that represent
the interests of the 1 percent--not the urgent national interest--to
create jobs. Indeed, special-interest groups spent tens of millions of
dollars more in 2010 than any previous election cycle.
Today, Republicans want to take it another step further. The anti-
reform legislation we debate today strengthens the role of foreign-
owned entities and large corporations in funding political campaigns by
eliminating the Presidential Election Fund. For nearly 30 years, the
Fund has promoted small campaign donations and disclosure. It should be
strengthened and reformed, not eliminated.
Likewise, the legislation also eliminates the Election Assistance
Commission, which was created in the aftermath of 2000 elections. The
EAC should also be strengthened, especially as states across the nation
are taking active efforts to enact partisan measures to disenfranchise
the rights of American voters.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU: since the 2010
elections, almost 34 states have introduced voting legislation in 2011
that significantly impacts access to voting. These laws have the
potential of eliminating or making voting harder for more than 5
million Americans--harming millions of minorities, and hindering the
rights of seniors, students, and low income voters.
This legislation is opposed by a broad range of good government
organizations, from the League of Women Voters, to Americans for
Campaign Reform, to Democracy 21, and U.S. PIRG. In a letter, they have
warned against a 2012 presidential campaign ``being dominated by
bundlers, big donors, Super PACs, candidate-specific Super PACs, secret
contributions and the like.''
Further, polls have found that more than 70 percent of the American
people support the continuation of the presidential public financing
system.
In our democracy, voters determine the outcome of our elections--not
special interests.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort to further empower the
special interests--the 1 percent--in American elections--and to protect
the right to vote for all Americans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R.
3463 is postponed.
Recess
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess for a period of less than 15
minutes.
Accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
{time} 1405
After Recess
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Denham) at 2 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3463) to reduce Federal spending and
the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election
campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the Election
Assistance Commission, will now resume.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I am in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Bishop of Georgia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3463
to the Committee on House Administration with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 207. PROTECTIONS FOR ELDERLY, DISABLED, AND MILITARY
VOTERS.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or any amendment
made by this Act, to the extent that the Election Assistance
Commission is responsible for the administration or
enforcement of any of the following provisions of law as of
the Commission termination date described in section 1004(a)
of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (as added by section
201(a)), any successor to the Commission shall remain
responsible for the administration or enforcement of such
provisions after such date:
(1) Any provision of law relating to the rights of the
elderly to vote and cast ballots in elections for Federal
office.
(2) Any provision of law relating to the rights of the
elderly and other individuals who are registered to vote in
elections for Federal office to obtain absentee ballots in
such elections.
(3) Any provision of law relating to the access of the
elderly, the disabled, and other individuals to polling
places in elections for Federal office, including the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(4) Any provision of law relating to the protection of the
rights of members of the uniformed services and overseas
citizens to vote and cast ballots in elections for Federal
office, including the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act.
(5) Any other provision of law relating to the protection
of the right of citizens of the United States to vote in
elections for Federal office, including the Voting Rights Act
of 1965.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I offer the
final amendment of the bill which, if adopted, will not kill the bill
or send it back to committee. Instead, the bill will proceed to final
passage, as amended. The purpose of my amendment is simple. It deals
with one of my most valuable rights as an American citizen.
It is a right which many Americans throughout the course of our
history have shared blood, sweat, and tears to protect, including our
colleague and my dear friend, Representative John Lewis of Georgia. He
marched from Selma to Montgomery and endured billy clubs, horses, and
tear gas to preserve this sacred right.
The right to which I'm referring is the right to vote, as enshrined
in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and further protected in the
landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Help America Vote Act of
2002 and various other measures.
Today, nearly five decades after the Voting Rights Act was signed
into law and nearly 10 years since the Help America Vote Act, there is
still an unprecedented attack on voting rights in States across this
country.
Yet, the underlying legislation before the House today would abolish
one of the key provisions of the Help America Vote Act, the Election
Assistance Commission, which was designed to avoid a repeat of the
turmoil surrounding the 2000 Presidential election in Florida, where
problems with absentee and military ballots played a large role and led
to many of these ballots not being counted.
If the commission is abolished, it will undermine America's faith in
the integrity of our elections. According to the Brennan Center for
Justice, more than 5 million Americans in 2012 could be adversely
impacted by laws that tighten or restrict voting that were put into
effect just this year. The number is larger than the margin of victory
in two of the last Presidential elections.
Seniors, the disabled, and our Nation's veterans are now being turned
away from the polls for not having the photo identification. Popular
reforms like early voting and same-day voter registration are being
rolled back.
{time} 1410
Mr. Speaker, this situation should not be happening in the United
States of America today.
My final amendment, therefore, is simple. It states that any
successor to the Election Assistance Commission
[[Page H8033]]
shall remain responsible for the administration or enforcement of laws
relating to the rights of the elderly, the disabled, members of the
uniformed services, and overseas citizens to vote and cast ballots in
elections for Federal office.
In signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Lyndon Johnson
said that ``the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by
man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which
imprison men because they are different from other men.''
If this final amendment is approved, we can continue to tear down the
walls of injustice and ensure that our democracy is open for all
Americans to deliberate, to participate, and to engage with each other.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield the balance of my
time to my colleague, Representative Marcia Fudge of Ohio.
Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, there is no doubt that a concerted
voter suppression effort is under way in this Nation. Abolishing the
Election Assistance Commission, an agency charged with ensuring that
the vote of every American counts, is just another step in the voter
suppression effort and would completely remove oversight of the most
important process in our democracy.
Does it make sense to remove oversight at a time when Republican-led
legislatures across this Nation are passing laws to obstruct voting?
No, it absolutely does not.
In the first three quarters of 2011, 19 new State laws and two
executive actions were enacted to limit the ability of American
citizens to vote. They would make it significantly harder for more than
5 million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
Many of the bills, including one signed into law in my home State of
Ohio, include the most drastic voter restrictions since before the
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Seniors will be denied their right to the franchise, and the disabled
will find it more difficult to vote. Minorities and students will face
more challenges than ever before. Soldiers honorably serving our
country will be left with their absentee ballots uncounted. And let's
not forget the people who died for our right to vote. People were slain
to create the rights we enjoy today.
This determined effort is really about targeting a specific
population of eligible voters to change the outcome of the 2012
elections. Plain and simple, H.R. 3463 is yet another voter suppression
tactic.
Join me today in supporting this final amendment to guarantee the
right of every American citizen to cast their vote.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that an argument could be made
that in any way the elimination of the EAC would result in
disenfranchising any voter. We all believe that every person who should
vote, that needs to vote, that's allowed to vote, that wants to vote
should be allowed to do so.
I would like to point out that all of those that are speaking in
opposition that were here in 2002 when HAVA passed voted for HAVA. And
in HAVA, it contained the provision that created the EAC, which was
only supposed to last for 3 years. This is not a complicated lift to do
away with this. Does that mean when they voted for this in 2002 that
they were trying to disenfranchise voters? Obviously not. In no way is
this intended to do anything but clean up an agency that has an average
employee salary of $106,000 a year, has been sued for political
discrimination, problems with the military, an agency that cannot be
corrected but needs to be eliminated.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit and to
support this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190,
nays 236, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 872]
YEAS--190
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--236
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
[[Page H8034]]
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Bachmann
Giffords
Hartzler
Paul
Schmidt
Waxman
Woolsey
{time} 1442
Mrs. BLACKBURN and Mr. HALL changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 2011, I was unavoidably
detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 872. Had I
been present I would have voted ``yea''--On Motion to Recommit with
Instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 190, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 873]
AYES--235
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--190
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Bachmann
Giffords
Gohmert
Hartzler
McNerney
Paul
Schmidt
Waxman
{time} 1449
Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________