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…
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).
I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a valued member of the House Administration Committee.
I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
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. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
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. 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.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.