[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF H.R. 672, TO TERMINATE THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION;
H.R. 1934, TO IMPROVE CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS OF THE LIBRARY
OF CONGRESS; AND A COMMITTEE RESOLUTION ON SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Held in Washington, DC, May 25, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-578 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania,
PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia Ranking Minority Member
AARON SCHOCK, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
TODD ROKITA, Indiana CHARLES GONZALEZ, Texas
RICHARD NUGENT, Florida
Professional Staff
Philip Kiko, Staff Director
Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director
MARKUP OF H.R. 672, TO TERMINATE THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION;
H.R. 1934, TO IMPROVE CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS OF THE LIBRARY
OF CONGRESS; AND A COMMITTEE RESOLUTION ON SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2011
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m., in room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Daniel E. Lungren
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lungren, Harper, Gingrey, Schock,
Nugent, Brady, Lofgren, and Gonzalez.
Staff Present: Phil Kiko, Staff Director and General
Counsel; Peter Schalestock, Deputy General Counsel; Kimani
Little, Parliamentarian; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Yael
Barash, Assistant Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood,
Communications Director; Bob Sensenbrenner, Elections Counsel;
Karin Moore, Elections Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff
Director; Kyle Anderson, Minority Press Secretary; Khalil
Abboud, Minority Elections Staff; and Thomas Hicks, Minority
Elections Counsel.
The Chairman. I now call to order the Committee on House
Administration for today's committee markup. A quorum is now
present. We will proceed.
In today's markup, we will consider a bill to terminate the
Election Assistance Commission. Our Subcommittee on Elections
has held two hearings and heard from numerous witnesses on the
agency's remaining operations and its diminished value to those
who it was created to serve. We have heard and found a
compelling case, I believe, as to why the EAC has outlived its
usefulness and should be dissolved. Since 2005, the National
Association of Secretaries of State have passed two resolutions
calling for the EAC's dissolution.
We have also heard extensively from election administrators
from around the country; we have heard their views, their
ideas, and their suggestions. The feedback we received included
where to relocate the few valuable functions currently
performed by the EAC. I think these suggestions have improved
H.R. 672 and will be offered, I believe, in a manager's
amendment by my colleague, Mr. Harper.
H.R. 1934, a bill to improve operations at the Library of
Congress, allows the Library to retain the proceeds from the
sale or disposal of surplus property for the purpose of
purchasing similar or like property in that current or
subsequent fiscal year. This is an authority that has been
granted to both the U.S. Capitol Police and the Architect of
the Capitol in recent years and has been an asset to both
entities. This is a sensible authorization. I hope my
colleagues will support H.R. 1934.
And, finally, we will consider a controversial resolution
to designate Mr. Gonzalez as the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Elections. Mr. Gonzalez is a hardworking----
Mr. Brady. Could we do that first before we----
The Chairman [continuing]. Member of this committee. And I
look forward to passing it, even on a tough, close vote.
I would like to thank each of my colleagues for being here
today. I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Brady,
for his cooperation on many things and working, I think, to
help us make this place a more efficient place so that Members
might do their job for their constituents.
Mr. Brady.
[The statement of the chairman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
I think the Election Assistance Commission has performed an
important role in supporting the American election system. The
EAC was designed to be primarily a clearinghouse for
information and best practices to support our local election
officials who serve on the front line in our voting and
registration systems.
It continues to serve an invaluable support role for State
and local election officials, as well as for civil rights
organizations, who use it as a resource. While I agree that the
agency has fallen short of its full potential, I join with the
voter advocacy community, disability advocates, and many local
elected officials in calling for reform at the agency, but not
to terminate it.
The EAC Testing and Certification Program holds voting
systems manufacturers accountable both in testing and
performance in the field through the EAC Quality Monitoring
Program. The EAC continues to work with the Department of
Defense and local election officials to improve the voting
process for our men and women fighting in our military and
living and working overseas. These and other functions should
not be transferred to the FEC, as this bill would do, since the
FEC has consistently deadlocked on even the most basic issues.
This legislation appears to offer more occasions for
paralysis instead of support to the American electoral system.
The American people deserve to know, even at times of financial
and economic difficulty, that their ability to have their
voices heard remains a priority. And I urge my colleagues to
oppose this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Brady follows:]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I would now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 672,
a bill to terminate the Election Assistance Commission.
Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and
open to amendment at any point.
[The bill follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. But I understand that Mr. Harper, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Elections that sponsored the
bill, plans to offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to offer a manager's amendment to H.R. 672.
As the chairman noted in his opening remarks, this
committee has listened extensively to the elections community--
--
The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment in the
nature of a substitute will be considered as read.
[The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Harper. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And I would now recognize the gentleman for 5
minutes to speak in favor of the amendment.
Mr. Harper. Thank you. I just was in such a hurry, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I know that.
Mr. Harper. As the chairman noted in his opening remarks,
this is something that we have sought input on in a great way.
We have consulted with officials from across this country in an
effort to do what we can to support the integrity of our
elections more efficiently, recognizing the long-term budget
limits we are also facing.
The EAC initially had a 3-year mandate, but, as with most
government programs, it found a way to maintain its existence.
Unfortunately, it became a bloated bureaucracy that mismanaged
taxpayer dollars and has been the subject of two discriminatory
hiring lawsuits. Meanwhile, two of the EAC's four functions are
essentially complete, and the others can be performed more
efficiently without an entire agency supporting them.
The best course we can take, as the EAC's committee of
jurisdiction, is to dissolve the agency, end its wasteful
spending, and transfer its remaining beneficial functions to
another location. This manager's amendment terminates the EAC
and transfers the EAC's Office of Voting System Testing and
Certification to the Federal Election Commission.
It also creates formal mechanisms for input into the
development of the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines by
adding a guidelines review board composed of State and local
election officials and other important stakeholders. It
maintains the existing Technical Guidelines Development
Committee in its current form.
These changes to the bill came after listening to officials
and administrators throughout the country who were very
familiar with the voting and elections process. And I am very
thankful and appreciative for their input.
The manager's amendment includes other changes based on
suggestions we received. It transfers the testing and
certification functions to the Federal Election Commission
rather than to NIST. And it calls for two studies to look at
the best way to provide a national voting machine testing and
certification system that will be effective and beneficial.
Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying that, as we sit here
today, the Treasury Department is, in effect, using accounting
gimmicks to delay facing the fact that we cannot cut our
spending addiction. To sustain an agency that has done its
assigned studies, dispersed its assigned grants, and fulfilled
its mandate is the definition of irresponsibility.
We haven't rushed through this process. We have held
hearings. We can go back to hearings that we held in the
previous Congress. We have listened to numerous experts. We
have kept and reassigned programs that provide true value for
election administrators.
And now is simply the time to end the EAC and save American
taxpayers $14 million a year. It doesn't get any easier to find
an example of wasteful spending. If we can't do this, we might
as well pack up and go home, because this is as obvious and
clear as it gets.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Harper follows:]
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time.
Are there Members on the majority side who wish to be
heard?
Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I guess I need to start off by making an observation.
And I understand that we have had witnesses and we have had the
National Association, of course, of Secretaries of State. Their
position that was taken way back in 2005, it is not a new
position. I will say they have been very consistent, maybe
incorrectly, but, nevertheless, very, very consistent.
The other thing that I have pointed out was, to me, there
was an obvious disconnect between the Secretaries of State, for
some reason, in some States with the election officials on the
ground. And I failed to make the right analogy. I kept saying
the Secretaries of State, in many ways, were like the generals
and the election officials were the troops on the ground. But
then, on closer observation and reflection, Mr. Chairman, I
actually came to the conclusion that that is not a good
characterization.
If you look at the election officials--and some of them
have testified, and some of their comments have been made a
part of the record--in their praise of what the Election
Assistance Commission has done for them specifically, you will
note that even the election official in Sacramento County in
California probably takes care of the voting needs of a
population greater than the Secretary of State of New
Hampshire. I know that Jackie Callanen, the elections
administrator in my county, has about 1.5 million to 1.7
million people, far in excess of some of the testimony from the
Secretary of State from, let's say, New Hampshire.
So I think what is happening and the value of what the
Election Assistance Commission brings to the election processes
somehow has been reduced, diminished, and such by the
Secretaries of State for whatever reason. But the real
testimony, in my opinion, comes from those individuals that
really carry out the functions of holding elections and have
and see value in what the EAC does.
I will say, it is addressing the point of cost. I remember
reviewing letters from the Federal Elections Commission that
said, ``Yeah, maybe we will be able to do this''--in essence,
this is the way I interpreted the letter, and my colleague, the
author of the bill, may have read it a little differently. But
what they said is, We need more personnel, and we need more
money. They put us on notice, You are going to have to give us
more money. And, yeah, We think we can do it. But, again, what
agency or department, you know, wouldn't make a representation
that they can handle just about anything you are going to throw
at them as long as you plus-up personnel and funding?
The only thing--I will conclude in my statement, as far as
my opposition to my dear colleague's--I guess it is well-
intentioned, it is just not the best thing. You know, ``off
with the heads'' has never been a good process. And I think
what we will be discussing later in the way of amendments may
address some of the concerns that you rightfully have. Because
we agree with you; things can always be done more efficiently
and economically.
But at this time, though, I would like to be introducing
into the record, if I have unanimous consent--what I have, Mr.
Chairman, is a letter from the Federation of American Women's
Clubs Overseas, Incorporated. And they have written a letter in
opposition.
The problem that we have is that the letter has not
arrived, which is kind of an irony in itself. We passed the
MOVE Act to begin to eliminate some of the problems when it
comes to voting, and I would hate for this same delay to
prevent voices of thousands of overseas citizens represented by
the Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas not to be
heard.
So I will be asking unanimous consent to introduce that
letter into the record when I am able to do that. I know this
is prospective, but I am just saying that we know it is there--
--
The Chairman. The gentleman has asked permission to into
the record a letter we don't have when we get it----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
The Chairman [continuing]. And purports to say what the
gentleman said it says.
Mr. Gonzalez. Absolutely. You can trust me. You can take
that to the bank.
The Chairman. I see. Well----
Mr. Gonzalez. But I do have other letters that I----
The Chairman. No. Without objection, the gentleman is
allowed to introduce those into the record which he has and
those which he thinks he has.
[The letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gonzalez. All right. I will tell you this. I am willing
to place a wager that we have it.
But, at this point, I do have a couple of other letters
that I would like to place in the record, asking unanimous
consent. But I do want to point out that this comes from the
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
describing their opposition to the elimination of EAC under Mr.
Harper's bill.
The letter points out something which has not received
sufficient discussion, which is EAC's extensive language
services. For communities across the country, it would be
ruinously expensive to try to produce election materials in the
many languages spoken in the American melting pot, but the
Federal nature of EAC makes translation much more efficient and
cost-effective.
[The letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gonzalez. In addition, I would like to submit for the
record letters of opposition to H.R. 672 from the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights as well as from Demos, a
nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy organization.
The Chairman. Without objection, they will be entered into
the record.
[The letters follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gonzalez. I appreciate it.
And I would yield back at this time.
[The statement of Mr. Gonzalez follows:]
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Are there other Members who wish to be heard?
Is there anybody who has an amendment?
Mr. Gonzalez. I think Mr. Gingrey may want to be heard.
The Chairman. Mr. Gingrey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gingrey. Yeah, thank you. And, really, in support of
the manager's amendment.
I know my colleague from Texas, when he used the phrase, ``
`off with the head' is never a good policy,'' I am sure he was
referring to a long time ago in 1789 in Paris, but, certainly,
in recent news, off with the head of the snake, I am sure a
squadron of SEALS, United States SEALS, would say that was a
very good policy in regard to one Osama bin Laden.
Obviously, this is cutting off the head here. There is a
big snake behind the head, and maybe this is a small head. But
I really think that this is a step in the right direction in
regard to reducing unnecessary spending. As the subcommittee
chair and the author of the manager's amendment and author of
the bill has pointed out, you know, a $14 million savings a
year. It doesn't seem like much, but I think it is significant.
And we need to take this approach step by step by step, and
pretty soon we get the whole snake.
And to retain $4 million worth of spending for the parts of
the EAC and transfer it to the Federal Election Commission
where that good work, the work that my friend from Texas is
talking about, that many of the local election supervisors in
areas of large States that are even larger population that they
serve than maybe the Secretary of State of a small State. I
think he makes a good point. But I believe that the retention
of that part of the EAC and putting it in the right place under
the Federal Election Commission is the right thing to do.
So I do support the manager's amendment, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Other Members to be heard?
Anybody have an amendment?
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much.
And I will offer a substitute to the Harper amendment in
the nature of a substitute, which is in the Members' packets.
The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as
read.
[The amendment follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. And I now recognize the gentleman for 5
minutes to speak in favor of the amendment.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Over the past 5 years, during my time on this committee, we
have spent a great deal of time looking into the EAC. When she
was chair of the Elections Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren worked
very hard to improve how EAC was run and to highlight areas
where they needed to improve.
The result has been a series of changes and improvements,
including the hiring of a chief financial officer who could
help bring EAC's accounts into better shape, instituting
monthly reviews of their funds and improving auditing
procedures. At a hearing earlier this year, Mr. Harper
criticized expenditures that we trust Ms. Lafferty would have
caught but which, of course, predated and, indeed, inspired
those changes. That kind of progress is welcome, but no one
would deny that EAC needs to do more.
Of course, the Commission has been hampered for much of the
past 2 years by its shortage of commissioners, though I hope
that we will see the two vacancies filled very soon. The fully
staffed Commission can better exercise its authority to improve
its operations and to fulfill its mandate.
But some of the problems aren't EAC's fault at all. We can
improve their operations through legislation, and that is what
my substitute would do.
First, it reauthorizes EAC, an action long overdue. One of
the great ironies of the Help America Vote Act was that it had
a 3-year authorization while allowing commissioners to serve up
to 8 years, two 4-year terms.
More fundamentally, my substitute would create an entirely
new process for paying for and conducting testing of voting
equipment. This certification is too vital to do without, as
Mr. Harper has recognized by trying to ensure that the process
would continue under his bill. Unfortunately, we have seen how
hard it is for FEC to meet even its current responsibilities,
let alone new ones, whereas EAC certification has done wonders
for districts across the country.
Mr. Harper has spoken to the sizable amount of its budget
EAC spends on personnel costs. I won't go back over how those
fixed costs are faced by every agency and how rapidly they
would fall as a proportion of the whole were EAC's budget
larger, but this is a real problem. It is also one that EAC has
long recognized. They tried using GAO staff to perform some of
those roles and are currently working with other small agencies
on ways to reduce their administrative costs. But EAC is
staffed primarily and appropriately with election experts.
My substitute would call on the GAO to provide a proper
analysis of how EAC can reduce its administrative costs,
allowing the agency to focus on its true mission: election
assistance.
My substitute includes several other provisions focusing on
ways that government can save money at all levels--Federal,
State, and local--and ensuring that the rights of disabled
Americans are truly protected. That is what helping America
vote means, and that is what EAC can and should be doing.
I would like to end with a brief summary of what a troubled
election can look like: Phony absentee ballots were mailed out
to confuse voters. Robocalls spread misinformation about how,
when, and where to vote. Judicial orders prohibiting voter
intimidation at the polls were willfully ignored. Charges of
suppression and intimidation were leveled by and at both
parties. Voting rights groups received 15,000 calls at their
hotline describing problems. That election was last year.
We need EAC in this country. States are slashing their
election divisions' already-slender budgets, making EAC's
resources even more valuable to our local election officials.
Mr. Chairman, none of my colleagues on the Republican side
of the aisle were here in 2002, as I recall, to vote for the
Help America Vote Act. I actually voted against this act, not
because I didn't believe that the Commission wasnecessary and
its role would be vital, but I had a fundamental difference of opinion,
even on the Democratic side, with a certain provision, and I voted
against the Commission. But I was gratified it still passed, it was
created, and I think has, under the circumstances and with the hand its
been dealt, has actually been very, very effective if you talk to local
officials.
I am hoping that my substitute is, I think, the more
measured and deliberative way of trying to improve an entity
that can't be substituted by simply folding or being subsumed
by the Federal Election Commission. Every Member in this
committee deals with the Federal Election Commission, and you
know what that means. There is no way that I believe that you
think wholeheartedly in good faith that we can simply transfer
the tremendous responsibilities of the EAC, which are different
from the FEC, and assume that FEC is going to be able to do the
job. So I would ask for your consideration and for your vote on
my substitute.
And I would yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
And does the gentleman, Mr. Harper, wish to respond?
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harper. And I certainly appreciate the attempt to
reform EAC. I think it is just too little and too late of where
we are.
If you look at what we have right now, continuing the
agency until 2016 without any real structural change is just
enabling, in effect, the inefficiency we have seen and bad
behavior that we have also seen and experienced.
You know, even if we were to give the Federal Election
Commission all of the money that EAC uses to run testing and
certification, that is still less than 15 percent of the EAC
operating budget. You know, of that $4 million--$18 million
now, $4 million of that that would go, $1 million to FEC, $3
million would go to NIST; six employees would be transferred to
FEC to handle those responsibilities. But we have had this
agency grow, double in size in 3 years, with no new assigned
responsibilities. We could go through a number of the issues
that we have dealt with.
The fact is that elections are going to be primarily dealt
by the local officials using the Secretaries of State in those
respective States. The resources we have here, many of them
certainly have not been utilized, when it has been seen here,
too, that when EAC has had responsibilities for studies, they
haven't always fulfilled those responsibilities.
So this still doesn't address--your amendment doesn't
address the fact that more than 50 percent of this agency's
budget goes basically for overhead. And they have outlived
their usefulness, their responsibilities. They had a 3-year
mandate. We are now in the 9th year.
And when you look at where we are, I think this is not an
agency that needs to be reformed. I think we are in a situation
where--the late President Reagan said, there is nothing closer
on Earth to eternal life than a temporary government program.
Well, that is where we are. If we can't eliminate the EAC, then
we really can't eliminate anything here in Washington.
Yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yield's back.
The gentlelady from California is recognized for 5 minutes
to speak on the amendment.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't consume 5
minutes. I just wanted to thank my colleague from Texas for
this amendment.
As he mentioned, we had a series of hearings when I chaired
the Elections Subcommittee on the EAC. And we all know that
there were some deficiencies in its operation. I think we have
made solid progress with the Commission. Mr. Gonzalez has
mentioned some of the improvements, and I think the measure he
has put forward would enhance those improvements.
Why does this matter? We have said often here that it is
fundamental, it is a fundamental part of our democracy that we
have free and fair elections, that every vote be counted, that
every American be permitted to vote. And that is what this
commission is about. It is an important element of that
fundamental principle. So I think it would be a mistake just to
throw this effort out.
I commend Mr. Gonzalez for his very useful amendment and
congratulate him on his new position as ranking member on the
subcommittee.
And yield back.
Mr. Gonzalez. Did that already pass, by the way?
The Chairman. No, we haven't voted on that yet.
The gentlelady yields back.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Look, we are in unprecedented times in terms of what the
budget concerns issue. If people think this is a difficult
decision, you haven't seen anything yet to what we are going to
have to consider in this committee with respect to legislative
appropriations going down the line.
If consolidation is not appropriate here, I don't know what
is. The good parts of consolidation are that you take already-
existing programs, you ferret out those which don't work, and
you put that together with lower-overhead, effective,
functioning elements. I am unaware of any other agency,
temporary or permanent, that has as high an overhead percentage
of their overall budget as this. I mean, it isstaggering when
you realize what their overhead costs, administrative costs, in the EAC
is.
So this is one of the simpler things to do, I would think.
You take and you identify those functions that actually still
have a reason to exist, and you try and find a place where they
could fit in without expanding overhead. So you are saving
overhead, you have tried to determine what the essential
functions are, you try to put them in a legitimate place, and
you try to eliminate excessive cost.
It is not a lot of money, but it is one of things that we
have to do, I think, in this committee with respect to our
jurisdiction. So I would hope that we would look at it that
way. We are not attempting in any way whatsoever, as far as I
can see, by the gentleman from Mississippi's amendment in the
nature of a substitute, his own amendment, trying to disregard
the importance of the vote. But we are trying to also not
disregard the taxpayer, and try and give them some evidence
that when we see something outlive its usefulness we are
willing at least to admit to that and attempt to see if there
is anything that is still useful and fit it in somewhere else
where we save money and still allow it to be done.
So I yield back the balance of my time. And if there are no
more comments, we will vote on the gentleman from Texas's
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. Gonzalez. And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded
vote on my amendment.
The Chairman. A recorded vote is requested, and the clerk
will call the roll.
Those who are in favor of the amendment will signify by
saying, ``Aye,'' and those who are opposed will signify by
saying, ``Nay.''
And the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gingrey.
Mr. Gingrey. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Schock.
Mr. Schock. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rokita.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nugent.
Mr. Nugent. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. No.
The ayes are three, the nays are five. The gentleman's
amendment fails.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Are there any other amendments?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a perfecting
amendment.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And
though I regret that my substitute, which was perfect in its
own nature, I am offering a perfecting amendment.
The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as
read--or the perfecting amendment will be considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. And I recognize Mr. Gonzalez for 5 minutes to
speak in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I do not think that Mr. Harper's bill will do what he and
those that will be supporting it hope that it will do. I fear
that the result will be the disenfranchisement of many
thousands of voters. I worry that its cost savings won't
materialize, as FEC has to staff up to handle the new duties
you would assign them. Other costs, I fear, would simply be
pushed onto our already-strapped States. But I haven't
succeeded in convincing you of this, but maybe the GAO would.
My amendment, then, would call on the GAO to study the
potential impact of the Harper bill and report to Congress on
whether it would do what it is supposed to be doing. Can FEC
fulfill these functions? Would voters be disenfranchised? Would
there really be savings of money?
GAO would report back on this Congress. And, if they
confirm Mr. Harper's analysis, the EAC would be eliminated as
he desires. But, if not, GAO, if they confirm my theories, we
would have a chance to change our minds.
That is what my amendment does. It wouldn't stop the
elimination of EAC; it just gives us a second opinion, a chance
to reconsider before we take the drastic step of eliminating an
agency which I believe remains the most viable entity to meet
the demands and challenges of conducting modern-day elections.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Does the gentleman from Mississippi wish to be heard?
Mr. Harper. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you.
The EAC was first established with four program areas:
grants management, voting systems testing and certification,
communications clearinghouse, and research. Those were the four
areas.
Well, the idea of a 3-year mandate was to fulfill those
responsibilities that we had. And I think it is really a far
stretch to say that eliminating an inept government agency is
going to disenfranchise voters. Everybody on this panel, in
this committee, have the desire to make sure that everybody
that should vote, wants to vote, has the opportunity to vote.
And I think that that is quite a stretch.
And I don't know, if we do another study--after we have had
reports on the condition of the EAC in the last Congress when I
first came in and now in this Congress, it is clear that they
cannot manage themselves, in the things that have taken place.
If we look at--we can go back to a little over 2 years ago, and
we find out that they have spent almost $7,000 for employee
shirts for morale and messed that order up and there were 200-
plus shirts over-ordered. And you look at their conditions on
the audit. They couldn't even complete the audit process. They
have had years to work out the differences with a study with
the Social Security Administration that hasn't been completed,
that they keep punting on.
So I think it is really a stretch to say that this is going
to disenfranchise voters. I mean, this is supposed to be a
nonpartisan agency, the EAC. And so what happens is they get
sued for political discrimination, and we pay out a substantial
settlement as a result of that. And, again, there is another
issue, another incident of discrimination that is ongoing in
this agency.
So let's take what we need to take out of EAC, the best
part, the essential part of EAC, and let's transfer--let's show
that we can do something in this place that is truly trying to
reduce the size of government and the cost of government. You
know, we would have a hard time saying that more than 10
percent of what this agency does would be essential. So let's
transfer it on over. Let's move those things there. Let's do
things to make sure that people do have the opportunity to
vote, and let's not reward an agency that has been sued for
political discrimination.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I just don't think that, number
one, everything that has been said is accurate, but, number
two, this is not about rewarding an agency. This is about
having a system in place that will make sure that all the
Americans who want to vote have a chance to do that.
And I would yield time to my colleague from Texas, Mr.
Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. I thank you very much, Ms. Lofgren.
I guess in response to Mr. Harper's comments, the nature of
the complaints and issues relative to the EAC, can anyone tell
me if the FEC has had any similar issues? Lawsuits? How much of
the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, as far as their
budget, in comparison to the EAC, is there a disproportionate
amount of money on personnel? I don't know if they spent $7,000
on T-shirts or not. I really doubt it. Who would want to go
around with an FEC T-shirt?
But it really is the question. And I mean this in good
faith. I think we are rushing to judgment. And so, all my
perfecting amendment does is simply say, get the GAO, which is
the gold standard. We have got to admit. Whenever we have a
problem, we look to GAO. Even this committee, in the contested
election of Florida 13, it really is GAO thatdetermined that
those machines did not malfunction. And Mr. Lungren was here for that;
Ms. Lofgren was part of that task force. And I just don't see, if we
had that kind of faith in GAO, to determine whether this Congress was
going to sit a Member from Florida 13, that we wouldn't have the same
degree of faith to affirm what we are trying to do here today, and that
is get rid of an agency.
And, as the chairman pointed out, there is nothing wrong
with consolidation and saving money. I think we are all for
that. But everything is not a simple math problem. And I think
that was brought out by certain individuals that were
testifying in Congress recently on the budget. There are
consequences to the cuts. So I think we have to be very wise
where we cut, where we consolidate. What is the consequence to
us? What is the consequence to elections? To the rights of
citizens in this country?
When I say that individuals are going to be
disenfranchised, I know you may doubt me, but I am very sincere
about that. Because I know how efficient elections have been
held with the assistance of the EAC in my own jurisdiction, in
District 20. I know what it means there. Now, maybe that
doesn't translate to everyone's districts, but I would venture
to guess a majority of the districts are better today for the
work of the EAC.
All I am asking is--it will be eliminated. If GAO comes
back and says, ``Mr. Harper, you and everybody that is on your
side, you are absolutely right; FEC can do it, they can do it
cheaper, they can be just as effective, and there is no need to
have it''--and I always believed that the 3 years really was.
We were going to revisit it, which is what we are doing now,
sort of a sunset provision. But I never anticipated that you
just would basically do away with the agency without conducting
something that would be in-depth. I don't think that we have
conducted that.
And it is not that we have provided you with a lot of
information either, to be honest with you. We don't have the
resources. Now, Members of Congress may spend 60 percent or
more on personnel, and we still don't have enough to meet all
the needs of our constituents. So sometimes you can look at
budgets and draw certain conclusions. But we have to see, what
is the value for that dollar? Can they do a better job? We are
saying yes. All I am saying is, can we slow down the process?
If you are right, it will be eliminated. And if GAO comes
and tells us, ``Hey, guys, you got it wrong,'' guess what? We
are going to have to look at it. That is all that my perfecting
amendment does.
And I would yield the time back to Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. And I would yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
So the question will be on the gentleman's amendment to ask
the GAO to give the A-okay to the FEC or the EAC.
All those in favor, say, ``Aye.''
Those opposed, ``No.''
The chair believes that the noes have it. The noes have it.
Does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote?
Mr. Gonzalez. A recorded vote is requested.
The Chairman. A recorded vote is requested. Those in favor
will reply by saying, ``Aye''; those opposed, ``Nay.''
And the clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Gingrey.
Mr. Gingrey. Nay.
The Clerk. Mr. Schock.
Mr. Schock. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Rokita.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nugent.
Mr. Nugent. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
Mr. Brady. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Nay.
According to the clerk's roll, there are three ayes and
five nays, and the amendment fails.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Are there any other amendments?
If not, without objection, the previous question is ordered
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
All those in favor, signify by saying, ``Aye.''
All opposed, signify by saying, ``Nay.''
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes
have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is
agreed to.
Now I move that the----
Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes?
Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, I would like to announce that the
minority will request 2 additional days to provide by clause 2,
rule XI of House rules to file additional views.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Brady. Thank you.
The Chairman. Now I move the committee report H.R. 672
favorably to the House with an amendment.
The question is on the motion.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying,
``Aye.''
All those opposed, ``Nay.''
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XI, Members are entitled to 2
additional calendar days to file such views in writing and as
signed by the Member with the clerk of the committee, if any
Member indicates an intention to file such views.
I ask unanimous consent that committee staff be authorized
to make any necessary technical or conforming changes to the
measure the committee has just considered. And, without
objection, it is ordered.
Now we will move to this one, H.R. 1934. I would like to
call up and lay before the committee H.R. 1934, to improve
certain administrative operations at the Library of Congress.
The bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at
any point.
[The bill follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. All Members have copies of this. Does any
Member wish to be heard on this bill?
Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The ranking member is recognized.
Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, this bill would authorize the
Library of Congress to dispose of surplus or obsolete
properties of the Library through interagency transfers,
trades, sales, and other appropriate methods.
In the 111th Congress, our committee marked up H.R. 5681,
which provided for this authority and others. That bill passed
the House but unfortunately stalled in the Senate in the final
days of the session and did not become law.
This new, simplified bill omits two of these provisions
that were passed last year and retains bipartisan support. It
would provide a useful funding tool for the Library of
Congress, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Anybody else wish to be heard?
If not, I will move that the committee report H.R. 1934
favorably to the House.
The question is on the motion.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying,
``Aye.''
All those opposed, signify by saying, ``No.''
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
Does any Member wish to file supplemental minority
additional views for inclusion in the committee report?
All right.
I ask unanimous consent the committee staff be authorized
to make any necessary technical or conforming changes to the
measure that the committee has just considered. Without
objection, so ordered.
Now for the controversial item on the agenda, consideration
of a committee resolution to adjust the Democratic membership
on the Subcommittee of Elections.
I now recognize the ranking member to offer the resolution.
Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, I call up the committee
resolution, which is in the Members' packet, and ask unanimous
consent that the committee resolution be considered as read.
The Chairman. Without objection, the resolution will be
considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
[The resolution follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
resolution?
Mr. Gonzalez. I seek recognition.
The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Gonzalez. The only request is that we have a secret
vote.
The Chairman. The gentleman's request is denied.
All those in favor of agreeing to the committee resolution,
say, ``Aye.''
All opposed, say, ``No.''
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes
have it, and Committee Resolution 112-8 is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon
the table.
And we have concluded our markup today. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]