    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       MARKUP OF H.R. 94, TO AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 TO
    PROHIBIT THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR POLITICAL PARTY CONVENTIONS; H.R.
    95, TO REDUCE FEDERAL SPENDING AND THE DEFICIT BY TERMINATING TAXPAYER
      FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND PARTY CONVENTIONS;
     H.R. 1994, ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION TERMINATION ACT; COMMITTEE
      RESOLUTION DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST IN CA-43; AND COMMITTEE
               RESOLUTION DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST IN TN-9

    =======================================================================

                                    MEETING

                                   before the

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                      Held in Washington, DC, June 4, 2013

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

                           Available on the Internet
                                 www.fdsys.gov

                                   ----------
                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    81-809 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2013

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                     CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, 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                 JUAN VARGAS, California
    RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida

                               Professional Staff

                          Kelly Craven, Staff Director
                      Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director

       MARKUP OF H.R. 94, TO AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 TO
    PROHIBIT THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR POLITICAL PARTY CONVENTIONS; H.R.
    95, TO REDUCE FEDERAL SPENDING AND THE DEFICIT BY TERMINATING TAXPAYER
      FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND PARTY CONVENTIONS;
     H.R. 1994, ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION TERMINATION ACT; COMMITTEE
      RESOLUTION DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST IN CA-43; AND COMMITTEE
               RESOLUTION DISMISSING THE ELECTION CONTEST IN TN-9

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m., in Room
    1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Candice S. Miller
    [chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Miller, Harper, Gingrey, Rokita,
    Nugent, Brady, Lofgren and Vargas.
        Staff Present: Kelly Craven, Staff Director; Peter
    Schalestock, Deputy General Counsel; Joe Wallace, Legislative
    Clerk; Yael Barash, Assistant Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood,
    Communications Director; Linda Ulrich, Director of Oversight;
    Bob Sensenbrenner, Elections Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Minority
    Staff Director; Matt Pinkus, Senior Policy Analyst; Khalil
    Abboud, Minority Elections Staff; Thomas Hicks, Minority
    Elections Counsel; Greg Abbott, Minority Professional Staff
    Member; and Eddie Flaherty, Minority Professional Staff Member.
        The Chairman. I would like to call to order the Committee
    on House Administration for today's committee markup. A quorum
    is present so we can proceed. First of all, the meeting record
    will remain open for 5 legislative days so that members might
    submit any materials that they wish to have included for the
    record.
        Today we will consider five items in our markup: A
    committee resolution dismissing the election contest in the
    43rd Congressional District of California; a committee
    resolution dismissing the election contest in the 9th
    Congressional District of Tennessee; the committee is also
    going to be considering H.R. 94, which prohibits the use of
    public funds for political party conventions; H.R. 95, which
    terminates taxpayer financing of presidential election
    campaigns and party conventions; and then finally as well in
    the mark will be H.R. 1994 under consideration which is the
    Election Assistance Commission Termination Act.
        Our two election contests dismissals, first of all, I would
    like to comment that both of these contests fail every test of
    validity. This committee has made a practice in the past of
    considering all contests under the Federal Contested Elections
    Act in public meetings to assure that they are treated fairly,
    and I hope that commitment to full and fair considerations
    would not be jeopardized by meritless filings as both of these
    two clearly are.
        Our next two items on the agenda, again, cover the
    Presidential Election Campaign Fund, the PECF. This committee
    held hearings in the 111th Congress that included testimony on
    the PECF and the House voted on similar bills in the 112th
    Congress, and I think in light of what is happening with this
    fund and changing times as well, it is certainly appropriate
    for us to be revisiting this legislation today.
        The money in the PECF comes from taxpayers who are given
    the option to have $3 out of their taxes that they are already
    paying placed in the fund. Taxpayers, I think, are already
    voting to end the PECF regardless of what Congress does here
    because at its peak of its popularity in 1980, about 29 percent
    of filers actually participated in this fund. By 2012, however,
    that dropped to approximately 5 percent. So even though it
    doesn't cost them more in taxes, the American people are
    telling us that this is a program that they don't want.
        Since we started using taxpayer funds for presidential
    campaigns and party conventions, supposedly to restore
    confidence in government, 20 percent of the American people
    actually think less of their elected officials than when we
    started. So it is no surprise that they don't want to pay for
    this failed program anymore.
        The PECF's popularity has certainly decreased among
    politicians as well. In fact, despite his stated support for
    this program, President Obama was actually the first major
    party candidate to entirely opt out of the program since it
    started. He did not participate in either the primary or
    general elections. Major candidates started refusing primary
    election money as far back as 2000. And in 2012, only three
    candidates applied for money from this fund. They were Gary
    Johnson, Buddy Roemer and Jill Stein. So taxpayers don't
    support the fund, the candidates are not using it, and I think
    citizens don't have any more confidence in the government
    because of the program, so I would say it is a textbook example
    of a failed program, one that we need to end.
        One part of the PECF pays part of the cost for nominating
    conventions for the major political parties, which are now 4-
    day extravagances that the major television networks don't
    broadcast in their entirety anymore. Last year the RNC and DNC
    received about $18 million each to conduct their party
    nominating conventions. That is $36 million in tax dollars
    spent for use by political parties.
        The parties themselves raised another $80 million or so in
    private money for their conventions. I would say that clearly
    the parties are up to the job of paying for their own
    conventions. They don't need taxpayer subsidies to help do
    that.
        I think if they knew the details of what they were actually
    paying for, taxpayers would even be less happy about it. It was
    interesting looking at a review by Senator Coburn at 2008 funds
    that were provided for conventions. The funds were used for
    things like floral arrangements, gift bags and live music and
    even makeup consultants, this at a time certainly when people
    all over our Nation are learning to get by with less. So I do
    not think that as stewards of the taxpayer dollars in good
    conscience, we should be spending taxpayer money on political
    conventions. H.R. 94 then would prohibit taxpayer funds from
    being used for party conventions, and I think it is at least a
    start.
        H.R. 95 would eliminate the PECF altogether and use the
    remaining funds to pay down the deficit. Money that would have
    gone into the fund in the future will be available for other
    programs and the $260 million sitting in that fund today will
    go straight toward cutting the amount of money that we would
    have to borrow and actually reducing the deficit.
        Speaking of failed programs, I also think it is time for
    H.R. 1994, the Election Assistance Commission Termination Act
    to end. It has far outlived its purpose, no longer benefits
    voters or election officials, and yet despite an original
    sunset date of 2005, it continues to exist without any
    commissioners.
        My colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, has led this
    mission to finally shut down this agency that has become a
    prime example of waste shielded by bureaucracy. The EAC has no
    more money to give out to States, its research programs are
    completed, the Voting System Certification Program that it runs
    is built around a model and a marketplace that has failed, and
    needs to be really reimagined.
        The EAC hasn't even had commissioners or an executive
    director since 2011 and the country does not seem to be
    suffering as a result. In fact, the academic research that we
    have seen so far says that the operation of the 2012 election
    was really no worse than the 2008 election. Most of the
    problems that we saw certainly in the last election were from
    negligence at the local level. So there is just no need for
    this agency to exist. We need to shut it down.
        At this time, I would like to recognize my colleague and
    the committee's ranking member, Mr. Brady, for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. Brady. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have an opening
    statement. I do have a statement for each bill when we call up
    the bills and we will be offering amendments and we will do it
    at that time.
        The Chairman. Very well. I also ask unanimous consent to
    enter into the record the statement from a sponsor of H.R. 94
    and 95, Mr. Tom Cole, concerning the Presidential Election
    Campaign Fund, and, without objection, that will be so ordered.
        [The statement of Mr. Cole follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I would ask if any other members have an
    opening statement at this time? The chair recognizes the
    gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        It has been more than 4 years since my first oversight
    hearing with the Election Assistance Commission as a member of
    this committee, and more than 2 years since I first introduced
    legislation to terminate the EAC. Since that time, the agency's
    actions, or lack thereof, has proven why the original bill did
    not go far enough in cutting this bloated agency spending. The
    EAC has proven, yet again, that it is not necessary to the
    conduct of Federal elections. It is an unnecessary expenditure
    of taxpayer funds.
        The EAC initially had a 3-year mandate, but as with most
    government programs, it found a way to maintain its existence.
    Unfortunately, it has become a bloated bureaucracy that
    mismanaged taxpayer dollars and has been the subject of two
    discriminatory hiring lawsuits, both of which cost the
    taxpayers money to resolve. The remaining EAC functions, to the
    extent they are useful, can be performed more efficiently by
    other government or private entities. The best course that we
    can take as the EAC's committee of jurisdiction is to simply
    dissolve the agency and end its wasteful spending.
        The EAC has outlived its useful life. The Commission was
    originally designed to distribute money and oversee upgrade of
    States' voting machines. The EAC has distributed over $3.1
    billion of money for States for machine upgrades and election
    improvements, and that stream of funding has ended. The EAC's
    testing and certification program for voting machines has been
    almost entirely left unused in recent years. The program only
    has 11 voting machines with current certification and one in
    the testing phase. The machines are still being tested to
    standards created in 2005. This onerous costly program is
    outdated and stifles innovation in the elections community.
        Even more important, the EAC has not had enough
    commissioners to act and conduct business since December of
    2010 and has not had any commissioners since December of 2011.
    The Commission has also lacked an executive director since
    December 2011 and a general counsel since May of 2012,
    prohibiting them from conducting official business for the last
    2 years. And the overwhelming majority of the country does not
    seem to have noticed. Yet despite its absence of any mission or
    leadership, the agency is still receiving an appropriation of
    $11.5 million.
        Wasting money on ineffective useless agencies like the EAC
    is yet another example of irresponsible government spending. We
    need to finally put an end to this. This agency has outlived
    its usefulness and to continue to fund it is the definition of
    irresponsibility. This is not a conclusion that we have come to
    lightly. We put in the time and effort through hearings and
    meetings with experts and election officials, and come to the
    conclusion that this agency needs to go.
        NASS, the National Association of Secretaries of State, a
    bipartisan organization, adopted resolutions calling for the
    dissolution of the EAC in 2005, and renewed that again in 2010.
    It is simply the time to end the EAC and save the American
    taxpayers almost $12 million a year at a time when our Nation
    is hurting financially.
        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 as it gets.
        Chairman Miller, thank you for your time and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you, gentleman. Are there any other
    committee members that wish to have an opening statement?
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Dr.
    Gingrey.
        Mr. Gingrey. Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for
    calling this important markup on elections legislation. I am in
    strong support of the combined efforts by my good friends Mr.
    Cole and Mr. Harper 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 are becoming increasingly expensive and
    costing billions of dollars, the idea of having taxpayers
    contribute matching funds to them is ludicrous. Passage of Mr.
    Cole's bills to eliminate The Presidential Election Campaign
    Fund would immediately return approximately $260 million to the
    Treasury.
        Regarding H.R. 1994, I believe that the Election Assistance
    Commission has indeed outlived its usefulness. The Election
    Assistance Commission was designed to distribute money to
    States to make improvements to their election processes.
    However, the Commission has not had a quorum since 2010.
    President Obama himself appears to believe the Commission now
    has little value as evidenced by his creation of a new entity
    to advise on elections. Eliminating the Election Assistance
    Commission is estimated to save taxpayers at least $11.5
    million a year.
        Madam Chairman, in the midst of 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. I believe
    the bills we are marking up here today help to accomplish those
    goals.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Do any other members
    have an opening statement?
        If not, at this time I will call up and lay before the
    committee an original resolution dismissing the election
    contest for the 43rd District of California. Without objection,
    the first reading of the resolution is dispensed with. The
    resolution is considered read and open for amendment at any
    point.
        [The resolution follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Let me just, first of all, say in regards to
    both of these election contests, these contests are about as
    frivolous as election contests can be. Apparently they are both
    sent by the same individual who is incarcerated, I think, in
    Tennessee. But we had the legal staff look back and for about a
    century, we have really taken up even the most frivolous
    contests to the full House for dismissal in an effort to be
    fair and transparent, so again, we bring up these resolutions
    for the sake of the institution, not because either of them
    have any merit whatsoever.
        Is there any debate on this resolution?
        Do any members want to offer an amendment to the
    resolution?
        If not, I move the committee favorably report the original
    resolution to the House. The question is on the motion. All
    those in favor, signify by saying aye; those opposed, say nay.
        The motion is carried. In the opinion of the chair, it has
    carried.
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chair, I do agree with dismissing the
    frivolous and ridiculous election contest, but I would like to
    announce that minority members will use two additional calendar
    days provided by clause 2(l) of rule XI of the Rules of the
    House in order to file views.
        The Chairman. Very well. I thank the gentleman. Without
    objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table and
    pursuant to clause 2 of rule XI, the member is entitled to two
    additional calendar days to file such views in writing signed
    by that member to the clerk of the committee.
        I will now call up and lay before the committee an original
    resolution dismissing the election contest for the 9th District
    of Tennessee. Without objection, first reading of the
    resolution is dispensed with, the resolution is considered read
    and open for amendment at any point.
        [The resolution follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Is there any debate or amendments to this
    resolution?
        If not, I move the committee favorably report the original
    resolution to the House. The question is on the motion. All
    those in favor signify by saying aye; those opposed, say nay.
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes
    have it, the motion is agreed to. Without objection, the motion
    to reconsider is laid on the table.
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chair, again I would like to announce that
    the minority members will use the 2 additional calendar days
    provided by clause 2(l) of rule XI of the Rules of the House in
    order to file views.
        The Chairman. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XI, the member
    is entitled to two additional calendar days to file such views
    in writing and signed by that member with the clerk of the
    committee.
        I will now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 94, a
    bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the
    use of public funds for political party conventions. Without
    objection, the first reading of that bill is dispensed with and
    the bill is considered read and open for amendment at any
    point.
        [The bill follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Do any members of the committee wish to
    comment on this bill?
        Mr. Brady.
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chair, I urge the defeat of this bill.
    Both major parties have used public funds to pay for their
    nominating conventions since 1976. While I believe that paying
    for party conventions is not the best use of our tax dollars, I
    also do not believe that this legislation--I do not believe
    this legislation is the best solution. We should reject it
    because we need a comprehensive fix to the way we finance
    presidential campaigns. Hopefully this committee can have a
    hearing on the excellent proposal by Representative David Price
    to do just that, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this
    proposal. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. As I
    mentioned in my opening statement, I think when we think about
    $16 trillion and no end in sight worth of debt, the American
    taxpayers should not be really having welfare for politicians
    or political parties running infomercials for presidential
    campaigns. I think that this bill is long overdue.
        Do any other members wish to comment on this bill?
        Do any members want to offer an amendment to the bill?
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment which has
    been distributed to the members.
        The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes to
    talk to his amendment.
        [The amendment by Mr. Brady follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Brady. Thank you, Madam Chair. My amendment ends the
    use of public funding as well as the use of soft money
    contributions for nominating conventions. We should not
    eliminate public money for party conventions only to replace it
    with undisclosed contributions from special interests.
        My amendment institutes a hard money system subject to
    contribution limits. My amendment is based on a proposal by
    Representative David Price from North Carolina who has been a
    leader in this area for a long time. My amendment is also a
    commonsense replacement for the current system which is in
    desperate need of reform. This is an important first step that
    provides more accountability and disclosure in how we finance
    our conventions. I ask for your support of this amendment.
        The Chairman. I would say to the gentleman, since we just
    received the amendment just a little bit ago, we haven't really
    had a chance to completely digest his amendment. I am very
    interested in our overall goal of stopping taxpayer financing
    for these kinds of things. But if the gentleman is interested
    in working with us, I think we would be willing to do so. If
    you are interested in withdrawing that amendment, I certainly
    would commit to the gentleman that I would be willing to look
    at this in depth and perhaps we can come to some agreement
    before we go to the floor with it. I would certainly be open to
    that with the gentleman.
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chairman, I am always interested in
    working with you, and with that, I will withdraw my amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Are there any other
    comments or any other members that want to offer an amendment
    to this bill?
        If not, I would move that the committee favorably report
    H.R. 94 and the question is on the motion. All those in favor
    signify by saying aye; those opposed say nay.
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
    motion is agreed to.
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chair, I would like to announce that the
    minority members will use the 2 additional calendar days
    provided by clause 2(l) of rule XI of the Rules of the House in
    order to file views, and I thank you.
        The Chairman. Again, to the gentleman, pursuant to clause 2
    of rule XI, the member is entitled to 2 additional calendar
    days to file such views in writing signed by that member with
    the clerk of the committee.
        I would now call up and lay before the committee H.R. 95, a
    bill to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating
    taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party
    conventions.
        Without objection, the first reading of the bill is
    dispensed with and the bill is considered read and open for
    amendment at any point.
        [The bill follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Is there any debate or members that wish to
    offer an amendment? The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chair, I urge also the defeat of this
    bill. Created in the wake of the Watergate scandal, The
    Presidential Election Campaign Fund was designed to restore
    integrity to our presidential elections. Since 1976,
    presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle have opted
    to fund their campaigns using PECF instead of private
    contributions.
        Like convention funding, all money used for the campaign
    funding functions of the PECF is contributed voluntarily by
    taxpayers. We should honor the wishes of those taxpayers.
    Beginning with the Citizens United decision, we have seen a
    disturbing pattern of increasing influence of large and
    undisclosed monies in our politics. Terminating the only public
    finance system at the Federal level runs the risk of handing
    over our election to special interests entirely.
        The system needs reform, not repeal. By modernizing the
    system, we can ensure that Americans continue to have a voice
    in the process, no matter how small their contribution, and I
    urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Are there any other
    debate does any member have an amendment to the bill?
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chair, I have an amendment in the nature
    of a substitute which has been distributed to the members.
        [The amendment of Mr. Brady follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Brady. Presidential elections see dramatic increases in
    turnout compared to midterm elections, overburdening election
    officials and creating unique problems, particularly for our
    most vulnerable voters. The amendment reserves a small portion
    of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund balance for the
    Elections Assistance Commission to improve election
    administration in presidential election years. By checking the
    right box on their tax return, millions of taxpayers voted to
    have their money used in support of Federal elections.
        This amendment adds another goal to the Presidential
    Campaign Fund by working with the Elections Assistance
    Commission to make sure soldiers, students and disabled voters
    have access to the ballot. While the presidential election
    funding system needs reform, we cannot be distracted from our
    duty to make sure every eligible voter gets to the poll and
    this proposal makes this happen. I urge the support for my
    amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for offering the
    amendment. In this case, I would say I will be opposed to the
    gentleman's amendment. I appreciate the spirit in which it has
    been offered. I think as has been pointed out, if we pass this
    we actually return approximately $260 million back to the
    Treasury at this time.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, when you look at
    the history of the participation for this particular fund, you
    had almost 29 percent back in 1980 of the folks that were
    participating in it, and by 2012, you had about 5 percent.
    Again, in the 2012 election cycle, no viable major candidate,
    party candidate, accepted either matching funds for either
    their primary or their general.
        So I do think that this is a good bill and again, I think
    it is appropriate for us to consider it. I will be opposing the
    gentleman's amendment.
        Are there any other comments about the gentleman's
    amendment?
        The gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. Harper. I would just like to speak in opposition to the
    amendment. I have certainly great respect for Mr. Brady, but I
    just believe that this would be an attempt where we would be
    rewarding bad behavior. It is clear, whether it is NASS, the
    National Association of Secretaries of State and the fact that
    that bipartisan group, not once but twice, has said that we
    need to end it, this is, in effect, perpetually funding the EAC
    and we don't need to go that route.
        Of course, we are all very sensitive to make sure that
    everyone has the opportunity to vote and I believe Mr. Brady's
    intentions are well meant, but I believe that the EAC should
    not continue. These are matters that can be handled by the
    localities and the States.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I associate myself
    with his remarks, particularly when we think about voting for
    our military members. Again, I appreciate the spirit in which
    the amendment has been offered. As we all know, the DOD is
    currently and have been undertaking and we are hoping for a
    report here shortly, about military voting, at which time, I
    think that was due at the end of May or the beginning of June
    here, but it should be happening shortly, we will have an
    opportunity, all of us as a committee, to discuss, and most
    probably have a hearing on that particular report as well in
    regard to how we make sure that all of our military members are
    able to exercise their franchise to vote in a timely way and
    one in which they are counted.
        Any other comment about the amendment? The gentleman from
    Georgia.
        Mr. Gingrey. Madam Chairman, thanks for the recognition,
    and I too am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, not the
    spirit of his amendment, of course. But here are some of the
    reasons why, from a policy perspective, I would oppose it.
        I think it has already been mentioned that you could call
    this the Election Assistance Commission perpetual life
    amendment, because the amendment converts $10 million per year
    from the Presidential Elections Commission Fund to the EAC, and
    then this amount is actually indexed for inflation. This makes
    mandatory appropriations for the EAC not subject to the regular
    appropriations process.
        So the amount is reserved for improvements in ability to
    vote for members of the uniformed services, elderly individuals
    and individuals with disabilities to cast ballots in such
    elections.
        Mandatory appropriations will reduce oversight of the EAC.
    The EAC has been the subject of harsh bipartisan oversight from
    both Democrat and Republican chairmen of this committee. The
    EAC has fulfilled its purpose. This amendment seems to be
    repurposing the Commission just so that they have something to
    do.
        I do appreciate and share Mr. Brady's desire to help
    military and elderly voters, but this Commission isn't the
    group to do it. Why would we task the EAC with military voting
    when we have the Federal Voting Assistance Program? And given
    the EAC's recent mismanagement of resources, what assurances
    would we have that they would even be able to provide
    assistance to these groups? So for that reason, and others that
    I have mentioned, Madam Chair, I, too, oppose the amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any other comments or
    questions by members? If not the question is on the amendment
    offered by the gentleman to H.R. 95. All those in favor of the
    amendment will signify by saying aye; opposed will signify by
    saying no.
        In the opinion of the chair the noes have it, the noes have
    it, the amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there any other amendments?
        If not, I move that the committee favorably report H.R. 95
    to the full House, and the question is on that motion. Those in
    favor signify by saying aye; opposed, say no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes
    have it, and the motion is agreed to.
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chair, I announce that the minority
    members will use the 2 additional calendar days provided by
    clause 2(l) of rule XI of the Rules of the House in order to
    file views.
        The Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman. Pursuant to
    clause 2(l) of rule XI, a member is entitled to 2 additional
    calendar days to file such views in writing signed by that
    member with the clerk of the committee.
        I now call up and lay of before the committee H.R. 1994, a
    bill to terminate the Election Assistance Commission. Without
    objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, the
    bill is considered read and open for amendment at any point.
        [The bill follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Are there any comments or debate in regard to
    the bill? Mr. Brady.
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chair, thank you. This is the third
    attempt to terminate the EAC since the outset of the 112th
    Congress. On this matter, I don't believe the third time is a
    charm. I have opposed this proposal before, and I oppose this
    bill today. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any other comments or
    debate on the bill? Do any members want to offer an amendment
    to the bill?
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Brady. Thank you. Madam Chair, the arguments in support
    of EAC are well-known. It is the only Federal agency tasked
    with assisting State and local elections offices to ensure
    their Federal elections run smoothly and cost-effective. This
    is an important and valuable role of the Federal Government to
    play.
        My office has received numerous letters, phone calls and
    emails from elected officials of both parties from all across
    the country in support of the EAC and its work. It is a
    Commission worth reauthorizing and in a few minutes I will
    offer amendment to do that.
        My colleagues should once again reject--excuse me. This
    argument in support is well-known and it is only Federal
    agency. It is a Commission worth reauthorizing and in a few
    minutes, I will offer an amendment to do that. My colleagues
    should once again once reject this proposal.
        The Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman's comments about
    the bill. I think both myself and certainly Mr. Harper have
    articulated a number of reasons why we believe that elimination
    of the EAC is necessary.
        I will just note that the National Secretaries of State,
    which I was a member of at one time back in the day as well as
    Mr. Rokita, adopted resolutions calling for the dissolution of
    the EAC both in 2005 as well as 2010. Again, in calendar year
    2013, over $11 million has been appropriated for EAC, money
    which I think can be used in a much better fashion.
        So at this time I would ask if there are any amendments to
    this bill.
        Mr. Brady. Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Brady. I have an amendment in the nature of a
    substitute which has been distributed to the members.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the amendment will be
    considered read, and the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes
    to speak on his amendment.
        [The amendment of Mr. Brady follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Brady. Thank you. This amendment would reauthorize the
    Election Assistance Commission to allow the agency to continue
    its important mission. Additionally, it calls for the EAC to
    determine the extent of which polling places are accessible for
    disabled voters and ensure all voters can cast their ballot.
    The amendment also tasks the EAC with determining the most
    cost-effective method to administer elections as well as
    methods for increasing the cost-effectiveness and value of the
    agency itself.
        Finally, this amendment will result in more transparency in
    the testing and certification of voting machines by
    establishing an escrow account that prevents machine
    manufacturers from paying directly to the laboratories ordering
    their machines and making information about the testing and
    certification results available to the public.
        This amendment continues the important mission of the EAC,
    which is to help America vote and making sure every vote is
    counted. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for offering that
    amendment, and certainly again in the spirit in which the
    amendment was offered. I would just again comment, having just
    received the amendment, I am a huge 10th Amendment person, I
    think most of us are, and it appears at first blush looking at
    this amendment that you are actually giving the EAC more power
    over the States, shifting the burden from the States to the
    EAC, so it is sort of making the EAC more powerful. I am not
    sure that it makes it more efficient. Again, I don't think we
    need the EAC at all and we certainly don't need to give it
    anything else to do at this time, so I will be opposing the
    gentleman's amendment.
        Are there any other comments to the gentleman's amendment?
    The gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, it is
    interesting that it was stated that it is designed, the EAC is
    supposed to help the States and localities be cost-effective,
    and that is rather ironic because the Election Assistance
    Commission would be the poster child for wasting money and not
    being cost-effective. They have done such things as double
    their employees' size in the last 4 or 5 years without any new
    responsibilities, not to mention the Inspector General reports
    that contain such information about spending $7,000 worth of
    taxpayer money to buy employees shirts for morale. I mean, come
    on.
        Then you look at other issues on spending and things that
    they have done, and the two discrimination cases against them
    that had to be resolved and settled and paid out in taxpayer
    funds to resolve those. It is just the mismanagement is such,
    we don't need to be expanding their work or keeping them. And I
    think we do need to go back, despite that history, and look at
    the fact that the bipartisan group, National Association of
    Secretaries of State, have looked at this agency that was
    supposed to last for 3 years after HAVA, and it now has gone on
    for, I guess more than 10 years now with no real end in sight.
    So this is a chance to do that.
        I ask to vote in opposition to this amendment, and I yield
    back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. You know, I would also
    comment about the EAC. Really, they did have their purpose
    originally. When the country, the Congress was appropriating
    all this money are for HAVA, over $3 billion that was shuffled
    out the door to all these various States for equipment, you had
    to have sort of a distribution point, somebody for
    accountability for that. So I do think the EAC had its time and
    its place. But I think, again, it has long outlived its
    usefulness.
        I would even just make a personal observation, listening to
    the President's State of the Union when he constituted this
    National Elections Committee to study what has happened and
    some of the best practices and worst practices in how elections
    are being administered in some of the States, he never
    mentioned the EAC. He never gave them any responsibilities in
    that. Here you have a staff, they already have housing, they
    have got an office here in D.C. So they are staffed up and they
    have an office space, and yet the President, in his comments,
    never mentioned them or thought to utilize them in any way.
        So, again, I just think that they have outlived their
    usefulness and I will be opposing the gentleman's amendment.
        Are there any other members that wish to speak to the
    amendment? The gentleman from California.
        Mr. Vargas. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to
    support the amendment made by the ranking member. I think all
    of us remember the huge lines in this last presidential
    election. In fact, it was rather striking, on television there
    was a gentleman who was an elderly veteran who had been
    standing in line for hours attempting to vote, and he said that
    he had gone and put his life on the line and had fought for the
    opportunity to vote, and yet it was so difficult, it seemed
    that they made it purposely difficult for him to cast his vote.
    That shouldn't happen in America. You should have the right to
    vote. A person, especially a veteran who is disabled, went and
    fought for our country, should expeditiously be able to go and
    vote his conscience for whomever he is going to vote for, for
    whomever she is going to vote for.
        I had the opportunity in 2000 to be an international
    observer to the Mexican election when Vincente Fox became the
    first person to defeat the established party there, the PRI,
    and the shocking thing for me was the size of the lines to
    vote. I think in Mexico they purposefully made it difficult to
    vote so one party would stay in power, at least that is what it
    seemed to me as an observer, and the lines were incredibly
    long. Yet that is exactly what we saw.
        In a developing country you see those lines, you think,
    well, they don't have the technology, they don't have the
    money, they don't have the assistance. But to see those times
    of lines in America is outrageous. I mean, we have to do
    something about it, and I think that is what the amendment
    attempts to address and I appreciate the amendment. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I also think we all
    watched those lines on TV, and my personal reaction to it was
    amazement that that was still happening. It is sort of amongst
    the usual suspects, I will say. This is my personal opinion.
    Florida, some places here in the District, in Virginia. In my
    State of Michigan, we didn't have any stories like that. In
    your State, they didn't have any stories like that.
        There were a couple of places that had those stories, and I
    believe as a former election official, as soon as I saw that, I
    thought, well, first of all, there ought to be accountability
    of the election supervisors locally that were running those
    elections. I was pretty sure that it was because they hadn't
    adequately trained their election inspectors, their precinct
    workers, they didn't have adequate amount of election equipment
    out there numerically for the demographics that they were
    servicing within those precincts, they just didn't have enough
    election equipment.
        Also, I am listening to some of these news reports where
    they are saying, I think it was in Florida, I am trying to
    remember exactly where they were talking about, they had 11
    pages on the ballot or something because of all of these, and
    we have a member of from Florida here, because of the ballot
    questions that were on there. I can't even imagine going
    through page after page after page reading these ballot
    questions, and I will yield to the gentleman in just a moment,
    but I know in most States, you have your election commissioner
    or whatever go through and summarize very quickly, but yet
    getting the intent of what the ballot question is, not the
    entire language of that.
        So again, I am not sure that when I saw the President
    appoint this Presidential Commission, in my opinion, I think
    you ought to hold the election officials who are running those
    elections accountable, and in the State of Florida, that is
    actually what happened because the Governor went to the
    Secretary of State and said, look at this, this is not right.
    And we ought have somebody look at it, make recommendations,
    which the Secretary of State in Florida did do, I know it is up
    online, I was reading it. Essentially many of the things that I
    brought forth and others that they found were exactly what
    happened there.
        Again, I am a 10th Amendment person. I think it is up to
    the State, and I am happy to yield to my friend, the colleague
    from Florida for any comment about that as well.
        Mr. Nugent. I thank the chairman for that. Florida,
    unfortunately, has had been in the national news on a couple
    issues over the years on elections. But when you look
    specifically at the areas, one was that ballot initiative, the
    constitutional amendments to the Constitution, 11 pages, which
    absolutely slowed the process down measurably. I mean, it was
    overwhelming.
        But if you look, I think you mentioned the usual suspects,
    but if you look in particular at the one county that it
    occurred in the worst, that supervisor of elections, it wasn't
    a Republican supervisor of elections. The supervisors of
    elections within the counties have great latitude and control
    of their elections in regards to staffing and the number of
    locations they want to open up.
        Just in my home county, you know, the new supervisor of
    election who is now a Republican who actually was one of my
    employees down in the district got elected, she has already
    increased the number of locations and hours to actually handle
    those types of issues. So you don't have people disenfranchised
    to have to stand and wait. Because I remember just early
    voting, driving by and seeing the lines so long that you would
    wait until the lines went down, and they never did.
        So it really is a local issue, it is a State issue in
    regards to how they set those up. And you are right, the
    Federal Government doesn't do a good job anyhow as it relates
    to those State issues. So the Election Commission never did
    that to start with, and wasn't challenged by the President to
    do that. So I absolutely support this.
        The Chairman. Just one other comment, watching Florida in
    particular, but in Michigan we don't have either no reason
    absentee voting or early vote. I have often been told if we had
    both of those things in Michigan we would really expedite the
    process. But I notice in your State, you have both of those
    things. I just point that out. So again, I think it points to
    the local election supervisor.
        Mr. Nugent. They have gone out of their way in regards to
    absentee voting. At one point in time, you had to have a
    reason. Now you don't. Anybody can absentee vote. They
    encourage people to absentee vote or early vote. So I think
    they have made a lot of accommodations trying to get more
    people the access to vote, but a lot of folks still want to go
    in there and put their mark on it.
        The Chairman. Absolutely. Well, I think we are certainly
    all in agreement of free, open, fair elections, and having long
    lines like that, there is no reason for it in today's time, no
    reason at all.
        I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, the former
    Secretary of State, Mr. Rokita.
        Mr. Rokita. I thank the Chairman. I am struck by Mr.
    Vargas' statements. First of all, I would like to say that in
    my years as an election official, I never knew one election
    official that didn't want the best for their voters, that
    didn't want an equal--excuse me, an accurate outcome, not
    equal. We wanted someone to win one way or another. We didn't
    necessarily like recounts, but we wanted a process that not
    only we could be proud of, given our profession, but that
    people would have confidence in.
        The reason I am concerned about the comments is because for
    some reason this amendment is about the EAC, and this is an
    amendment about making the EAC more powerful, actually not
    necessarily more efficient, but bigger and more powerful than
    it already is. And like the gentleman from Florida says, it
    exists here and now. It didn't solve the lines in Florida, nor
    would it nor will it ever no matter how big or how powerful it
    becomes. So that is one thing.
        I also would like to echo the comments that were alluded to
    a little bit earlier by the chairman and the gentleman from
    Florida, in that I don't know how it is in Mexico, but in all
    States, you can vote by absentee ballot. Some have, I wouldn't
    call them restrictions, I think that is too strong a word, but
    qualifications.
        In the gentleman's example, even if that gentleman wasn't
    from Florida where he didn't have to have an excuse at all to
    vote absentee by mail, let's say, he would have fit the
    qualification in Indiana because of his age and because of his
    disability. So the idea that he might have been in a line,
    albeit unfortunate, was his choice. And at some point we have
    to have parameters and rules to our election process or else we
    have chaos.
        So I think Florida has gone beyond what it really has to do
    in allowing people without any excuse whatsoever to vote
    absentee, but that is their choice and that is the good thing.
    I don't know anything about the ballot initiative being 11
    pages, but I think that is unreasonable and that probably
    contributed to the lines. But that doesn't mean there is a
    systemic failure, and it certainly doesn't mean that we need to
    make this government agency that hasn't performed well at all,
    whose reason for existence in the first place has been met,
    that we need to re-purpose it or make it bigger.
        By the way, I am not here to trash or beat up on EAC as an
    agency or any of the people in it, because I think the attitude
    and the problems demonstrated by this little baby agency, Madam
    Chairman, is really just a microcosm of the attitude and
    pervasiveness of some of the problems we have across all
    agencies, and we only have to look to a hearing going on in
    another part of the House side of this Congress to see the
    effect of that attitude, of that sloppiness, of that bias.
        I will say on the record I was a victim of EAC bias during
    one of their reports that caused an Inspector General
    investigation that called into account and clearly exposed that
    attitude. So it exists, it is out there, and the last thing we
    need to do with respect to the author of the amendment is make
    this agency or any agency any bigger or more powerful.
        What do I mean by more powerful? This amendment, as I
    understand it, removes the EAC, one example, removes the EAC
    from OMB oversight under the Paperwork Reduction Act so there
    is no control over what information they demand from the
    States, and I think that is absolutely the wrong way to go.
        I will close by just saying that the gentleman from
    Mississippi used the word ironic when talking about the purpose
    of this amendment and how it would make the States more
    efficient. I think the word better suited to my experience, at
    least as Indiana's chief election officer for 8 years, is
    offensive. The States may not be perfect. By definition of the
    word ``human,'' Madam Chairman, no one is perfect. But
    everywhere I saw at the State level and local level, all of us
    wanted to get it right and we wanted to get it right for this
    free republic above all else. And to say that some overseers
    here in this town are going to make sure we do it better is, I
    think, going to be intolerable for nearly all if not all of our
    State brothers and sisters.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his comments. The
    gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Brady. May I just make a quick comment. I don't know
    just how much just authority--and I looked into it when I was
    chair of this committee--we have to agree with my friends from
    Indiana and Florida by saying we make elections fairer, but not
    only in the States but throughout the entire country.
        In the State of Pennsylvania, we do have restrictions on
    absentee ballots to get an absentee ballot. We have no early
    voting. You have to be 65 years old or older. You have to have
    a doctor's certificate which is a little inconvenient from time
    to time, and you have to either show proof that you are out-of-
    state to be able to vote absentee ballot, which is not unlike,
    and I wish we had the same rules as Florida and Indiana had
    with the early voting, which we don't have either. And it would
    be maybe--I would love to try to look into making all things
    equal throughout the whole United States, I mean, to make every
    State fair and have every State have the exact way how they can
    vote.
        To throw out one agency that tries to make it a little
    better, maybe supposed to, if they don't, maybe we can reform
    it instead of throwing it out, that has a little bit of teeth
    into putting some type of penalty on people that do violate it.
    We had lines in Pennsylvania, not only in Mexico, you know. I
    could not imagine, and I do chair the party in the City of
    Philadelphia, and I do have to run elections there to the best
    that I can and as much as I can.
        I could not imagine having 11 constitutional ballot
    questions on a ballot. I mean, that is somebody's mistake
    somewhere. I know I would have--I wouldn't have fired the
    person. With no disrespect, I would have shot him for putting
    that on the ballot.
        But I would like to maybe, again, say this in the spirit of
    maybe in cooperation where we can have every State have the
    same exact qualifications of early voting, absentee voting, and
    this way makes it fair for people from Pennsylvania, people
    from New Jersey, people from Florida, Indiana, wherever you are
    from. And maybe that is something I kept trying to look into
    and will continue to look into and my staff, maybe we can
    figure out a way to make that happen. The fairness in all
    elections is most important to all of us. So thank you.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any other questions or
    comments? The gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. Gingrey. Madam Chair, thank you. I am in opposition to
    the amendment. To a large extent, we are here to represent the
    voices of our constituents, each of us, approximately 700,000,
    and the voices of our State, our State government, being firm
    believers in the 10th Amendment and that which rules best rules
    closest to the people.
        Our Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear to me
    that this amendment is not necessary, and that the EAC indeed
    has outlived its usefulness. Some of the comments made by my
    colleague on the other side of the aisle whom I have great
    respect for in regard to, let's say, making everything equal,
    well, think about the Voting Rights Act, a piece of legislation
    that was abundantly necessary when it was passed because of
    egregious behavior regarding voting in certain States across
    the country, and indeed a lot of those States were in the
    Southeast. But, you know, here we are 50 years later, these
    States, and one of them is mine, the great State of Georgia, is
    far, far beyond that, and yet we are under section 5 of the
    Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. So, so much for making
    everything equal. Why not make that applicable to all 50
    States, rather than just 13 and in parts of a few more?
        This Election Assistance Commission, I was just told by my
    colleague a few minutes ago, while there are no commissioners,
    they are still leasing office space at a tune of $1 million a
    year. Now, if you were having to pay rent on an empty office
    space to the tune of $1 million a year and you were a small
    businessman or woman, you would be a little bit concerned about
    that.
        So this amendment does not reform the EAC. It expands it.
    It includes no reforms or efficiency. What it actually does is
    it reauthorizes it through 2018. It forces States to submit
    information the EAC asks for in post-election surveys. It
    removes the EAC from OMB oversight under the Paperwork
    Reduction Act, so there is no control over what information
    they demand. It gives the EAC more power over States. It shifts
    the burden from EAC to the States.
        Why it is bad is it does not address any of the real
    problems at the EAC. It makes the EAC more powerful, not more
    efficient, and we don't need the EAC at all and we certainly
    don't need to give it more to do. It has nothing to do now
    except pay $1 million a year rent for empty office space.
        I am opposed to the amendment, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any other members wish
    to be recognized to speak on the amendment?
        If no more comments, we will vote on the gentleman's
    amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by the
    gentleman from Pennsylvania to H.R. 1994. Those in favor of the
    amendment signify by sayings aye; those opposed will signify by
    saying nay.
        In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it. The nays
    have it, the amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there any other amendments? If not, I move that the
    committee favorably report H.R. 1994 to the House and the
    question is on that motion.
        All those in favor signify by saying aye.
        Opposed, say nay.
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes
    have it, the motion is agreed to.
        Gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Brady. I announce that the minority members will use
    the two additional calendar days provided by our clause 2(l) of
    rule XI of the Rules of the House in order to file abuse.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Without objection the
    motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. And pursuant to
    clause 2 of rule XI the member is entitled to two additional
    calendar days to file such views in writing and signed by that
    member with the clerk of the committee.
        For all of the matters that the committee has considered
    today I would ask unanimous consent that the staff be
    authorized to make technical and conforming changes if
    necessary. Without objection, so ordered.
        And this concludes today's markup. The meeting for the
    markup is adjourned. I appreciate the interesting debate and
    for all of the members. As you know, we are now prepared to
    begin our hearing for H.R. 2115.
        [Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the markup was concluded.]