Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 89 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4347-H4354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ELECTION SUPPORT CONSOLIDATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT

Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 672) to terminate the Election Assistance Commission, and
for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 672

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Election Support
Consolidation and Efficiency Act''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION.

(a) Termination.--The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42
U.S.C. 15301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new title:

``TITLE X--TERMINATION OF COMMISSION

``Subtitle A--Termination

``SEC. 1001. TERMINATION.

``Effective on the Commission termination date, the
Commission (including the Election Assistance Commission
Standards Board and the Election Assistance Commission Board
of Advisors under part 2 of subtitle A of title II) is
terminated and may not carry out any programs or activities.

``SEC. 1002. TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS TO OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET DURING TRANSITION.

``(a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget shall, effective upon the Commission termination
date--
``(1) perform the functions of the Commission with respect
to contracts and agreements described in subsection 1003(a)
until the expiration of such contracts and agreements, but
shall not renew any such contract or agreement; and
``(2) shall take the necessary steps to wind up the affairs
of the Commission.
``(b) Exception for Functions Transferred to Other
Agencies.--Subsection (a) does not apply with respect to any
functions of the Commission that are transferred under
subtitle B.

``SEC. 1003. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

``(a) Prior Contracts.--The termination of the Commission
under this subtitle shall not affect any contract that has
been entered into by the Commission before the Commission
termination date. All such contracts shall continue in effect
until modified, superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked
in accordance with law by an authorized Federal official, a
court of competent jurisdiction, or operation of law.
``(b) Obligations of Recipients of Payments.--
``(1) In general.--The termination of the Commission under
this subtitle shall not affect the authority of any recipient
of a payment made by the Commission under this Act prior to
the Commission termination date to use any portion of the
payment that remains unobligated as of the Commission
termination date, and the terms and conditions that applied
to the use of the payment at the time the payment was made
shall continue to apply.
``(2) Special rule for states receiving requirements
payments.--In the case of a requirements payment made to a
State under part 1 of subtitle D of title II, the terms and
conditions applicable to the use of the payment for purposes
of the State's obligations under this subsection (as well as
any obligations in effect prior to the termination of the
Commission under this subtitle), and for purposes of any
applicable requirements imposed by regulations promulgated by
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall be
the general terms and conditions applicable under Federal
law, rules, and regulations to payments made by the Federal
government to a State, except that to the extent that such
general terms and conditions are inconsistent with the terms
and conditions that are specified under part 1 of subtitle D
of title II or section 902, the terms and conditions
specified under such part and such section shall apply.
``(c) Pending Proceedings.--
``(1) No effect on pending proceedings.--The termination of
the Commission under this subtitle shall not affect any
proceeding to which the Commission is a party that is pending
on such date, including any suit to which the Commission is a
party that is commenced prior to such date, and the
applicable official shall be substituted or added as a party
to the proceeding.
``(2) Treatment of orders.--In the case of a proceeding
described in paragraph (1), an order may be issued, an appeal
may be taken, judgments may be rendered, and payments may be
made as if the Commission had not been terminated. Any such
order shall continue in effect until modified, terminated,
superseded, or revoked by an authorized Federal official, a
court of competent jurisdiction, or operation of law.
``(3) Construction relating to discontinuance or
modification.--Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to
prohibit the discontinuance or modification of any proceeding
described in paragraph (1) under the same terms and
conditions and to the same extent that such proceeding could
have been discontinued or modified if the Commission had not
been terminated.
``(4) Regulations for transfer of proceedings.--The
Director of the Office of Management and Budget may issue
regulations providing for the orderly transfer of proceedings
described in paragraph (1).
``(d) Judicial Review.--Orders and actions of the
applicable official in the exercise of functions of the
Commission shall be subject to judicial review to the same
extent and in the same manner as if such orders and actions
had been issued or taken by the Commission. Any requirements
relating to notice, hearings, action upon the record, or
administrative review that apply to any function of the
Commission shall apply to the exercise of such function by
the applicable official.
``(e) Applicable Official Defined.--In this section, the
`applicable official' means, with respect to any proceeding,
order, or action--
``(1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
to the extent that the proceeding, order, or action relates
to functions performed by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget under section 1002; or
``(2) the Federal Election Commission, to the extent that
the proceeding, order, or action relates to a function
transferred under subtitle B.

``SEC. 1004. COMMISSION TERMINATION DATE.

``The `Commission termination date' is the first date
following the expiration of the 60-day period that begins on
the date of the enactment of this subtitle.

``Subtitle B--Transfer of Certain Authorities

``SEC. 1011. TRANSFER OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION FUNCTIONS TO
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

``There are transferred to the Federal Election Commission
(hereafter in this section referred to as the `FEC') the
following functions of the Commission:
``(1) The adoption of voluntary voting system guidelines,
in accordance with part 3 of subtitle A of title II.
``(2) The testing, certification, decertification, and
recertification of voting system hardware and software by
accredited laboratories, in accordance with subtitle B of
title II.
``(3) The maintenance of a clearinghouse of information on
the experiences of State and local governments in
implementing voluntary voting system guidelines and in
operating voting systems in general.
``(4) The development of a standardized format for reports
submitted by States under section 102(c) of the Uniformed and
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the making of such
format available to States and units of local government
submitting such reports, in accordance with section 703(b).
``(5) Any functions transferred to the Commission under
section 801 (relating to functions of the former Office of
Election Administration of the FEC).
``(6) Any functions transferred to the Commission under
section 802 (relating to functions described in section 9(a)
of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993).
``(7) Any functions of the Commission under section 1604(a)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1277; 42 U.S.C. 1977ff
note) (relating to establishing guidelines and providing
technical assistance with respect to electronic voting
demonstration projects of the Secretary of Defense).
``(8) Any functions of the Commission under section
589(e)(1) of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973ff-7(e)(1)) (relating to providing technical
assistance with respect to technology pilot programs for the
benefit of absent uniformed services voters and overseas
voters).

``SEC. 1012. EFFECTIVE DATE.

``The transfers under this subtitle shall take effect on
the Commission termination date described in section 1004.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``TITLE X--TERMINATION OF COMMISSION

``Subtitle A--Termination

``Sec. 1001. Termination.
``Sec. 1002. Transfer of operations to Office of Management and Budget
during transition.
``Sec. 1003. Savings provisions.
``Sec. 1004. Commission termination date.

``Subtitle B--Transfer of Certain Authorities

``Sec. 1011. Transfer of election administration functions to Federal
Election Commission.
``Sec. 1012. Effective date.''.

SEC. 3. REPLACEMENT OF STANDARDS BOARD AND BOARD OF ADVISORS
WITH GUIDELINES REVIEW BOARD.

(a) Replacement.--Part 2 of subtitle A of title II of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15341 et seq.) is
amended to read as follows:

``PART 2--GUIDELINES REVIEW BOARD

``SEC. 211. ESTABLISHMENT.

``There is established the Guidelines Review Board
(hereafter in this part referred to as the `Board').

``SEC. 212. DUTIES.

``The Board shall, in accordance with the procedures
described in part 3, review the voluntary voting system
guidelines under such part.

``SEC. 213. MEMBERSHIP.

``(a) In General.--The Board shall be composed of 82
members appointed as follows:

[[Page H4348]]

``(1) One State or local election official from each State,
to be selected by the chief State election official of the
State, who shall take into account the needs of both State
and local election officials in making the selection.
``(2) 2 members appointed by the National Conference of
State Legislatures.
``(3) 2 members appointed by the National Association of
Secretaries of State.
``(4) 2 members appointed by the National Association of
State Election Directors.
``(5) 2 members appointed by the National Association of
County Recorders, Election Administrators, and Clerks.
``(6) 2 members appointed by the Election Center.
``(7) 2 members appointed by the International Association
of County Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers.
``(8) 2 members appointed by the United States Commission
on Civil Rights.
``(9) 2 members appointed by the Architectural and
Transportation Barrier Compliance Board under section 502 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792).
``(10) The chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights
Division of the Department of Justice or the chief's
designee.
``(11) The director of the Federal Voting Assistance
Program of the Department of Defense.
``(12) The Director of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology or the Director's designee.
``(13) 4 members representing professionals in the field of
science and technology, of whom--
``(A) one each shall be appointed by the Speaker and the
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; and
``(B) one each shall be appointed by the Majority Leader
and the Minority Leader of the Senate.
``(14) 4 members representing voter interests, of whom--
``(A) one each shall be appointed by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on House Administration of
the House of Representatives; and
``(B) one each shall be appointed by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules and Administration
of the Senate.
``(b) Manner of Appointments.--
``(1) In general.--Appointments shall be made to the Board
under subsection (a) in a manner which ensures that the Board
will be bipartisan in nature and will reflect the various
geographic regions of the United States.
``(2) Special rule for certain appointments.--The 2
individuals who are appointed as members of the Board under
each of the paragraphs (2) through (9) of subsection (a) may
not be members of the same political party.
``(c) Term of Service; Vacancy.--Members of the Board shall
serve for a term of 2 years, and may be reappointed. Any
vacancy in the Board shall be filled in the manner in which
the original appointment was made.
``(d) Executive Board.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the day on
which the appointment of its members is completed, the Board
shall select 9 of its members to serve as the Executive Board
of the Guidelines Review Board, of whom--
``(A) not more than 5 may be State election officials;
``(B) not more than 5 may be local election officials; and
``(C) not more than 5 may be members of the same political
party.
``(2) Terms.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), members
of the Executive Board of the Board shall serve for a term of
2 years and may not serve for more than 3 consecutive terms.
``(3) Staggering of initial terms.--Of the members first
selected to serve on the Executive Board of the Board--
``(A) 3 shall serve for 1 term;
``(B) 3 shall serve for 2 consecutive terms; and
``(C) 3 shall serve for 3 consecutive terms,
as determined by lot at the time the members are first
appointed.
``(4) Duties.--The Executive Board of the Board shall carry
out such duties of the Board as the Board may delegate.
``(e) Bylaws; Delegation of Authority.--The Board may
promulgate such bylaws as it considers appropriate to provide
for the operation of the Board, including bylaws that permit
the Executive Board to grant to any of its members the
authority to act on behalf of the Executive Board.

``SEC. 214. POWERS; NO COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE.

``(a) Hearings and Sessions.--
``(1) In general.--To the extent that funds are made
available by the Federal Election Commission, the Board may
hold such hearings for the purpose of carrying out this Act,
sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony,
and receive such evidence as the Board considers advisable to
carry out this title, except that the Board may not issue
subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses
or the production of any evidence.
``(2) Meetings.--The Board shall hold a meeting of its
members--
``(A) not less frequently than once every 2 years for
purposes selecting the Executive Board and voting on the
voluntary voting system guidelines referred to it under
section 222; and
``(B) at such other times as it considers appropriate for
purposes of conducting such other business as it considers
appropriate consistent with this title.
``(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Board may
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the Board considers necessary to carry out
this Act. Upon request of the Executive Board, the head of
such department or agency shall furnish such information to
the Board.
``(c) Postal Services.--The Board may use the United States
mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as a
department or agency of the Federal Government.
``(d) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Executive Board, the Administrator of the General
Services Administration shall provide to the Board, on a
reimbursable basis, the administrative support services that
are necessary to enable the Board to carry out its duties
under this title.
``(e) No Compensation for Service.--Members of the Board
shall not receive any compensation for their service, but
shall be paid travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Board.

``SEC. 215. STATUS OF BOARD AND MEMBERS FOR PURPOSES OF
CLAIMS AGAINST BOARD.

``(a) In General.--The provisions of chapters 161 and 171
of title 28, United States Code, shall apply with respect to
the liability of the Board and its members for acts or
omissions performed pursuant to and in the course of the
duties and responsibilities of the Board.
``(b) Exception for Criminal Acts and Other Willful
Conduct.--Subsection (a) may not be construed to limit
personal liability for criminal acts or omissions, willful or
malicious misconduct, acts or omissions for private gain, or
any other act or omission outside the scope of the service of
a member of the Board.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Membership on technical guidelines development
committee.--Section 221(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
15361(c)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking clauses (i) and (ii)
and inserting the following:
``(i) Members of the Guidelines Review Board.'';
(B) by redesignating clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) as
clause (ii); and
(C) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``Standards Board or
Board of Advisors'' and inserting ``Guidelines Review
Board''.
(2) Consideration of proposed guidelines.--Section 222(b)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15362(b)) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Board of Advisors and
Standards Board'' and inserting ``Guidelines Review Board'';
and
(B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the
following:
``(2) Guidelines review board.--The Executive Director of
the Commission shall submit the guidelines proposed to be
adopted under this part (or any modifications to such
guidelines) to the Guidelines Review Board.''.
(3) Review of proposed guidelines.--Section 222(c) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 15362(c)) is amended by striking ``the Board
of Advisors and the Standards Board shall each review'' and
inserting ``the Guidelines Review Board shall review''.
(4) Final adoption of proposed guidelines.--Section 222(d)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15362(d)) is amended by striking ``the
Board of Advisors and the Standards Board'' each place it
appears in paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting ``the
Guidelines Review Board''.
(5) Assistance with nist review of testing laboratories.--
Section 231(c)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15371(c)(1)) is
amended by striking ``the Standards Board and the Board of
Advisors'' and inserting ``the Guidelines Review Board''.
(6) Assisting fec with development of standardized format
for reports on absentee ballots of absent uniformed services
and overseas voters.--Section 703(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1973ff-1 note) is amended by striking ``the Election
Assistance Commission Board of Advisors and the Election
Assistance Commission Standards Board'' and inserting ``the
Guidelines Review Board''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by amending the item relating to part 2 of
subtitle A of title II to read as follows:

``Part 2--Guidelines Review Board

``Sec. 211. Establishment.
``Sec. 212. Duties.
``Sec. 213. Membership.
``Sec. 214. Powers; no compensation for service.
``Sec. 215. Status of Board and members for purposes of claims against
Board.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the Commission termination date
described in section 1004 of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (as added by section 1(a)).

SEC. 4. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TRANSFER OF CERTAIN
AUTHORITIES TO FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

(a) Development and Adoption of Voluntary Voting System
Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Part 3 of subtitle A of title II of the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15361 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 223. TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY TO FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION.

``(a) Transfer.--Effective on the Commission termination
date described in section 1004, the Federal Election
Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as the
`FEC') shall be responsible for carrying out the duties and
functions of the Commission under this part.
``(b) Role of Executive Director.--The FEC shall carry out
the operation and management of its duties and functions
under this part through the Office of the Executive Director
of the FEC.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by adding at the end of the item relating to part
3 of subtitle A of title II the following:

``Sec. 223. Transfer of authority to Federal Election Commission.''.

[[Page H4349]]

(b) Testing, Certification, Decertification, and
Recertification of Voting System Hardware and Software.--
(1) In general.--Subtitle B of title II of such Act (42
U.S.C. 15371 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``SEC. 232. TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY TO FEDERAL ELECTION
COMMISSION.

``(a) Transfer.--
``(1) In general.--Effective on the Commission termination
date described in section 1004, the Federal Election
Commission (hereafter in this section referred to as the
`FEC') shall be responsible for carrying out the duties and
functions of the Commission under this subtitle.
``(2) Role of executive director.--The FEC shall carry out
the operation and management of its duties and functions
under this subtitle through the Office of the Executive
Director of the FEC.
``(b) Transfer of Office of Voting System Testing and
Certification.--
``(1) In general.--There are transferred to the FEC all
functions that the Office of Voting System Testing and
Certification of the Commission (hereafter in this section
referred to as the `Office') exercised under this subtitle
before the Commission termination date.
``(2) Transfer of property, records, and personnel.--
``(A) Property and records.--The contracts, liabilities,
records, property, appropriations, and other assets and
interests of the Office, together with the unexpended
balances of any appropriations or other funds available to
the Office, are transferred and made available to the FEC.
``(B) Personnel.--
``(i) In general.--The personnel of the Office are
transferred to the FEC, except that the number of full-time
equivalent personnel so transferred may not exceed the number
of full-time equivalent personnel of the Office as of January
1, 2011.
``(ii) Treatment of employees at time of transfer.--An
individual who is an employee of the Office who is
transferred under this section shall not be separated or
reduced in grade or compensation because of the transfer
during the 1-year period that begins on the date of the
transfer.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents of such Act
is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to
subtitle B of title II the following:

``Sec. 232. Transfer of authority to Federal Election Commission.''.

(c) Development of Standardized Format for Reports on
Absentee Balloting by Absent Uniformed Services Voters and
Overseas Voters.--Section 703(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1973ff-1 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Effective on the Commission termination date described in
section 1004, the Federal Election Commission shall be
responsible for carrying out the duties and functions of the
Commission under this subsection.''.

SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS.

(a) Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.--
(1) Duties of fec.--Section 311(a) of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(10) provide for the adoption of voluntary voting system
guidelines, in accordance with part 3 of subtitle A of title
II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15361 et
seq.);
``(11) provide for the testing, certification,
decertification, and recertification of voting system
hardware and software by accredited laboratories, in
accordance with subtitle B of title II of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15371 et seq.);
``(12) maintain a clearinghouse of information on the
experiences of State and local governments in implementing
voluntary voting system guidelines and in operating voting
systems in general;
``(13) carry out the duties described in section 9(a) of
the National Voter Registration Act of 1993;
``(14) develop a standardized format for reports submitted
by States under section 102(c) of the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act, make such format available to
States and units of local government submitting such reports,
and receive such reports in accordance with section 102(c) of
such Act, in accordance with section 703(b) of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002;
``(15) carry out the duties described in section 1604(a)(2)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1277; 42 U.S.C. 1977ff
note); and
``(16) carry out the duties described in section 589(e)(1)
of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (42 U.S.C.
1973ff-7(e)(1)).''.
(2) Authorization to enter into private contracts to carry
out functions.--Section 311 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 438) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Subject to applicable laws, the Commission may enter
into contracts with private entities to carry out any of the
authorities that are the responsibility of the Commission
under paragraphs (10) through (16) of subsection (a).''.
(3) Limitation on authority to impose requirements on
states and units of local government.--Section 311 of such
Act (2 U.S.C. 438), as amended by paragraph (2), is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Nothing in paragraphs (10) through (16) of subsection
(a) or any other provision of this Act shall be construed to
grant the Commission the authority to issue any rule,
promulgate any regulation, or take any other actions that
imposes any requirement on any State or unit of local
government, except to the extent that the Commission had such
authority prior to the enactment of this subsection or to the
extent permitted under section 9(a) of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg-7(a)).''.
(b) National Voter Registration Act of 1993.--Section 9(a)
of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
1973gg-7(a)) is amended by striking ``Election Assistance
Commission'' and inserting ``Federal Election Commission''.
(c) Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.--
(1) Development of standards for state reports.--Section
101(b)(11) of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff(b)(11)) is amended by striking
``the Election Assistance Commission'' and inserting ``the
Federal Election Commission''.
(2) Receipt of reports on number of absentee ballots
transmitted and received.--Section 102(c) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1973ff-1(c)) is amended by striking ``the Election
Assistance Commission (established under the Help America
Vote Act of 2002)'' and inserting ``the Federal Election
Commission''.
(d) Electronic Voting Demonstration Projects for Secretary
of Defense.--Section 1604(a)(2) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107;
115 Stat. 1277; 42 U.S.C. 1977ff note) is amended by striking
``the Election Assistance Commission'' and inserting ``the
Federal Election Commission''.
(e) Technology Pilot Program for Absent Military and
Overseas Voters.--Section 589(e)(1) of the Military and
Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-7(e)(1)) is
amended by striking ``Election Assistance Commission'' and
inserting ``Federal Election Commission''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the Commission termination date
described in section 1004 of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (as added by section 1(a)).

SEC. 6. OTHER CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO TERMINATION.

(a) Hatch Act.--Section 7323(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``or the Election
Assistance Commission''.
(b) Senior Executive Service.--Section 3132(a)(1)(C) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or the
Election Assistance Commission''.
(c) Inspector General Act of 1978.--Section 8G(a)(2) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by
striking ``the Election Assistance Commission,''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the Commission termination date
described in section 1004 of the Help America Vote Act of
2002 (as added by section 1(a)).

SEC. 7. STUDIES.

(a) Procedures for Adoption and Modification of Voluntary
Voting System Guidelines.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
of the procedures used to adopt and modify the voluntary
voting system guidelines applicable to the administration of
elections for Federal office, and shall develop
recommendations on methods to improve such procedures, taking
into account the needs of persons affected by such
guidelines, including State and local election officials,
voters with disabilities, absent military and overseas
voters, and the manufacturers of voting systems.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a
report to Congress on the study conducted under paragraph
(1), and shall include in the report the recommendations
developed under such paragraph.
(b) Procedures for Voting System Testing and
Certification.--
(1) Study.--The Federal Election Commission shall conduct a
study of the procedures for the testing, certification,
decertification, and recertification of voting system
hardware and software used in elections for Federal office,
and shall develop a recommendation on the entity that is best
suited to oversee and carry out such procedures, taking into
consideration the needs of persons affected by such
procedures, including State and local election officials,
voters with disabilities, absent military and overseas
voters, and the manufacturers of voting systems.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Federal Election Commission shall
submit a report to Congress on the study conducted under
paragraph (1), and shall include in the report the
recommendation developed under such paragraph.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Harper) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.

General Leave

Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.

[[Page H4350]]

Mr. HARPER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As we move forward on the difficult job of securing our Nation's
financial future, the Congress will face many difficult decisions.
Programs will have to be cut, and some even eliminated. All of those
programs are there because someone wants them. We have to look
carefully at each one and decide whether the benefit it creates is
worth the cost of maintaining it.
After more than 2 years of hearings, investigations and oversight,
the Committee on House Administration has identified not just a program
but a Federal agency that we cannot justify to the taxpayers. That
agency, the Election Assistance Commission, should be eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, while the House is going to be making some very
difficult spending decisions in the future, this is actually a clear
and easy choice. The EAC was created in 2002 by the Help America Vote
Act. HAVA passed the House with a large bipartisan majority. One
hundred seventy-two Republicans voted for the bill that created the
EAC. Its creation was a bipartisan choice, and so should be its
termination. One of the primary reasons the EAC was created was to
distribute money to States to update voting equipment and voter
registration systems. The EAC has accomplished that, paying out over $3
billion to States for those purposes. With our deep debt and deficit,
there almost certainly will be no more money for the EAC to distribute,
meaning that that function is complete.
Another of the EAC's main functions, conducting research on election
issues, is also complete. The agency has completed all of 19 planned
election management guidelines as well as the 21 planned quick start
guides. It has completed four of the five studies required under HAVA,
and the fifth is tied up in an interagency controversy, making it
unlikely that it will ever be finished.
The EAC also maintains a clearinghouse for election officials to
share experiences working with voting systems, and it operates a
program to develop voluntary guidelines for voting systems, test voting
systems against those guidelines, and certify that systems comply with
those guidelines. Thirty-five States and territories use the Federal
testing and certification system in some way to decide what voting
systems their election officials can purchase and use. Unlike the
grants and research programs that are now obsolete, the clearinghouse
and the testing and certification programs provide continuing value for
State and local election officials.
Against that backdrop, we have to look at the reality of what has
happened to the EAC. When it was created by HAVA, the EAC was a small
agency authorized for 3 years to spend up to $10 million per year. That
was 9 years ago. The agency is still there, and its last full-time,
full-year appropriation was for almost $18 million. Since a staff
ceiling was removed in 2007, the agency has doubled in size, and this
doubling came despite the fact that many of the EAC's responsibilities
were completed or diminished. The average salary at the EAC is over
$100,000. It has an executive director, a chief operating officer, a
chief financial officer, and an accounting director. In its budget
request for 2012, the EAC proposed to spend 51.7 percent of its budget
on management and administration costs. Mr. Speaker, that bears
repeating. The EAC planned to spend more than half of its budget on
overhead. An agency with that plan is an agency that should be
eliminated.
The need to eliminate the EAC is so great that the National
Association of Secretaries of State, a bipartisan group, whose members
have received the more than $3 billion distributed by the EAC, has
passed two resolutions calling for Congress to dissolve the agency. In
2005 and again in 2010, the Secretaries of State asked us to do what I
am asking this House to support today.
Beyond simply being an agency with an increasing size and a dwindling
purpose, the EAC has proven time and time again that what the agency
knows how to do best is to be reckless and irresponsible with taxpayer
dollars. In the short time I have served on the Committee on House
Administration, we have learned of two different cases where legal
claims were filed against the EAC for discrimination against candidates
for the position of general counsel. The first case involved
discrimination based on the candidate's political affiliation. The
second involved discrimination based on the candidate's service in the
military. Political neutrality and assistance to military and overseas
voters are values the EAC should promote, not undermine.

{time} 1920

On top of that, these cases are expensive for the taxpayers.
In the development of this bill, we have sought out and received a
considerable amount of input from election officials and others, in
hearings at the committee and other settings. That input has allowed us
to improve this bill as we have moved forward. Perhaps most
importantly, we added a Guidelines Review Board that gives election
officials and others a formal seat at the table when voting system
guidelines are developed. This board streamlines two existing boards
into a single, smaller one but preserves the ability of States and
local election officials to stay involved directly.
Before I close, I would like to thank Chairman Hall from the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. He has worked closely with
us as a partner in developing this bill. I appreciate his efforts to
improve the bill and to bring it to the floor.
This bill is a careful and thoughtful measure to close down a Federal
agency in a responsible way. To sustain an agency that has completed
its assigned studies, dispersed its assigned grants, and fulfilled most
of its mandates is the definition of irresponsibility. We haven't
rushed through this process. We've held hearings. We've listened to
numerous experts. We've kept and reassigned the programs that provide
true value for election administrators. And now is simply the time to
end the EAC and save American taxpayers at least $33 million in the
next 5 years.
It doesn't get any easier to find an example of wasteful government
spending. If we can't do this, we might as well pack up and go home
because this is as obvious as it gets.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 672, and I
yield myself 5 minutes.
Supporters of the bill once told us that this would save $14 million
each year. I'm not sure how they came up with that number. What we do
know is that when Ranking Member Brady asked the FEC if they could
handle the responsibilities of EAC, this is what they said: Sure, if
you give us more money. So this bill would take money from an agency
they don't like and give it to an agency that no one likes. It will
take money from an agency that has met many challenges and has improved
its operations in the past few years, and it will give it to one on the
opposite path, one that has become only more dysfunctional in recent
years.
But H.R. 672 doesn't move all of EAC's functions to the FEC. Some of
the best ones simply go away. So let's say that H.R. 672 will save the
Federal Government $6.6 million a year. That's great. Unless you happen
to live in a State. This is just another example of shifting the costs
to the States. Well, we lose the efficiencies of having a central
clearinghouse for information, so maybe this isn't just cost shifting
but cost increasing, because no matter what we do, our States have to
run elections every year, often twice a year.
The EAC doesn't run elections. That's not its job. It assists the
State and local election officials so that they can run elections
better and for less. And local election officials have written in from
across the country in praise of the EAC and opposition to this bill.
H.R. 672 would eliminate the one Federal agency that's focused on
finding best practices for elections. That will make it that much
harder for the supervisor of elections in Palm Beach County, Florida,
to learn that the registrar of voters in Fresno County, California,
figured out a way to process paper ballots so they would run more
smoothly, representing a 25 percent savings in election costs.
In my home, Bexar County, the elections administrator, Jacqui
Callanen, learned from an EAC instructional video a new technique that
will save

[[Page H4351]]

our county $100,000 per year. That's $100,000 in savings for one
county, from one EAC instructional video, and we have more than 8,000
election jurisdictions in the United States.
But the savings don't stop there. The recount from Minnesota's 2008
Senate race was estimated to cost the State as much as $5 million and
the candidates around $20 million. Worse, the people of Minnesota
were deprived of one of their Senators for 6 of the most turbulent
months in recent history. If the EAC can prevent the need for such
recounts and reduce the costs and time involved in others, how much is
that worth? EAC has taken tremendous steps to help our States ensure
that our citizens, especially the disabled, are able to exercise their
constitutional right and civic responsibility to participate in our
electoral system. Now, how much is that worth?

Are the proponents of this bill willing to put a pricetag on that?
Mr. Speaker, we spend millions of dollars and put our young men and
women in harm's way, promoting and protecting our great democracy. Is
it really too much to spend $6.6 million here at home?
When H.R. 672 was marked up in committee, I offered a very simple
amendment. It would have had GAO look into whether the bill would
actually save money, including whether savings at the Federal level
would simply be the result of pushing costs onto the States, and
whether voters would be disenfranchised, giving us the time to
reconsider if the results were negative. I hadn't anticipated that the
bill would reach the floor with no chance to offer an amendment. When
we defeat this, when it comes up for a vote, and if the Republican
leadership should decide to bring H.R. 672 back to the floor under a
rule, I fully intend to offer that amendment again. If the supporters
of H.R. 672 are so confident of the bill's savings and innocuous
nature, I can't see why they would object to my amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HARPER. I yield as much time as he shall consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lungren), chairman of the Committee on House
Administration.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support
of this legislation. You know, Mr. Speaker, my mom was born and raised
in Chicago, Illinois, and listening to her stories about what
transpired in the political process when she was growing up there, I
used to think that the only place that you could find immortality in
this world was on the voting rolls of Cook County. But I find here
today that Ronald Reagan was right: Immortality is in the name of a
Federal Government program.
This was supposed to be a temporary program. It was supposed to give
temporary assistance to the States to make sure they could comply with
HAVA, and it has done that. It has done that. It has let out all the
money, billions of dollar that go to the States to assist in doing
that. Its time has come and gone.
Mr. Speaker, if we cannot see that in these very difficult budget
times we have to make some difficult decisions with respect to looking
at programs to see if they've exhausted their usefulness, then we'll
never be able to respond appropriately to what our constituents expect
of us.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, carefully drafted, allows for those
small elements of this agency to be transferred to the FEC with funds
to carry out those responsibilities. The argument that the gentleman
has just made, that somehow the FEC is not up to snuff, is not an
argument I would think that the gentleman would support to somehow get
rid of the FEC. We are giving them some responsibilities with funds,
and hopefully they can carry those out.
The idea that we can stand here with a straight face and argue that
an agency which spends over 50 percent of its total funding on
overhead--and be able to say that to the American people is not only
disappointing, but it's dispiriting, because it suggests to the
American people that we are incapable of looking carefully at agencies
and departments to see when, in fact, they are doing a job that
continues and needs to be done, or when they have finished their
function and, therefore, no longer need to exist.
Now, the Secretaries of State have spoken rather forcefully before
our committee with respect to the fact that they no longer need the
assistance of this particular arm of the Federal Government.

{time} 1930

How often do we have people who come to us and say, We don't need
this assistance anymore? Not very often. Should we ignore that in this
particular case?
Admittedly, this is a small amount of money. It's only in the
millions. Where I come from, that's important. Millions mean a lot.
This is more important, though, as a symbol or a signal as to what we
will do.
Look, if we had all the money in the world, maybe we wouldn't have
this on the floor. We don't have all the money in the world, although
we've tried to prove that we can print all the money in the world. The
fact of the matter is folks back home want us somehow to get our house
in order. That's the House of Representatives, and it's the house that
we call the United States Federal Government. This may be a small room
in that house, but, nonetheless, it is one that needs to be addressed.
The gentleman from Mississippi has done an excellent job of holding
hearings on this matter, hearing from all parties on this, and has come
up with this legislation. The suggestion that somehow by
disestablishing the EAC we are going to penalize the military is
something that I cannot understand very well at all. The Federal Voting
Assistance Program under the DOD will continue to implement the MOVE
Act, as they have very ably done since the passage of this bill in the
last Congress. If you really examine it, the EAC has a very small role
in the process, and that role will be continued after the EAC has been
shut down.
States are looking at us to see whether we can give them some relief,
and, in most cases, we are not going to be able to give the States some
relief because, frankly, we don't have the money.
Businesses are looking at us, those who are in businesses, to see if
we will understand the mistakes we've made in the past and do what they
have to do, that is, to try to become more effective and more
efficient. Our constituents are looking at us as they look for some
glimmer that we understand the terrible fiscal situation we find
ourselves in. And they're looking for just the littlest, the smallest
suggestion that we are going to be serious about the fiscal mess that
we find ourselves in.
This is a small start, but it is a start. And again, as the gentleman
from Mississippi said, if we can't do this now, when can we do it? When
you have a demonstrable record of an agency that's outlived its
usefulness, you have to act. That's all we're attempting to do. I would
hope that we would have a near unanimous vote in support of the
gentleman's bill.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip
who was instrumental in a bipartisan effort to actually pass, a few
years ago, the Help America Vote Act.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to rise in opposition to this bill.
The gentleman from Mississippi knows as well as any of us that the
right to vote is sacred. Access to the polling places ought to be
sacred. Every American ought to be facilitated in voting, and every
American vote needs to count. That's what the Help America Vote Act was
all about.
Bob Ney of Ohio, who was chairman of the House Administration
Committee subsequent to the 2000 election, and I worked on this
legislation. And as has been pointed out, it passed overwhelmingly in a
bipartisan way.
The right to vote is at the foundation of our democracy, so it is
extremely disappointing that this bill would undermine our Nation's
ability to protect that right. From 1789 to 2000, the Federal
Government had elections which it did not pay for nor did it
administer. Now, under this bill, we're still not paying for elections
and we're still not administering them, not this bill that's on the
floor. But under our scheme of things, the elections are still run by
States and counties and localities.

[[Page H4352]]

What this agency was designed to do was to bring the best information
possible so that elections could be run in the best way possible. There
are over, I think, 120 million voters in America. So this is 20 cents
for each one of those voters, to make sure that they have access and
that their vote is counted and counted properly. Eliminating funding
for the Election Assistance Commission would harm the integrity of our
elections in 2012 and for years to come. Voters deserve assurance that
their vote will count.

In 2000, our democracy was blemished by our flawed election systems.
This was a response, passed in a bipartisan fashion. Regardless of how
we felt about the outcome of that election, Republicans and Democrats
agreed that the Federal Government had a duty to improve election
systems so that every qualified citizen's vote counts.
Now, the FEC has a responsibility, and that is to monitor
contributions and expenditures of political candidates, not to run
elections. They had somewhat that responsibility before we created the
Election Assistance Commission in HAVA, and they did not carry it out.
Why? Because they neither had the resources nor the time to do so.
We need to provide States the financial and informational resources
to upgrade their voting registration systems, train their poll workers,
and improve access for disabled voters. The result was the bipartisan
Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, which I was proud to help write.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. It passed the House by 357 votes to 48 and passed the
Senate with only two votes against.
Before HAVA, the Federal Government guaranteed voting rights, but it
did little to ensure, on the nuts-and-bolts level, that our objectives
were carried out. As part of its efforts toward that end, HAVA created
a bipartisan Election Assistance Commission, whose job is to administer
grants to States and provide States with ongoing guidance.
My good friend from California (Mr. Lungren), with whom I have served
for a number of years, is wrong. There was no intention to make this a
temporary agency just for the distribution of grants. It was an ongoing
advisory agency to make sure that best practices were pursued, not
because they can impose but because they can advise, an extraordinarily
worthwhile event.
The EAC has created a comprehensive program to test State voting
systems for accuracy. Don't we all want that? And use of this program
has been shown to save our States millions of dollars, as the ranking
member just said.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding the additional minute.
The EAC is not perfect. There is no agency, including the one we're
going to fund this week that spends almost $700 billion--that's not
perfect. Should we fix it where it's broken? Yes. Should we do that to
every agency? Yes. Is it our responsibility to do so? Yes. But to
eliminate the very agency constructed to ensure that we do not repeat
the travesty of 2000 is to retreat from ensuring fair, open, accessible
elections where every vote will count.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this piece of legislation. If,
in fact, the EAC needs fixing, let's fix it. That's the responsibility
of the House Administration Committee on which I served for, I think,
17 years. You ought to do that if you think this is not working
correctly, because what it does is absolutely essential for democracy
and for America.
Defeat this legislation.
Mr. HARPER. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, chairman of the Committee on House
Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 672, and I commend my good friend from Mississippi (Mr. Harper)
for his authorship.
The distinguished minority whip, the former Democratic majority
leader, just made the statement essentially saying that few things are
more important in this country than ensuring that every American
citizen's right to vote is protected, and the EAC helps America to
vote.

{time} 1940

We agree on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker. We agree that few
things are more important than ensuring Americans can vote. However,
the Election Assistance Commission's support in this area is negligible
at best.
In 2005, and again in 2010, the National Association of Secretaries
of State, the individuals in the States tasked with overseeing
elections, called for the dissolution of the EAC. The committee heard
firsthand testimony from Secretaries of State that affirmed the passion
with which they support this bill, the Harper bill, and how useless
they feel this agency has become.
When those who oversee elections call for the dissolution of an
agency supposedly meant to be supporting their efforts, Congress should
listen.
But no, it's like President Ronald Reagan once said, and I quote him:
``No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government
programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau
is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.''
Mr. Speaker, the minority whip just basically said the same thing,
that once an agency is created, even after it's performed its function,
it's done its duty, it's time to eliminate it. And we're talking about
millions of dollars.
This is an important bill. As the gentleman from Mississippi so
clearly stated, if we can't do this, what can we do in regard to
reducing unnecessary spending of the taxpayer dollars so we'll have
those precious dollars for other more important matters to help our
States?
So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please, let's have
a unanimous vote in support.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Election
Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act. This would eliminate, as we
have heard, the Election Assistance Commission.
And let me remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more
crucial to democracy than guaranteeing the integrity, fairness,
accessibility and accuracy of elections. Democracy works only if the
citizens believe it does. The system must work, and the people must
believe that it works.
But voting shouldn't be an act of blind faith. It should be an act of
record. The EAC helps maintain the integrity of the American electoral
process. And too many people across the country lack confidence in the
legitimacy of election results, and the dismantling of the EAC would
further erode that faith that is so essential to democracy.
How quickly Members seem to have forgotten the Florida recount with
its hanging chads and pregnant chads and uncertainty counts of ballots
to determine voter intent. The 2000 election exposed critical flaws and
inconsistencies in how elections were conducted and, in its wake,
Congress, under the leadership of Representative Hoyer and others,
approved the Help America Vote Act to assist State and local
jurisdictions.
Yet, the legislation we're considering today willfully ignores this
history. The bill closes the EAC, transfers some of its vital functions
to the Election Commission, an agency that doesn't have the capability
or the expertise to do the job and has other important work to do.
This bill takes this in exactly the wrong direction. While millions
of Americans are casting their votes on unauditable voting machines and
the results of many elections are not audited, eliminating the EAC
would increase the risks that our electoral process will be compromised
by voter system irregularities. Can we afford to take that risk?
Certainly not.
H.R. 672 is another example of the desire of this Chamber that seems
to exist to cut recklessly valuable services, rather than engage in the
hard work of making government work at its best.

[[Page H4353]]

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misguided bill.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), also a former Secretary of State
for the State of Colorado.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. In listening to the opposition, the
statements against this legislation, it would make it sound like the
EAC, the Election Assistance Commission, is a branch of the Justice
Department, that it's there to enforce the right to vote. It doesn't do
any of that at all.
The primary goal for the Election Assistance Commission was, after
the Florida recount, the problems there in the 2000 election, that
according to the Help America Vote Act, that the States such as
Colorado that I was the Secretary of State in, were going to have to
have a voter registration system that would be interactive, interactive
database, to make sure that there wasn't fraud, that there wasn't
duplicative registrations; and that the EAC would be the conduit for
Federal resources grants to States to be able to facilitate that, and
to make sure that that was carried out by the States. And that was for
the 2008 Presidential election, long since done, long accomplished.
As to the EAC, which has no ability to mandate anything to States,
but as an advisory tool, election officials across this country don't
utilize it. There are associations that provide those best practices at
every level of elections, from the county clerks to the Secretaries of
State. And so this is an agency who's primary purpose is long since
over with, and we can transfer the remaining function over to the
Federal Elections Commission. And I rise in strong support for H.R. 672
and would urge its passage.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the great State
of Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we
are here in the dark of night discussing the issues of election
fairness. I would almost imagine it would be somewhat similar to taking
up the Voting Rights Act, the one of 1965, in the dark of night.
We can speak lightly about this, but I will tell you that every
election time someone is denied the right to vote in the United States.
I hope Americans are paying attention tonight to realize that even
though it is represented that the change and eliminating the particular
agency that deals with the questions of fairness, the Election
Assistance Commission, we're actually not saving money, and passing the
responsibilities off to the Federal Elections Commission.
Why could we not have accepted the amendment of the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), who said let's do it right. Let's
have a general accountable study and know what we're doing and if we're
taking away the rights of those who are desiring to vote.
I will tell you that the purging of voters that occurs in Texas and
other places around the Nation, and in particular in Harris County, is
not a minor issue. The distraction of African American male voters in
Florida during the 2000 election is not simply a distraction.
And so the question is, even if this deals with interactive data, let
me suggest to you that it is an important tool for local government
because without this particular commission, those resources or those
responsibilities and the finding of the money will be on local
governments. So now we're doing unfunded mandates.
I would simply say that it was painful to pass the health bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, was passed
in the backdrop of a great deal of emotionalism.

{time} 1950

I am not here to point fingers, but I lived through that emotional
time. It is history, my colleagues know that it is, but they know how
painful it was to be engaged in hanging chads and discussions about who
was turned away from the voting booth--and also the discrepancies on
how we count our votes in America, the most sophisticated Nation in the
world, the Nation that others look to and say, how do we promote
democracy?
Why would we stand on the floor of the House at 8 o'clock tonight and
deny democracy? I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to
stand for democracy and fairness.
Mr. HARPER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I would like to address some of the remarks made by the
proponents of this particular bill. First, I know it was not
intentional to mischaracterize the words of Mr. Hoyer. He did not state
that the EAC should have an eternal life. What he said is, it was
essential, in its present form, in the function that it provides. I
think he also indicated that everything is not a simple budget or
mathematical problem. There is cost benefit to look into and see what
the true benefit is for the investment of that Federal dollar.
Much has been said about the National Association of Secretaries of
State coming out with a resolution. That is not news. From the very
inception they opposed the creation of the Election Assistance
Commission, and on a regular basis they would pass a resolution
expressing that opposition. But I do wish to point out that the
president of the National Association of Secretaries of State,
Secretary of State of Minnesota Mark Ritchie--whose State knows
something about the cost of problematic elections--testified before our
committee on March 31 that he was certainly not in favor of terminating
the Election Assistance Commission.
I also wish to read from a letter that we received today at about 4
p.m. to a House Administration election staffer:
Dear Mr. Khalil, I am the election director of Harford County Board
of Elections in northeastern Maryland. I am a Republican and have been
active in the Republican Party since 1968. I am also the Republican
member of the Standards Board of the Election Assistance Commission.
As a representative of a local board of elections, we are very
isolated and depend on the EAC as a clearinghouse of information and
resources. The EAC has been most helpful to local boards of elections
in supporting our election administration and providing guidance in
future elections. The FEC is too political and cannot do and perform as
the Election Assistance Commission.
The passage of H.R. 672 will be a loss to local boards of election
nationwide. We are the grassroots of the election community, and we
need the support of the EAC.
In closing, we will in fact defeat this tomorrow. I'm hoping that my
amendment will be ruled in order and that we will have a chance to
really look at the potential effect this bill will have on local
election officials. Not to politicize it. This is not about Republicans
or about Democrats; it's about how effective and efficient our local
election officials can be. With the assistance of the only
clearinghouse, the only commission with the expertise and the
dedication to that single goal. There will be no other agency like it,
there will be no other commission like it, and it's well worth the
investment that we make on a yearly basis to assure the integrity and
the efficiency of our local elections. I don't know of any better
investment.
I understand that we have to tighten our belts. Do we do it, though,
at the cost of the efficient running of our elections, the very basis
for our democracy?
I commend the Members on the other side of the aisle for this effort,
but it is truly misguided. It's not based on facts or the realities on
the ground. And almost every local election official will echo those
sentiments today.
I oppose this bill. I will be voting against it. And I ask my
colleagues to please oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the
statement was just made that the FEC is too political to take on the
responsibilities of

[[Page H4354]]

the EAC. That's an amazing statement in light of the fact that the EAC
has been sued for political discrimination--the very agency that's
supposed to take care of fairness and do things in these issues gets
sued for political discrimination. So that is hardly an argument to say
that it can't be transferred.
We are looking at transferring the essential functions of the EAC
over to the FEC with the personnel and funding that's necessary to do
that job. It's a very responsible and adult thing to do to take care
not only of spending issues, but we have an agency that is spending
51.7 percent of its budget on administration and management, not in
program administration, not in taking care of grants, those have come
and gone. So here we are in that situation of an agency that needs to
be eliminated.
And I want to make it clear that in no way, by eliminating the EAC,
are we doing anything to repeal or have any intent to do away with
HAVA. That is something that came about in a bipartisan effort, and it
will remain and shall remain as we move forward. But the EAC was
created and funded for a 3-year period. Nine years later, we have one
of the most inefficient agencies that we will probably ever see. It is
beyond tweaking and correcting to do that.
I want to say that we all believe it is essential in our country that
everyone has a right to vote and has access to vote and that no one be
disenfranchised. In no way does that have any impact in a negative way.
In fact, it will make the election process more efficient to do away
with an agency like this. It is a Federal agency that has long outlived
its usefulness. And if we look at the people that are on the ground in
the States, the Secretaries of State in each of our States, that NASS
would pass a resolution, not once, but twice, that this agency needs to
be done away with--we need to follow that great advice of those that
are most intimately familiar with what's going on.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that H.R. 672 eliminates wasteful
spending in a responsible way. In particular, H.R. 672 would transfer
the Election Assistance Commission's Office of Voting System Testing
and Certification to the Federal Election Commission, while maintaining
the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) current
role in the accreditation of laboratories to test voting equipment. The
bill continues the formal mechanisms for input into the development of
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSGs) by maintaining the current
Technical Guidelines Development Committee (which NIST, chairs), and
replaces several committees with a streamlined 56-member Guidelines
Review Board composed of state and local election officials and other
key constituencies including federal representatives.
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is the Committee of
jurisdiction over the scientific and technological aspects of voting
reform including research, development, and testing of voting machine
standards. These responsibilities have been assigned by the Help
America Votes Act (HAVA) of 2002 to NIST. Within HAVA, the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee created provisions to ensure that
proper technical standards would be developed to improve voting
technology and that a reliable system would be set up to test equipment
against those standards. These activities allow states and localities
to participate in the standards development process and to trust the
systems they choose to invest in. Both are preserved in the legislation
we are considering today.
I thank Representative Gregg Harper (R-MS) and his staff for
recognizing the importance of maintaining a pathway for the development
of voting standards and ensuring the quality of voting equipment in
H.R. 672.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 672.
Today our national debt is 14.344 trillion dollars. Any time we have
the opportunity to save taxpayers $33 million over five years, while
improving the efficiency of our federal government, we should take it.
Those against this bill have said that elections officials from
across the country have called for the agency to be protected. Well, I
happen to have been a Secretary of State for the State of Colorado, and
I am calling for this Agency to be eliminated. In fact, the National
Association of Secretaries of State has passed two resolutions calling
for the EAC's termination.
The EAC's election research function is obsolete. It has completed 4
of the 5 federally mandated election studies, and the one outstanding
study is six years overdue and mired in interagency controversy.
The agency spends over 50% of its budget on administrative costs.
EAC's budget request for 2012 is for 5.4 million dollars to manage
programs totaling 3.4 million dollars.
The EAC does not register voters, nor does it have any enforcement
authority over laws governing voter registration.
This bill will transfer the EAC's remaining valuable service, its
voting system testing and certification program, to the Federal
Election Commission (FEC), which is better equipped to perform these
functions more efficiently.
It is time to, as this bill does, terminate the EAC promptly and
responsibly.
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 672, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________