[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 92 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1197-E1198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ELECTON SUPPORT CONSOLIDATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. LAURA RICHARDSON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 21, 2011

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.R. 672, 
the Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act, which eliminates 
the Election Assistance Commission, EAC. I oppose this legislation 
because terminating the EAC risks reducing the voting and civil rights 
of our citizens--rights for which many have given their lives.
  The EAC is charged with developing standards for voting systems, and 
this precedent-setting work has been recognized by nations around the 
world. The EAC's certification program uses its oversight role to 
coordinate with manufacturers and local election officials to ensure 
that existing voting equipment meets durability and longevity 
standards. This relieves states and local governments of burdensome 
costs of acquiring new but unnecessary voting equipment.
  Several countries are so impressed with our system that they have 
signed agreements with the EAC for technical assistance as they develop 
their own voting system standards and certification procedures.
  The EAC has also played a central role in improving the accessibility 
of voting for the country's more than 37 million voters with 
disabilities. We still have a long way to go to achieve the Help 
America Vote Act's mandate to make voting accessible and the EAC's 
leadership is essential to continuing the effort to offer all Americans 
the right to vote ``privately and independently.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is worth recalling that the EAC, an independent 
bipartisan commission charged with improving the conduct of elections 
in America to ensure that every vote counts, was born out of the 2000 
presidential election fiasco with its unforgettable contributions to 
the political lexicon: ``hanging'' chads, ``pregnant'' chads, 
``dimpled'' chads; ``butterfly ballots''; and ``voter intent.''
  In response to the 2000 debacle, the EAC has performed valuable work 
to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of our nation's election 
systems. It has played a central role in collecting accurate and 
comparable election data. With our nation's complex and diversified 
election administration system, central data

[[Page E1198]]

collection is essential if we are going to improve our citizens' trust 
and confidence in election results. EAC develops and fosters the 
training and organization of our nation's more than 8,000 election 
administrators.
  Terminating EAC is not only an invitation to repeat the embarrassment 
of the 2000 presidential election, but it breaks faith with those who 
labored long and risked much to secure the right to vote for all 
Americans, particularly African Americans and other minority groups.
  Mr. Speaker, if you believe every vote counts--and every vote should 
be counted--then we must preserve the EAC and oppose this legislation.
  It is also important to note that abolishing the EAC would simply 
shift costs to the Federal Election Commission and local governments, 
not save taxpayer money. The FEC is not an agency that can make 
decisions in a timely and responsive fashion due to its partisan 
divisions. Consequently, transferring the functions performed by the 
EAC to the FEC is inconsistent with the national interest in ensuring 
election integrity, improving voter access to the polls, and enhancing 
the quality of election systems.
  For these reasons, I strongly oppose H.R. 672 and I would urge my 
colleagues to join me in defeating this misguided and reckless 
legislation that puts the integrity of our election systems--public 
confidence in election outcomes--at risk.

                          ____________________