[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 163 (Friday, October 14, 2022)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1042]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           REGARDING H.R. 139

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RODNEY DAVIS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 14, 2022

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I must say that I am 
perplexed by the Chairwoman's statements on the COCOA Act. Her 
interpretation of the COCOA Act is misleading and inaccurate. There 
have been instances in past election cycles where election officials 
were not aware of Congress' role and responsibility in having its own 
observers on site to watch the election administration process and, as 
a result, were denied access. As I stated earlier, this bill fixes a 
bi-partisan problem by providing a citation of convenience for existing 
law that gives the House authority to deploy official observers to 
watch the conduct of congressional elections in the States and 
territories. This way, there is no question regarding Congress' 
authority to have observers present.
  To my surprise, the Chairwoman identifies two late breaking concerns 
she has with the bill. First, she states that while the bill provides 
broad authority to Congress, it fails to provide election officials 
with the ability to protect personally identifiable information. This 
concern appears to be a novel one, particularly in light of the long 
history of the Congressional observer program. We certainly would have 
welcomed the opportunity to discuss it further in our multiple efforts 
to work with majority staff on this topic.
  Second, the Chairwoman expresses concern over an election official's 
inability to remove congressional observers that are disruptive to the 
process. Contrary to the Chairwoman's statement, the bill outlines the 
role of congressional observers and specifically prohibits these 
individuals from handling ballots, elections equipment, advocating for 
a position or candidate, taking any action to reduce ballot secrecy, or 
otherwise interfering with the elections administration process. The 
bill also permits state and local authorities to remove any observer 
who misbehaves. As such, state and local election officials across the 
country would have appropriate protections in place and should not be 
distressed by the presence of congressional observers.
  Over the course of the past two years, my staff made a concerted 
effort to engage majority staff on the COCOA Act as we view this as a 
bi-partisan measure. We provided draft language to them for review. 
They did not reference either of the aforementioned concerns or flag 
any language that they believed to be problematic in the few 
conversations we had with them. My staff repeatedly offered to confer 
on any issue that majority staff may have with the bill and received 
nothing but radio silence.
  It is important to note that we had an initial agreement in principle 
to move the COCOA Act together with the PAVA Act. However, at the 
eleventh hour, the majority reneged on our agreement in principle to 
move the COCOA Act forward. Again, here on the House Floor is the first 
time we are learning of any issues with the bill.
  This bill benefits both sides of the aisle and serves as an 
additional layer of transparency and integrity in the elections 
process. I am concerned that, without the COCOA Act in place this fall, 
the majority and minority's ability to execute this House's 
constitutional responsibility will continue to face serious challenges.

                          ____________________