[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18516-18536]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




TERMINATING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND AND ELECTION ASSISTANCE 
                               COMMISSION

  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 477, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3463) to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by 
terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and 
party conventions and by terminating the Election Assistance 
Commission, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3463

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

[[Page 18517]]



  TITLE I--TERMINATION OF TAXPAYER FINANCING OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
                               CAMPAIGNS

     SECTION 101. TERMINATION OF TAXPAYER FINANCING OF 
                   PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

       (a) Termination of Designation of Income Tax Payments.--
     Section 6096 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 2010.''.
       (b) Termination of Fund and Account.--
       (1) Termination of presidential election campaign fund.--
       (A) In general.--Chapter 95 of subtitle H of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 9014. TERMINATION.

       ``The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with 
     respect to any presidential election (or any presidential 
     nominating convention) after the date of the enactment of 
     this section, or to any candidate in such an election.''.
       (B) Transfer of excess funds to general fund.--Section 9006 
     of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) Transfer of Funds Remaining After Termination.--The 
     Secretary shall transfer all amounts in the fund after the 
     date of the enactment of this section to the general fund of 
     the Treasury, to be used only for reducing the deficit.''.
       (2) Termination of account.--Chapter 96 of subtitle H of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 9043. TERMINATION.

       ``The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any 
     candidate with respect to any presidential election after the 
     date of the enactment of this section.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for chapter 95 of subtitle H of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 9014. Termination.''.

       (2) The table of sections for chapter 96 of subtitle H of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 9043. Termination.''.

        TITLE II--TERMINATION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

     SEC. 201. 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

[[Page 18518]]

     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. 202. 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:
       ``(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

[[Page 18519]]

     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 201(a)).

     SEC. 203. 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 Staff Director.--The FEC shall carry out the 
     operation and management of its duties and functions under 
     this part through the Office of the Staff 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.''.

       (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 staff director.--The FEC shall carry out the 
     operation and management of its duties and functions under 
     this subtitle through the Office of the Staff 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. 204. 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''.

[[Page 18520]]

       (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 201(a)).

     SEC. 205. 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 201(a)).

     SEC. 206. 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. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper) 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) each will control 30 
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 in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include materials on H.R. 3463.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To begin, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), 
for his continued assistance in ensuring these important matters are 
considered by the House. He has been a helpful partner.
  Mr. Speaker, we live in uncertain times--with job creation stifled by 
crushing debt. But there are two things I am certain of: the necessity 
of cutting unnecessary spending and the fact that H.R. 3463 is a simple 
and straightforward way to do just that. H.R. 3463 cuts unnecessary 
spending in two ways:
  First, it ends the taxpayer financing of Presidential election 
campaigns and party conventions, a program growing less and less 
popular for both taxpayers and candidates. Second, H.R. 3463 terminates 
the Election Assistance Commission, an obsolete government agency 
originally intended to sunset in 2005.
  Every Federal program, including these, is there because someone 
thinks it is a good idea; but if we do not eliminate some programs, 
then a $15 trillion debt will just be the starting point of our decline 
into a European-style fiscal crisis. Everyone talks about tough 
choices, and we have to make them. Frankly, these choices aren't even 
very tough. They are about as easy as we're going to find.
  Since 1976 American taxpayers have spent $1.5 billion in funding 
Presidential primary campaigns, Presidential election campaigns, and 
national party conventions. My colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) has 
been a leader in trying to end those campaign subsidies, and I am 
pleased to work with him today to continue that effort.
  When the taxpayer financing of political campaigns and conventions 
was adopted, proponents said it would improve the public's trust in 
their government, clean up our politics, and increase the 
competitiveness of political campaigns. Sadly, it has failed on all 
counts. Now we find that more and more candidates are opting out of the 
system altogether. The Federal Election Commission has just this week 
confirmed that no Presidential candidate to date has opted to 
participate for the 2012 election.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking about eliminating a program that 
literally no candidate is currently using or preparing to use at this 
point. That includes President Obama, who in 2008 famously became the 
first Presidential candidate ever to decline to participate in both the 
primary and general election phases of the program.
  It's not just the candidates who don't like it. As this chart 
indicates, support from Americans overall is dramatically low for this 
program. Since peaking in 1980, the percentage of taxpayers opting to 
participate has declined from a high of 28.7 percent to 7 percent.
  It's obviously something that needs to be done away with. That means 
that 93 percent of American taxpayers choose not to participate. They 
refuse to subsidize political campaigns. Who can blame them? It's bad 
enough that they have to watch campaign commercials, but they shouldn't 
have to pay for them with taxpayer dollars as well. The money 
designated by a check-off on tax returns is diverted from those 
taxpayers' payments into this program so that every other taxpayer has 
to make up the difference in revenue to the Treasury. The 93 percent of 
taxpayers who do not participate have to make up for the money spent by 
the current 7 percent who do.
  Mr. Speaker, eliminating this system will save taxpayers an estimated 
$447 million over 5 years and will immediately return nearly $200 
million to the Treasury. This is sensible and long overdue.

                              {time}  1250

  Also long overdue is the elimination of the Election Assistance 
Commission. The EAC, created in 2002, as this chart indicates, was 
expected to sunset in 2005. Instead, as you see on the chart, despite 
its dwindling services, Mr. Speaker, this agency has more than doubled 
its employee size in 3 years. This is clearly an abuse of what should 
have taken place.
  The EAC was established for a noble purpose: to allocate Federal 
grants for State voting systems upgrades, to conduct research, and to 
test and certify voting equipment. Aside from the certification 
services, which can be carried out by another agency, the EAC has 
fulfilled its purpose.
  Over $3 billion has been sent to States over the years to help them 
modernize their voting equipment. Now, the EAC has allocated all of its 
remaining election grants and even zeroed out its request for 
additional grant funds in its last three annual budget requests.
  The National Association of Secretaries of State, a bipartisan group, 
the direct beneficiary of the EAC's dwindling services, has passed not 
one but two resolutions calling for the EAC's dissolution. As this 
chart indicates, the EAC's FY12 budget request devotes 51.7

[[Page 18521]]

percent of its budget to management and overhead costs--more than half. 
Under this plan, the agency would use $5.4 million to manage programs 
totaling $3.5 million.
  This bill would transfer the EAC's remaining valuable service, its 
voting system testing and certification program, to an existing agency 
instead of paying the overhead costs of a complete agency just to 
operate that program. Like its predecessor bill, H.R. 672, this bill 
maintains an advisory system to give State and local election officials 
input into the testing and certification program.
  Mr. Speaker, since December of 2010, the Election Assistance 
Commission has not had a quorum. That means it has not been able to 
make policy decisions requiring approval by the Commissioners. Has 
anyone even noticed? Compared to the real crises facing our country, 
has there been harm caused to justify keeping an obsolete agency?
  The EAC is not merely obsolete, it's also wasteful. I have spoken to 
this House before about the two hiring discrimination lawsuits against 
the EAC. Unfortunately, the more time that passes, the more problems 
come to light. Just recently we learned that a former EAC Commissioner, 
who continued serving for a year after the end of the term and then 
resigned, has been collecting unemployment benefits. Neither the 
Commissioner's resignation letter nor any facts that we know of 
indicate the departure was anything other than voluntary.
  When we have millions of people in this country struggling to make 
ends meet, how can a senior government official who leaves a job 
voluntarily collect unemployment benefits? When we have an agency that 
is not needed and produces scandal after scandal, misperformance after 
misperformance, it is time for this agency to go.
  According to the CBO, dissolving the EAC will save taxpayers $33 
million over the next 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a $15 trillion debt. We have to start somewhere. 
We now have annual deficits over a trillion dollars. H.R. 3463 
eliminates one government program that virtually no one uses and shuts 
down an agency that has completed the task that it was assigned. 
Amazingly, we've had proposals not to shrink these programs but to 
expand them. Only in Washington is the answer to dysfunction expansion.
  This bill will not cure all of the problems that we have on its own, 
but it is one of many steps we are going to have to take; otherwise, we 
will sink deeper and deeper into debt and trap our children and our 
grandchildren down into a downward spiral. Today is the time to act, 
and this agency and this program are the place to start.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3463, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, 
           and Technology,
                                Washington, DC, November 30, 2011.
     Hon. Daniel E. Lungren,
     Chairman, Committee on House Administration, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lungren: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space, 
     and Technology in H.R. 3463 (to reduce Federal spending and 
     the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential 
     election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating 
     the Election Assistance Commission) introduced on November 
     17, 2011.
       I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this 
     legislation before the House of Representatives in an 
     expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will waive further 
     consideration of this bill in Committee, notwithstanding any 
     provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
     on Science, Space, and Technology. This waiver, of course, is 
     conditional upon our mutual understanding that agreeing to 
     waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as 
     waiving, reducing, or affecting the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Additionally, 
     the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology expressly 
     reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provision 
     within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference 
     that may be convened on this, or any similar legislation. I 
     ask for your commitment to support any request by the 
     Committee for conferees on H.R. 3463 as well as any similar 
     or related legislation.
       I ask that a copy of this letter and your response be 
     placed in the Congressional Record during consideration of 
     H.R. 3463 on the House floor.
       I look forward to working with you on matters of mutual 
     concern.
           Sincerely,

                                                Ralph M. Hall,

     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                            Committee on House Administration,

                                 Washington, DC, December 1, 2010.
     Hon. Ralph Hall,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding your 
     Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 3463, to reduce 
     Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer 
     financing of presidential election campaigns and party 
     conventions and by terminating the Election Assistance 
     Commission.
       I appreciate your willingness to support expediting floor 
     consideration of this important legislation, notwithstanding 
     the inclusion of any provisions under the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. I understand and 
     agree that your willingness to waive further consideration of 
     the bill is without prejudice to your Committee's 
     jurisdictional interests in this or similar legislation in 
     the future. In the event a House-Senate conference on this or 
     similar legislation is convened, I would support a request 
     from your Committee for an appropriate number of conferees.
       I will include a copy of our exchange in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of H.R. 3463 on the House floor.
       Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards enactment 
     of this legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                            Daniel E. Lungren,

                                                         Chairman,
                                Committee on House Administration.

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 3463.
  This is not new territory for this Congress. This proposal to 
eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Election 
Assistance Commission has already been dealt with in this Congress. The 
legislation before us proposes to combine these two really bad ideas.
  In an era of rapidly changing election law, both in terms of campaign 
finance regulation and voting rights, these two programs are more 
important now than ever. The electoral landscape is much different 
today than it was even 4 short years ago. The Supreme Court allows 
unlimited contributions from special interests, and Super PACs are 
raising vast amounts of funds with no government oversight or 
regulation. Corporations and special interests are donating massive 
sums of money, and some may expect a return on their investment. 
Unfortunately, this return often comes at the expense of the American 
people and sometimes at the expense of the integrity of this body.
  We cannot expect the trust of the electorate if they feel they do not 
have a voice. We should provide transparency and accountability, not 
secrecy and irresponsibility.
  Just last Congress, my colleagues and I passed the DISCLOSE Act, 
which called for more transparency in how our elections are financed, 
and that bill was killed by Senate Republicans. Members of the House, 
such as Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland and Mr. Larson of Connecticut, have 
authorized bills that would strengthen public financing of elections, 
not weaken it, as this bill does.
  When sources of funds are intentionally concealed, what kind of 
message does this send to the country? It sends the message that we do 
not care where we get our contributions as long as they are substantial 
and they are secret, and that is wrong.
  We can reform the Presidential Election Campaign Fund without 
repealing it. This is the best course of action.
  Across the country, States are making it harder for voters to cast 
their ballots. New laws requiring voter identifications, strict and 
arbitrary voting registration regulations, and eliminating the days 
designed for early voting are all part of an effort to limit voter 
participation and turnout. Voters have noticed and have already started 
to push back.
  This was the case in Maine last month when they used the ``People's 
Veto'' to throw out a law passed by the Republican legislature and 
Governor to

[[Page 18522]]

eliminate the State's successful same-day voter registration program 
which has been in place for 40 years. In other States, restrictive new 
laws may be forced onto the ballot for a possible repeal in referendums 
in 2012.
  If that wasn't bad enough, overworked and underpaid local election 
officials and volunteers are expected to keep track of election law 
changes while still administrating large, complex, and often 
unpredictable elections. The Election Assistance Commission does much 
of the heavy lifting for them, establishing and maintaining an 
information database for all local election officials to utilize.
  The EAC also produces instructional videos and materials, which cash-
strapped election officials claim save them thousands of dollars 
annually. And the letters of support for the EAC, which have been also 
sent to my colleagues across the aisle, are still rolling in.
  The EAC's essential services do not stop there. The Commission is 
charged with the testing of certification of voting machines, the only 
agency in the Federal Government tasked to do this. Who will ensure 
that all of our votes are counted? Who will ensure that everyone has an 
opportunity to cast a ballot for their intended candidate? Who will 
ensure that we do not repeat the historical debacle of Florida in the 
year 2000?
  It is important to remember that events led to the establishment of 
the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the EAC--the Watergate 
scandal of the early 1970s and Florida in 2000, respectively. These 
historical controversies eroded the public's faith in our political 
system. These measures were meant to restore their faith, to restore 
accountability to Washington and, most importantly, to ensure that the 
people were heard. All this bill will do is weaken further what little 
faith the American electorate has left.
  Today I stand with every letter writer that has pleaded with us not 
to terminate the EAC. I stand with those who cannot afford to make huge 
contributions and would rather speak with their votes than their 
wallets. I, along with Democratic colleagues, stand with the principles 
that voter inclusion, not voter exclusion, is what we should strive 
for, and the attempted disenfranchisement of any eligible voters is 
despicable and is beyond words and cannot be tolerated.
  On this bill I urge a ``no'' vote.

                                            League of Women Voters


                                         of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2011.
     To: Members of the Committee on House Administration
     From: Elisabeth MacNamara, President
     Re H.R. 672, To Terminate the Election Assistance Commission

       The League of Women Voters urges you to oppose H.R. 672, 
     which would terminate the Election Assistance Commission and 
     transfer some of its functions to the Federal Election 
     Commission. Instead of eliminating the EAC, we believe that 
     Congress should strengthen the commission and expand its 
     responsibilities. Moreover, the FEC is dysfunctional; 
     expanding its role would be a mistake.
       The League believes that elections are fundamental to a 
     functioning democracy and that every effort should be made to 
     elevate their administration to the highest importance. 
     Congress should not turn its back on federal efforts to 
     ensure election integrity, improve voter access to the polls, 
     and improve election systems. The value of the EAC far 
     outweighs its monetary costs; in fact, the costs of poorly 
     run elections are intolerable. It is time for election 
     administration to move into the 21st Century, not back toward 
     the 19th.
       Unfortunately, elections in our country are still not well-
     administered, and we are concerned that many states and 
     localities are not doing a good job ensuring federally-
     protected voting rights. For example, a GAO report on the 
     2008 election said that there are significant problems for 
     persons with disabilities in gaining access to the polls. 
     Physical barriers remain in far too many cases. In fact, 31 
     states reported that ensuring polling place accessibility was 
     ``challenging.''
       There many other areas of election administration that 
     cause concern, including statewide voter registration lists, 
     provisional balloting, list cleaning, voting machines and 
     tabulating, access to registration, and meeting voter 
     information needs. In addition, there are critical questions 
     that must be addressed about the application of new 
     technologies like the Internet to the voting and registration 
     processes. Each of these areas would benefit from additional 
     study, data gathering and information sharing among election 
     officials at every level, the public, and concerned 
     organizations.
       With these continuing problems, now is certainly not the 
     time to abolish the only federal agency that devotes its full 
     resources and attention to improving our elections. Let us 
     not go back to the 2000 election but go forward, improving 
     each election over the last. We know what needs to be done; 
     now let us devote the resources to what should be done.
                                  ____

                                      The Leadership Conference on


                                       Civil and Human Rights,

                                     Washington, DC, May 24, 2011.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Voting Rights Task 
     Force of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 
     we urge you to oppose H.R. 672, which would terminate the 
     Election Assistance Commission (``EAC'' or ``Commission''). 
     As organizations that are committed to supporting and 
     expanding the civil and voting rights of all Americans, we 
     have devoted substantial resources to the passage of both the 
     National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote 
     Act. Terminating the EAC puts our work at jeopardy and risks 
     reducing the voting and civil rights of our citizens--rights 
     for which many have given their lives.
       The EAC does valuable work to ensure the reliability and 
     trustworthiness of our nation's election systems. The 
     Commission plays a major role in collecting accurate and 
     comparable election data. With our nation's complex and 
     diversified election administration system, central data 
     collection is essential if we are going to improve our 
     citizens' trust and confidence in election results. The 
     Commission develops and fosters the training and organization 
     of our nation's more than 8,000 election administrators. 
     Through its many working committees and the work it does to 
     foster robust dialogue among advocates, manufacturers and 
     administrators, the Commission is improving the 
     administration of elections. The EAC's award-winning web page 
     has become the ``go to'' site for election administrators, 
     advocates, and academics.
       The Commission is charged with developing standards for 
     voting systems, and this precedent-setting work has been 
     recognized by nations around the world. 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'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 saves state and local governments 
     from the unnecessary expense of new voting equipment.
       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. The EAC's leadership is essential to 
     continuing the effort to offer all Americans the right to 
     vote ``privately and independently.''
       As we approach the 2012 elections, the EAC must continue to 
     do its important work. Rather than abolishing the agency just 
     before the 2012 elections, we believe Congress should 
     strengthen the Commission by broadening its data collection 
     responsibilities and by giving it regulatory authority to 
     ensure that persons with disabilities have full access to the 
     polls.
       Thank you for your consideration of our position. If you 
     have any questions about this letter, please contact 
     Leadership Conference Senior Counsel Lisa Bornstein, at (202) 
     263-2856 or B[email protected].
           Sincerely,
     Wade Henderson,
       President & CEO.
     Nancy Zirkin,
       Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                      National Association for the


                                Advancement of Colored People,

                                     Washington, DC, June 2, 2011.
     Members,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's 
     oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based 
     civil rights organization, I strongly urge you to do all you 
     can to support the Election Assistance Commission and to 
     oppose and vote against efforts to terminate this crucial 
     tool in our arsenal to strengthen our democracy. The right to 
     vote is a cornerstone of our democracy and we as a Nation 
     should do all we can to ensure that every eligible American 
     can cast an unfettered vote of their own free will and that 
     their vote is counted.
       As established by the 2002 Help America Vote Act, the 
     Election Assistance Commission provides research and data, 
     guidance and grants to states and local governments so they 
     can employ the best practices and the most up-to-date methods 
     of registering and voting. The Election Assistance Commission 
     has provided crucial help to many localities in the efforts 
     to identify and reach groups which had heretofore been 
     disenfranchised, including racial and ethnic

[[Page 18523]]

     minorities, members of the Armed Services (especially those 
     serving overseas), disabled Americans and senior citizens.
       We should be supporting and enhancing groups like the 
     Election Assistance Commission, whose mission is to engage 
     more Americans in the democratic process so that their voices 
     may be heard. I therefore must again strongly urge you to 
     oppose and work against bills such as H.R. 672, which would 
     terminate the Election Assistance Commission within 60 days 
     of enactment. Sadly, this shortsighted legislation which is, 
     in fact, a direct attack on one of the most fundamental 
     components of our form of government, the right to vote and 
     have that vote count, was passed out of the House 
     Administration Committee and may come before you on the House 
     floor in the very near future.
       Thank you in advance for your attention to the NAACP 
     position: I look forward to working with you to see that we 
     work toward a more inclusive democracy and to protect the 
     integrity of our Nation and our government. Should you have 
     any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact 
     me at my office at (202) 463-2940.
           Sincerely,
     Hilary O. Shelton,
       Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President 
     for Advocacy and Policy.
                                  ____



                                                        Demos,

                                       New York, NY, May 24, 2011.
     Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, 
         U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: Demos respectfully urges the members 
     of the Subcommittee on Elections to oppose H.R. 672, 
     legislation that would terminate the Elections Assistance 
     Commission (EAC). Without the EAC there would be no federal 
     agency focused on improving the quality of elections--a vital 
     function in ensuring the success of our democratic 
     institutions.
       Demos is a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy 
     organization committed to building an America which achieves 
     its highest democratic ideals--a nation where democracy is 
     robust and inclusive, with high levels of electoral 
     participation and civic engagement; an economy where 
     prosperity and opportunity are broadly shared and disparity 
     is reduced; and a strong and effective government with the 
     capacity to plan for the future.
       The EAC does valuable work to ensure the efficacy, 
     reliability, and trustworthiness of our nation's election 
     systems. For example, the Commission plays a major role in 
     collecting accurate and comparable election data. With our 
     nation's complex and diversified election administration 
     system, central data collection is essential to accurately 
     assess its state and therefore to improve our citizens' trust 
     and confidence in election results. The Commission also 
     develops and fosters the training and organization of our 
     nation's more than 8,000 election administrators. The EAC's 
     award-winning web page has become the ``go to'' site for 
     election administrators, advocates, and academics.
       Moreover, the Commission is charged with developing 
     standards for voting systems, and this precedent-setting work 
     has been recognized by nations around the world. Several 
     countries are so impressed with our system that they have 
     signed agreements with the EAC for technical assistance as 
     they developed their own voting system standards and 
     certification procedures. The EAC's certification program is 
     helping state and local governments to save money by using 
     its oversight role to coordinate with manufacturers and local 
     election officials to ensure that the existing equipment 
     meets its durability and longevity potential. This saves 
     state and local governments from the unnecessary expense of 
     new voting equipment.
       Importantly, the EAC has played a central role in improving 
     the accessibility of voting for the country's more than 37 
     million voters with disabilities. Although we still have a 
     way to go to achieve the Help America Vote Act's mandate to 
     make voting accessible, the EAC's leadership is essential to 
     continuing the effort to offer all Americans the right to 
     vote ``privately and independently.''
       We recognize that H.R. 672 would transfer many of the EAC's 
     functions to the FEC but this would not be wise. The FEC is 
     dysfunctional. It is overwhelmed by its current 
     responsibilities, as evidenced by repeated court orders to 
     correct its regulations to bring them in line with the laws 
     of the United States. The FEC is starkly divided on partisan 
     lines, making it particularly inappropriate for election 
     administration responsibilities. And the FEC is increasingly 
     unable to make decisions or even to agree on staff-negotiated 
     recommendations.
       Rather than abolishing the EAC, Congress should provide the 
     EAC with resources and a renewed commitment to sponsoring and 
     encouraging information sharing among state and local 
     officials, EAC committees, the non-partisan voting rights 
     community, technical experts and others.
       Elections are the life blood of a democracy. We strongly 
     urge the committee to strengthen the Election Assistance 
     Commission instead of terminating it.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Miles Rapoport,
     President.
                                  ____

                                            Lawyers' Committee for


                                       Civil Rights under Law,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 2011.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Leader: The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 
     Under Law (``Lawyers' Committee'') writes to express our 
     opposition to the ``To Terminate the Election Assistance 
     Commission, and For Other Purposes Act'' (H.R. 672). In the 
     2000 presidential election, many voters in Florida were 
     wrongfully denied access to the ballot based on faulty voting 
     equipment and a lack of discernible standards for vote 
     counting. This bill would roll back the progress being made 
     to bring more uniformity and equity to the election process 
     across the states.
       The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 
     organization, established in 1963 at the request of President 
     John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal 
     services to protect the rights of individuals affected by 
     racial discrimination. The defense of voting rights has been 
     a core part of the Lawyers' Committee's work since our 
     founding nearly 50 years ago. We believe that abolishing the 
     Election Assistance Commission (EAC) fails to further voting 
     transparency and reliability that was at the heart of the 
     Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Predictably, those who would be 
     most frequently disenfranchised are also those least able to 
     advocate for their right to vote, whether poor, uneducated, 
     infirm or elderly.
       Faced with a challenge to our democratic system, Congress 
     immediately rushed to action to take bold steps to bring our 
     elections into the 21st century by passing HAVA which 
     established the EAC. The EAC tests and certifies voting 
     machines for use in elections to avoid a repeat of the 2000 
     election debacle in Florida; administers electronic voting 
     for our brave men and women in uniform fighting overseas so 
     that they are able to vote abroad; and creates voluntary 
     voting guidelines for states, instilling confidence in the 
     democratic process of this country for all voters. Since its 
     inception, the Lawyers' Committee has been intimately 
     acquainted with the work of the EAC, especially as Barbara 
     Arnwine our Executive Director has served on the EAC advisory 
     board. Our work and experience with the EAC leads us to 
     believe that its establishment was the right course of 
     action, and that its existence has helped bring some clarity 
     to our multi-faceted election process.
       The work of the EAC to improve and modernize our election 
     system is far from over. Moving the functionality of the EAC 
     to the FEC would not only be ineffective, but costly. The 
     Federal Election Committee (FEC), institutionally partisan 
     and consistently ineffective in achieving even its current 
     mandate, is not the organization we need to test and certify 
     voting machines, or safeguard the votes of our service men 
     and women.
       With the presidential election on the horizon, it is more 
     important than ever that we ensure the voice of the people is 
     heard through a reliable, transparent democratic system. 
     Termination of the EAC will take us backwards when we are 
     trying to move forward.
           Sincerely,
     Barbara R. Arnwine,
       Executive Director.
     Tanya Clay House,
       Director of Public Policy.
                                  ____

                                        National Disability Rights


                                                      Network,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 2011.
     Re Opposition to H.R. 672, the Election Support Consolidation 
         and Efficiency Act.

       As the Executive Director of the National Disability Rights 
     Network (NDRN), I write to express the opposition of NDRN and 
     the 57 Protection and Advocacy systems it represents to H.R. 
     672, the Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act 
     (ESCEA). Voting is a fundamental right, and the Election 
     Assistance Commission has played an important role since its 
     creation to ensuring that polling places and the voting 
     process are accessible to people with disabilities. The ESCEA 
     would hinder progress toward accessibility of polling places 
     and the voting process by abolishing the Election Assistance 
     Commission (EAC).
       NDRN is the national membership association for the 57 
     Protection & Advocacy (P&A) agencies that advocate on behalf 
     of persons with disabilities in every state, the District of 
     Columbia, and U.S. territories. For over 30 years, the P&A 
     agencies have been mandated by Congress to protect and 
     enhance the civil rights of individuals with disabilities of 
     any age and in any setting. One area of focus for the P&As is 
     voting through the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access 
     Act (PAVA) which charges P&As with helping to ensure the full 
     participation of individuals with disabilities in the entire 
     electoral process, including registering to vote, casting a 
     ballot, and accessing polling places.
       The EAC has played a central role in improving the 
     accessibility of voting for voters with disabilities. A 
     Government Accountability Office report from 2009 http://

[[Page 18524]]

     www.gao.gov/newitems/d09685.pdf) found that 72 percent of 
     polling places surveyed on Election Day 2008 had impediments 
     that hinder physical access or limit the opportunities for 
     private and independent voting for people with disabilities. 
     This is an improvement over the results of a similar study 
     done during the 200 election, in which 84 percent of polling 
     places had impediments. The EAC, established following the 
     2000 election, has helped improve these results by acting as 
     a national clearinghouse of information on accessible voting 
     and providing technical assistance and guidance for election 
     commissioners and how to make polling places, and the voting 
     process as a whole, more accessible.
       There remains much work to be done not only relating to 
     physical accessibility, but also relating to other barriers 
     to voting, such as a lack of voting and registration 
     materials in accessible formats for people with sensory 
     disabilities. In some instances, there have been outright 
     denials of the right to register and vote based on false 
     assumptions about a person's legal capacity to vote. 
     Abolishing the EAC at this point in time would be a step back 
     for people with disabilities and the goal of full 
     accessibility to the voting process, and prevent people with 
     disabilities from partaking of this most fundamental civil 
     right.
       As we rapidly approach the 2012 elections, the EAC must 
     continue to do its important work. Rather than abolishing the 
     agency just before the 2012 elections, Congress should 
     strengthen the EAC to ensure that persons with disabilities 
     fully enjoy the right to vote privately and independently. 
     Therefore, on behalf of the NDRN and the 57 P&A agencies it 
     represents, I ask that you oppose H.R. 672 when it is 
     considered by the full House of Representatives today.
           Sincerely,
                                             Curtis L. Decker, JD,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is clear that what has happened here is that there has been no 
response to many of the allegations of mismanagement that we've heard 
so far. It is clear from the things that have happened that the EAC, in 
particular, it is time for this to come to a conclusion. It is an 
agency whose average salary for its employees--and the employee size 
has more than doubled since 2007--the average salary is $106,000 for 
this agency. Ronald Reagan said that the closest thing on earth to 
eternal life is a temporary government program. This was supposed to 
last for a period of 3 years.
  The National Association of Secretaries of State in 2005 did a 
resolution, a bipartisan group, they did a resolution saying bring this 
to an end. They renewed that resolution again in 2010, and yet it 
remains. If we cannot get rid of an agency like the EAC, then we're 
never going to be able to get rid of anything up here.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Instead of focusing on jobs and helping middle class families, the 
Republican leadership is hard at work today creating additional ways in 
which corporations and special interests can dominate our elections 
process. Ending the Presidential Election Campaign Fund opens the door 
for large political spenders to enjoy an even greater role in the 
funding of political campaigns.
  The voluntary public finance system for Presidential campaigns was 
created in the early seventies as a direct result of the corruption of 
Watergate, the largest political scandal of our generation. Stopping 
corruption and the appearance of corruption is as important today as it 
was during the Nixon years. The level of spending by corporations and 
special interests since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United 
should give every American reason for concern. Do my Republican 
colleagues really believe that more corporate and special interest 
money in politics is going to benefit in any way the 99 percent of 
Americans who don't have lobbyists?
  The current public finance system for Presidential elections has 
problems. Most notably, it has not kept pace with the cost of modern 
campaigns, so we should fix it instead of eliminating it. And I would 
note that the Republican National Committee recently received $18 
million from the fund, so if the Republicans think it's such a bad 
idea, perhaps they should ask the RNC to return the money.
  As for the Election Assistance Commission, the EAC is the only 
Federal agency focused on improving Federal elections. This was an 
outgrowth of the disastrous process of the 2000 election. Remember, 100 
million votes were cast, but it took a decision of the Supreme Court 
before a winner was declared. The experience left a black eye on our 
elections process. It's not something America should go through again.
  As State and local budgets are cut, the value of this commission is 
going to grow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Have there been problems at the EAC? 
Yes, there have been problems. What should we do about it? We need 
oversight and reform. We shouldn't just abolish this commission because 
we are going backwards to the bad old days of inconsistency among 
voters. I urge my colleagues to focus on the economy, focus on jobs, 
and don't pass bills that give corporations and special interests even 
greater influence in our elections.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is amazing that there is a reference to the need that we need to 
focus on jobs instead of doing something like this. If that's the case, 
we've passed about 25 bills this year out of the Republican-led House 
that dealt with jobs and dealt with the economy. We have done our job 
on that, and now they're sitting over in the Senate who knows where or 
why awaiting action. So we have been doing those things, the tough 
decisions, the things that will create jobs if the Senate and the White 
House would join with us on those things. So that is simply not 
accurate to say that we haven't been focusing on jobs because we have 
done that since we started this year, and we will continue to do so and 
encourage and urge our colleagues over in the Senate to bring these 
matters up. They include things that will help on overburdensome EPA 
regs, with things that will deal with permitting and drilling in the 
Gulf of Mexico and things that will have a direct impact on our economy 
and jobs.
  You know, it is clear, particularly on the EAC, which was created in 
2002 after HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, after the Bush-Gore recount 
so that we wouldn't have another hanging chad or butterfly ballot 
situation, and this agency administered over $3 billion worth of grants 
to the States for machines. When it was passed, it was designed to be a 
3-year agency and program. We're 9 years into this. And instead of 
trying to say, okay, and we showed the chart a minute ago with $5.4 
million worth of management costs, and yet only a little over $3 
million in program costs. And the grants for the machines, Mr. Speaker, 
are now gone and they are not there.
  We have the letter from the National Association of Secretaries of 
State which restates their position on the resolution to eliminate the 
EAC done in 2005, and again in 2010. Again on the EAC, we have reports 
from different agencies. We have an IG report criticizing the 
management practices of the EAC. This report was done in March of 2010.
  We have a report from the EAC's financial records back in November of 
2008 which I dealt with when I first got on the Committee on House 
Administration in early 2009. This report is an audit of the Election 
Assistance Commission fiscal year 2008 financial statements. The 
records were so mismanaged, this agency that the other side wants to 
keep instead of trying to make us more efficient, it was so bad that 
the agency couldn't be audited. The records were too bad to tell them 
how bad it was. So that lengthy report is available to anyone who cares 
to read it.
  Then we have a report from the Office of Special Counsel that was 
done in 2009. The Office of Special Counsel talks about having to 
settle a political

[[Page 18525]]

discrimination case. An agency that is supposed to talk about fairness 
and helping in elections themselves get sued for political 
discrimination. And one of those that created that problem is the one 
that voluntarily resigned and received unemployment benefits for a 
voluntary resignation.
  We have the organizational chart that shows that the EAC included a 
special assistant to a vacant position. I can go on and on, Mr. 
Speaker, on the mismanagement of the EAC. It is clearly time to say--
and I understand that there are some things that we need to keep. We 
are saying that the essential functions of this group, send them over 
to the FEC, and we can take care of those situations on testing and 
certification, make the process more efficient, and we'll save money 
for the taxpayers.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
3463.
  It might sound surprising, but right behind jobs, one of the top 
concerns my constituents contact me about is campaign reform. You'd 
think that campaign rules would be the very last thing people would 
think about when they're worried about their livelihoods, their 
mortgages, and their family's health care. But they know that the 
electoral process is at the heart of everything their government can do 
for them.
  The American people are frustrated. They are frustrated by what I 
call super-sized campaigns. It's all too much. It's too slanderous. 
It's too hard to tell who's paying for what and who's saying what. They 
feel that big donors, big corporations, and ideological groups are 
running the show, and they're being left out. But the American people 
care, and they believe in ``we the people.''
  Public financing gives the voice back to the middle class. The 
Election Assistance Commission can help election officials better the 
process for voters. Neither of these is perfect right now. We 
acknowledge that, but we should be improving rather than eliminating 
them. Throwing away what public financing we have, what financing 
worked for every President from 1976 to 2004 and making it harder to 
bring election improvements together is a step in the wrong direction.

                              {time}  1310

  Rather than making it even harder for the average voter to make a 
difference, Congress should be improving access to democracy by 
expanding public financing, assisting election officials, and 
increasing voting opportunities for all Americans.
  Our people are our strength, and we have no business shutting them 
out. The supporters of this bill say it will save us money. But in 
fact, Mr. Speaker, it will mean our democracy is up for sale.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for 
yielding.
  One of the arguments that's been made about the EAC, Mr. Speaker, is 
that it's the Federal Election Commission that ensures every American 
citizen's right to vote. If only that were true, Mr. Speaker.
  The National Association of Secretaries of State, which is the 
organization in each State that oversees the elections, has called for 
the dissolution of the EAC. The committee has heard firsthand testimony 
from Secretaries of State all across the country. Both in 2005 and 
again in 2010, the National Association of Secretaries of State has 
called for the dissolution of the EAC.
  If the organizations that are actually responsible in each State for 
holding the elections, Mr. Speaker, are asking that the Federal agency 
that's supposed to help them should be dissolved, I think it would 
behoove the Congress to listen to the States and in this case dissolve 
this commission.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing attempts to suppress the valid legal 
vote of some communities in this country. Earlier efforts to stop 
selected Americans from voting, such as literacy tests and poll taxes, 
were overturned by this Congress. But while the tactics of these people 
have changed, their strategy remains the same--intimidate, discourage, 
or otherwise prevent certain groups of American citizens from voting.
  Current tactics include burdensome voter ID laws, outrageous 
registration requirements, dishonest ``inactive voter lists,'' and 
unlawful disenfranchisement of ex-offenders. To these flagrant tactics 
proponents of voter suppression have added more subtle approaches, 
including disinformation campaigns and behind-the-scenes, quiet--and 
unfair--purging of voter rolls.
  Now we are presented with their latest plan to deny certain Americans 
their right to vote--the elimination of two programs whose sole aim is 
to ensure that every American's voice is heard in our election. The 
Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Election Assistance 
Commission are in need of strengthening, not elimination. They help 
make sure that all voices can be heard and that all votes will be 
counted. I support improving these programs.
  But the only reason to want to eliminate them is to further suppress 
votes. The votes are the same groups who were targeted by Jim Crow laws 
decades ago. The votes are the same groups who are now targeted by 
``inactive voter lists'' and voter ID laws and all of the other new 
tactics designed for a single goal--voter suppression.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and defeat yet another 
attempt to stop American citizens from voting.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I just heard 
from my friend from Missouri. Doing away with the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund is not a Jim Crow law. And I'll put my record alongside 
his on ensuring voting rights to minorities as the author of the latest 
extension of the Voting Rights Act and one who got the 1982 compromise 
passed and signed into law by President Reagan.
  The Presidential Election Campaign Fund was destroyed 3 years ago by 
President and then-Candidate Barack Obama. He refused to be bound by 
its restrictions. Senator John McCain was. And he was put at a 
significant disadvantage in the general election campaign by running 
against Candidate Obama, who rejected the Election Campaign Fund's 
funds and raised huge and unlimited amounts of money.
  Mr. CLAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I have a limited amount of time. If I have time 
left, I will be happy to yield.
  This year, so as not to disadvantage themselves, none--that means 
none--of the Republican primary candidates have signed up for 
Presidential Election Campaign Fund money. The Obama moneymaking 
machine is running all around the country. We see this in the 
newspapers. We hear it on television. And because the campaign fund 
would limit the amount of money that whoever the Republican nominee, if 
they took these funds, could use in order to spread his message on why 
Obama ought to be replaced by the voters, we ought to just get rid of 
this fund altogether. It was destroyed 3 years ago by then-Candidate 
Obama. We might as well not spend any more taxpayers' funds on it. May 
it rest in peace.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, we already know that in 38 States there is introduced 
legislation that would suppress the participation and the votes of 
young, minority, and elderly voters. Now we see their allies here in 
Congress who are trying to eliminate the only Federal agency charged 
with improving the conduct of elections and making sure that every vote 
counts. If you like the direction of

[[Page 18526]]

the State legislatures, you're going to be thrilled by the legislation 
before us today to close the Election Assistance Commission.
  The voter's vote should be behind a curtain of secrecy, but the 
process by which registration and elections are conducted should be 
transparent. If not, voters will cease to believe that the process is 
fair and that their vote counts.
  Let me remind my colleagues there is nothing more crucial to 
democracy than guaranteeing the integrity, the fairness, the 
accountability, the accuracy of elections. Democracy works only if the 
citizens believe it does. The system must work, and the people must 
believe in it; 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. Too many people across the country have lost confidence in the 
legitimacy of the election results. Dismantling the EAC would further 
erode that necessary faith in the process.
  We've discussed several times--and others have talked about it--if 
manipulating the outcome of elections occurs, how much easier will it 
be once the EAC is eliminated. Millions of Americans are casting their 
votes now on unauditable voting machines and the results of most 
elections are not audited.

                              {time}  1320

  Eliminating the EAC would increase the risks that our electoral 
process would be compromised by vote manipulation, by targeted voter ID 
laws, by voter system irregularities. Can we afford to take that risk? 
Certainly not. Do we want problems to go undetected? I would hope not.
  Less oversight, lesser standards, less transparency in reporting, 
less testing, fewer audience weakens our democracy. Abolishing the EAC 
is the wrong way to go.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a distinguished member of the Appropriations and 
Budget Committees, who also has been heavily involved in this matter as 
a cosponsor and also has done great work on trying to eliminate and 
bring to an end the Presidential Election Fund.
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The legislation before us actually does three important things: 
First, it eliminates an antiquated, outdated system of public 
financing; second, it terminates an obsolete commission; and then 
finally, and not incidentally, it actually saves money, something that 
we talk a lot about around here but we very seldom actually do.
  When the Presidential Election Campaign Fund was actually created in 
1973, it was during the time before things like Facebook, YouTube, and 
Twitter. The widespread use of the Internet did not exist. That's no 
longer the case today. Today, it's pretty easy to actually contribute 
money to a Presidential candidate if you want to do it. I would advise 
anybody, regardless of their political persuasion, to simply type the 
name of the candidate that they like into the Internet and wait and see 
what pops up, and they're going to have an immediate opportunity to 
donate to that individual.
  There is no need to take public money at a time that we're running 
$1.5 trillion deficits and divert it to what's essentially political 
welfare for Presidential candidates--absolute waste of money. It's so 
much a waste that our President, who defends the system but chose not 
to participate in the system--in 2008, he did not participate, did not 
raise money this way, did not do it during the public campaign, 
actually broke precedent and, frankly, the commitment he had made 
earlier in the campaign and just chose not to do it. And that's fine. 
That was his right. He was certainly more than adequately funded. His 
opponent, Senator Clinton, now Secretary Clinton, was also adequately 
funded. She did not use the public financing system. The one person who 
did, John McCain, was heavily outspent, although I don't think that had 
much to do with his defeat.
  I think, honestly, Americans know how to contribute to Presidential 
candidates. They don't need the Federal Government letting them check 
off a portion of their taxes and divert it for that purpose.
  In addition, public participation in this system has declined 
radically. It's never reached even one-third of American taxpayers that 
are willing to do this--peaked at 28 percent, and in 2009 was down to 7 
percent of American taxpayers who chose to do it.
  So we're not denying anybody the ability to participate. We are 
giving very expensive welfare to Presidential candidates and to 
political parties at a cost to the taxpayer when that cost can't be 
afforded.
  Two weeks ago, we had something that occurred that honestly ought to 
concern everybody on this floor. And I don't fault either party for it, 
but the Democratic Party and the Republican Party both received $17 
million for their conventions from the Federal Treasury of the United 
States; $17 million for two political parties--actually, 34 in total--
to actually run their conventions from the American taxpayer. Who 
really believes that's a needed expenditure? Each one of those 
parties--and I can tell you because I used to be the chief of staff of 
one of them--will spend over $100 million on its convention. They don't 
require additional Federal help. It's simply a waste of time and a 
waste of money.
  As for the Election Assistance Commission--and I say this as a former 
secretary of State--this is a commission whose time has come and gone. 
Whatever good it did, it currently spends over 50 percent of its budget 
on administration, not on direct assistance to the States. And the idea 
that State governments and States who have been running elections for 
200 years suddenly need the Federal Government to tell them how to do 
it and spend this kind of money I think is just absurd.
  Frankly, the National Association of Secretaries of State, which is 
the oldest public association of elected officials and appointed 
officials in the United States, has twice called for the elimination of 
this. They don't feel the need for it. They certainly don't see that 
they're getting any assistance from it.
  So whatever good it played in the immediate aftermath of the 2000 
election I think is now concluded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. COLE. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Without putting too fine a point on it, this is a system and this is 
a commission that simply exists to solve problems that aren't problems. 
We have no problem funding Presidential campaigns in the United States. 
There's plenty of money--probably too much money--around. There doesn't 
need to be taxpayer money. Nor do political parties have a problem 
funding their conventions. They can do it themselves. Nor do we need a 
commission whose purpose has now passed into history and whose entities 
it's supposed to serve, the Secretaries of State around the country, 
have actually asked us to abolish it.
  So let's just finally prove we can get rid of outmoded programs, end 
the expenditures, and actually save the taxpayers some money. And in 
doing so, I can assure everybody on the floor that our democracy will 
remain healthy, our elections will be fair, and the American people, in 
their wisdom, will figure out which candidate to contribute to if they 
choose to contribute to any candidate at all.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the third time 
this year to oppose a measure that would summarily repeal our system of 
public funding for Presidential elections.
  Once again, the House majority seems intent on dismantling the few 
remaining safeguards we have left against the influence of special 
interests in politics following the Supreme Court's Citizens United 
ruling. The fact that they are ostensibly bringing this

[[Page 18527]]

bill forward as a deficit reduction measure in order to pay for a bill 
to undermine workers' rights is the height of cynicism.
  This bill before us today would destroy one of the most successful 
examples of reform that followed the Watergate scandal. Dare we forget 
what that scandal was about? The Committee to Reelect the President, 
fueled by huge quantities of corporate cash, paying for criminal acts 
and otherwise subverting the American electoral system.
  The hallmark of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, enacted at 
a time when public confidence in government was dangerously low, was 
our voluntary program of public financing for Presidential elections. 
To this day, this innovative reform stands as one of the greatest steps 
we have taken to bring transparency and accountability to our electoral 
system. And it has worked remarkably well, being utilized in the 
general election by every Republican and Democratic Presidential 
nominee from 1976 through 2004 and by John McCain in 2008, although in 
recent years the need for modernization has become evident.
  Perhaps the best example of this program's success is President 
Ronald Reagan, who participated in Presidential public financing in all 
three of his Presidential campaigns--in 1976, 1980, and 1984. The 
Reagan case illustrates the positive effects public financing has had 
in both parties at both the primary and the general election stages. It 
illuminates the way in which the system benefits candidates who 
challenge the party's establishment. It also highlights the system's 
focus on small donations rather than big bucks from the large 
contributors. Note that this is no free ride, no willy-nilly spending 
program. Candidates must seek the support of thousands of small donors 
during the primary to prove their viability, and only then do they 
receive matching funds.
  Today one could wish, in light of the positive history of this 
program and prior Republican support, for a bipartisan effort to repair 
the system and restore its effectiveness. I don't know of any policy 
that exemplifies the maxim ``mend it, don't end it'' better than this 
one.
  Earlier this year, Congressman Van Hollen and I reintroduced a bill 
that would do just that. It would modernize the Presidential public 
financing system and again make it an attractive and viable option for 
Presidential candidates. Our bill would bring available funds into line 
with the increased cost of campaigns, adjust the program to the front-
loaded primary calendar, and enhance the role of small donors. The bill 
has been carefully designed and deserves deliberation and debate.

                              {time}  1330

  Instead, we're faced with yet another Republican attempt to open the 
floodgates for corporate cash and special interest influence to pour 
into our political system.
  With confidence in government at rock bottom, and the perception of 
government corruption through the roof, why is the majority trying to 
return us to the dark days of Watergate? Let's instead restore and 
improve our public financing system and move on to real solutions to 
put our Nation's fiscal house in order.
  Let's not use valuable floor time to pass a bill that has no chance 
of becoming law. The American people want us to get to work on 
important measures to revive the struggling economy and put people back 
to work. So I urge the majority to heed that call. Get to work on 
passing appropriations bills, fixing the Medicare physician 
reimbursement, extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, 
patching the AMT, and reauthorizing the FAA in time for families' 
holiday travel.
  I'm afraid such pleas are falling on deaf ears in this Chamber these 
days. But we need to get to work on the people's business, not on this 
flawed bill that threatens to allow big money to play an even larger 
role in our politics.
  Mr. HARPER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a valued member of the House 
Administration Committee.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill in its 
entirety but especially to that provision which attempts to eliminate 
the Election Assistance Commission.
  I need to address a few points that have been made by the proponents 
of this bill because I was there when this original bill came up for 
consideration years ago, and I've been there for the subsequent 
hearings in the committee of jurisdiction.
  First of all, when it comes to the secretaries of state, they've been 
opposed to the creation of the Election Assistance Commission from its 
very beginning. This is nothing new. Their renewal of opposition 
basically used a form letter that didn't even change the 2006 date. The 
2010 opposition letter actually referred and still used the same letter 
of previous years.
  But the most important thing to point out is that secretaries of 
state have multifaceted responsibilities and obligations. One of them 
is to conduct elections. But each one of us in this body knows who 
really runs an election, and it's going to be your local election 
administrators.
  You and I and anybody involved in the electoral process knows that on 
Election Day you're not going to find secretary of state personnel at 
the polling places. When the ballots are mailed for absentee voting, 
you're not going to find anyone from the Secretary of State's Office. 
They're not going to count the ballots. They're not going to be there. 
It is a local effort, and that's what the Election Assistance 
Commission is doing.
  It was never meant to have a life span of 3 years. If you read the 
bill carefully, and Mr. Hoyer, who will be taking the floor later, will 
remind us of the legislative history of that particular bill that 
created this commission.
  If we are to criticize them for an inordinate amount of their budget 
being applied to personnel, then we must look in the mirror as Members 
of Congress, because I assure you, because I also sit on a committee, 
obviously the same committee, that entertains the budget requests of 
the different committees. Each one of those committees and individual 
Members of Congress will tell you that they spend a greater proportion 
of their budget on personnel than the Election Assistance Commission. 
And there's good reason for it.
  It was never really intended to fully fund every effort at the local 
level. It's to give advice. That's why I have received in the past, 
from local election officials in Maryland, Texas, Florida, and Ohio--
the local experience in Texas, in my county there, was that we saved 
$100,000 by the suggestions and recommendations that were issued by the 
commission.
  Lastly, you criticize the commission for not functioning because it 
doesn't have a full body of commissioners. But whose fault is that? 
It's the individuals on the other side of the aisle that have blocked 
consideration.
  That reminds me. When I was a lawyer, we used to have an old joke 
about the individual defendant who was there charged with murdering his 
parents, and at the end of the trial goes before the jury and asks for 
mercy because he's an orphan. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 
seconds.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. If you want to help your local election officials, vote 
``no'' on this bad bill.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Rokita), who is a distinguished member of the Committee on 
House Administration, a former secretary of state for the State of 
Indiana, and he has served as president of the National Association of 
Secretaries of State.
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, listening to the prior comments, I can't help but wonder 
if certain Members of this body can't help but not do more than one 
thing at a time. But certainly, your secretaries

[[Page 18528]]

of state and your local election officials can multitask, and they do 
an excellent job of executing the States' elections.
  I want to focus on the portion of the bill that eliminates the 
Election Assistance Commission, Mr. Speaker. As has been said, I have a 
unique perspective on this. In 2005, as Indiana's secretary of state, 
and serving as the president of the National Association of Secretaries 
of State, I coauthored the successful resolution that was talked about 
earlier to dissolve the EAC after the 2006 election. As the oldest 
organization of bipartisan elected officials in the Nation, we at NASS 
renewed the call to dissolve the commission in 2010.
  And, no, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, from the debates that we had 
in that organization, it was not a form letter. It was not a form 
renewal.
  Furthermore, the vote for the renewal was 24-2, with 13 Republicans 
and 11 Democrats calling for its dissolution. This is not a partisan 
issue. We recognized, on a bipartisan basis, that the Election 
Assistance Commission cannot be justified on the grounds of fairness, 
justice, opportunity, or necessity.
  EAC bureaucrats do not make elections fair. In fact, EAC makes them 
less fair by producing biased, inaccurate reports on the state of 
elections in our Nation and offering recommendations based on these 
junk studies. EAC bureaucrats do not enfranchise voters. States and 
individuals do that, as our Federal Constitution dictates.
  Giving unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington more power 
over elections does not lead to more just election outcomes. If 
anything, it interferes with a just outcome because these bureaucrats, 
many with an ideological axe to grind, face little or no accountability 
for their actions, and they know it.
  Voting is fundamental to our system and the legitimacy of our 
government. Ensuring qualified American citizens have an opportunity to 
vote is essential. The Constitution tasks the States with execution and 
maintenance of elections, not Federal bureaucrats.
  Like I said, Mr. Speaker, I believe States do an excellent job. And 
by managing elections closest to the voters at the State and local 
level, we stand the best chance of ensuring opportunity for all and 
correcting injustice if the opportunity to vote is denied or interfered 
with.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. As a former secretary of state for the State of Rhode 
Island, and now a Member of the United States Congress, I have serious 
concerns about this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, voter participation is the cornerstone of our democracy 
and a fundamental civic duty that empowers every citizen to effect 
change within our society. Unfortunately, many individuals with 
disabilities have been historically shut out of the voting process due 
to lack of accessibility. That's among my particular concerns with this 
bill.
  We have made impressive strides in recent years to close that gap, 
and the Election Assistance Commission, established under the Help 
America Vote Act, was an important part of that effort. As a Member of 
Congress who lives with a disability, cofounded the bipartisan 
Disabilities Caucus, and has worked at both the State and Federal 
levels to modernize and make accessible our voting systems, I find it 
unconscionable that the Republican leadership is considering this bill 
to abolish the Election Assistance Commission, an agency whose 
fundamental mission is to promote security, accessibility, and trust in 
our electoral process.
  Could the EAC use some reforms? Yes. But the Republican solution of 
eliminating an agency with such an important mission is unnecessary. 
Everyone, Mr. Speaker, should have full faith in our system of 
elections including seniors, military members, minorities, and people 
with disabilities, and that's exactly what the Election Assistance 
Commission seeks to provide.
  Mr. Speaker, we have precious little time left before the end of this 
Congressional session. Instead of considering a bill that will only 
serve to erode America's faith in our democracy, our time would be far 
better spent rebuilding it by focusing on job creation, getting this 
economy back on track.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and turn our attention to 
legislation that will extend tax relief for families and small 
businesses, reduce unemployment, and create greater economic stability. 
That is exactly what my constituents expect from me, and that's exactly 
what the American people expect from this Congress.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the distinguished chairman of the 
House Administration Committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3463 will eliminate the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund and the Election Assistance Commission. That's good news. 
The American people have been asking this Congress to get serious about 
spending, begging us to take a critical look at government operations 
and get rid of the dead weight. Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a 
government program or a government agency that is ripe for the cutting, 
it is the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and Election Assistance 
Commission.
  The Election Campaign Fund is an unused government program only 
supported by a meager 7 percent of the American people. In other words, 
93 percent of the American taxpayers have opted out of participating in 
this program. Candidates and nominees have routinely opted out of the 
system altogether.
  In 2008 we know then-Candidate Barack Obama declined public financing 
in the general election. In 2012, it's expected that neither general 
election candidate will participate in the program, and no candidate 
has requested eligibility thus far in the election cycle.
  According to CBO, elimination of this program would save the American 
taxpayers $447 million over the next 5 years and return nearly $200 
million to the public Treasury for deficit reduction immediately.
  I know some people think $500 million isn't much. Where I come from, 
that's a lot. We can eliminate something that the American people have 
rejected by a vote of 93-7. It seems to me to make sense.
  Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, the Committee on House 
Administration held hearings on the issue of taxpayer financing of 
campaigns. And one of our witnesses asked this question. He said, if 
the voters are not willing to pay for the program, then why should it 
continue?
  As for the Election Assistance Commission, this agency has been the 
subject of two hiring discrimination lawsuits, spends over 50 percent 
of its budget on administrative costs, and is asking this Congress for 
$5.4 million to manage programs totaling $3.5 million.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill before us eliminates an unused 
government program, shuts down an obsolete government agency, saves the 
taxpayers $480 million over 5 years, and returns almost $200 million to 
the Treasury. How could we not vote for it?
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time 
we have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 7 
minutes. The gentleman from Mississippi has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.
  After $5.3 billion was spent in the 2008 Federal elections, I never 
heard anyone utter a word that said the problem we face today in 
Washington is that we need more private money in politics. Never has 
anyone said to me, I wish the super-rich had more influence over

[[Page 18529]]

our government and elected officials, especially in campaigns for 
President and Congress.
  I never received a letter from a constituent that expressed a desire 
to get further away from one person-one vote and move closer to one 
corporation-one vote. What I have heard from my constituents is a 
deafening demand to get money out of politics. This bill takes us in 
the opposite direction.
  We should be chasing the moneychangers out of the people's temple, 
not turning our government into an auction house. This legislation is 
upside down.
  Private financing of elections corrodes our democracy. Private 
contributions of Federal elections must end. Private financing equals 
government in the private interest. Public financing--the hope of 
government in the public interest.
  We need to restore our democracy and end private contributions. We 
shouldn't have any contributions from special interests. We need 
government of the people, by the people, and for the people returned to 
this government.
  Mr. HARPER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let me just take this from 30,000 feet for a minute 
and reiterate what the gentleman from Ohio said.
  We have too much private money in the people's House. We can't get 
anything done now because it somehow may affect what Wall Street is 
doing.
  We had a China currency bill on the floor last year, 350 votes, 99 
Republicans. We can't even get it up for a vote now in the House 
because Wall Street doesn't want it. We're in dire straits with trying 
to balance our budget.
  We need to ask people making more than a million dollars a year to 
help us close this gap so we can reinvest back in our country. Nothing 
is happening because Wall Street doesn't want it.
  We've got oil and gas still getting benefits when profits are going 
through the roof. We can't close that loophole because the oil and gas 
industry doesn't want it closed.
  There is too much private money in the people's House. We need public 
funding of elections. Let every citizen kick in fifty or a hundred 
bucks, and we run elections by letting people on the airwaves making 
these debates, making these discussions having a little bit of money to 
do it.
  We've got to reform this country and set us on a path to prosperity. 
No wonder we can't invest in public education, public health, public 
infrastructure, because the private interests are running the whole 
show here.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the 
House Administration Committee.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, maybe the President will listen 
to the advice of the gentleman from Ohio and sign up for public 
financing of his re-election effort.
  But mainly I rise today in strong support of the combined efforts of 
my good friends, Mr. Harper of Mississippi and Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, to 
reduce Federal spending by ending the public financing of campaigns and 
conventions and to terminate this Election Assistance Commission.
  As Presidential campaigns in this day and age are becoming 
increasingly expensive to the tune of billions of dollars, the idea of 
having taxpayers contribute matching funds to them has become 
ludicrous.
  The end of this practice would save $617 million over 10 years, and I 
commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for his work to reduce spending.
  As far as the gentleman from Mississippi's efforts regarding the 
Election System Commission, as a member of the committee of 
jurisdiction over EAC, the House Administration Committee, I've learned 
firsthand that this agency has outlived its usefulness, it's mismanaged 
its resources, all the while costing taxpayers, we the taxpayers, 
millions of dollars a year.
  Mr. Speaker, the Election Assistance Commission budget request for 
2012 devoted 51.7 percent of its budget to management overhead costs. 
Let's eliminate this commission and support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, following is my statement in its entirety:
  I rise today in strong support of the combined effort of my good 
friends, Mr. Harper of Mississippi and Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, 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 have become 
increasingly expensive to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, 
the idea of having taxpayers contribute matching funds to them has 
become ludicrous. Ending this practice would save $617 million over 10 
years and I commend Mr. Cole for his work to reduce spending.
  As far as Mr. Harper's efforts regarding the Election Assistance 
Commission, as a member of the committee of jurisdiction over the EAC--
the House Administration Committee--I have learned first-hand that this 
agency has outlived its usefulness and mismanaged its resources--all 
while costing taxpayers millions of dollars a year.
  In the midst of our 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.
  Mr. Speaker, the Election Assistance Commission's budget request for 
2012 devoted 51.7 percent of its budget to management and overhead 
costs. It should be hard for anyone to argue that an agency that spends 
$5.5 million dollars managing programs totaling $3.5 million dollars is 
a responsible use of taxpayer funds.
  The EAC has more than doubled in size--without an increase in its 
responsibilities--since it was originally supposed to sunset in 2005. 
It is long past time, Mr. Speaker, that we allow government programs 
that have outlived their usefulness to be shut down, rather than 
maintain unnecessary and redundant layers of bureaucracy.
  Eliminating this red tape would save American taxpayers $33 million 
dollars over five years, while at the same time preserving the EAC's 
necessary functions--voting system testing and certification--at the 
Federal Election Commission, which can more efficiently handle these 
responsibilities.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Association of Secretaries of State--who 
are the direct beneficiaries of the EAC's services--have themselves 
called for the EAC's dissolution. This body should follow suit today. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. First of all, we ought to be talking about jobs. The 
contention that this bill funds bills that are about jobs is spurious, 
in my opinion; and no economist, in my opinion, will assert that that 
is the fact. We ought to be dealing with jobs.
  But what are we dealing with?
  Now, I know of what I speak, I tell the gentleman from Georgia. I 
understand. I was a Member of the House Administration Committee for, I 
think, some 15 years. I, along with Bob Ney, was the sponsor of the 
Help America Vote Act, which created the Election Assistance 
Commission. So I know something about the Election Assistance 
Commission.
  It was created because in the year 2000 we had a disastrous election 
which was resolved finally but not very acceptably by most people, 
whether your candidate won or lost. So the Election Assistance 
Commission was created for the purpose, for the first time in history, 
of having some Federal presence in the oversight of Federal elections. 
Not mandatory, but advisory.
  Now, what we see, frankly, throughout America in Republican-
controlled legislatures in many, many States is an effort to make 
voting more difficult to, in my opinion, suppress the vote, to require 
more and more documentation of people who have already registered to 
vote and claiming problems that exist that do not exist.

                              {time}  1350

  Now, if you want to obfuscate the election process, if you want to 
suppress the vote, if you want to make it more difficult, what is one 
of the things you want to do?
  Eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, whose responsibility it 
is

[[Page 18530]]

to advise and counsel on best practices to assure that every American 
not only has the right to vote but is facilitated in casting that vote 
and in making sure that that vote is counted. That's what the Election 
Assistance Commission does.
  And what do they want to do with the Election Assistance Commission's 
responsibility? Transfer it to the Federal Election Commission, whose 
sole responsibility is to oversee the flow of money into elections. 
They neither have the expertise nor, frankly, do they have the time. 
They hardly have the time to do what they're supposed to do right now.
  Now, the Bush administration did not fund the Election Assistance 
Commission very robustly. Like every agency, it requires and should 
have proper oversight, and should, in my view, be more vigorous in the 
carrying out of its responsibilities. That is not, however, a reason 
for eliminating it. The only reason for eliminating it is to make 
voting more obscure, with less oversight and less assurance to our 
citizens that they not only have the right to vote but that a vote will 
be cast and counted correctly.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member 
of the Judiciary Committee and a former judge, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Let's cut to the chase. This is a tax credit for people 
who want to contribute to the President's campaign fund. They're told 
you can check this box and it doesn't cost you anything. No, but it 
takes $40 million-plus a year away from the fund that could be used for 
other things, including for Social Security, and it gives it to the 
President's campaign fund.
  I stand with our President, Barack Obama, on this issue, who found 
that that fund is worthless and that it's an impediment to getting 
elected. So I stand with President Obama in saying let's get rid of the 
fund and not use it anymore, and let the $200 million in that fund go 
to something helpful instead of being an impediment to being elected 
President.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The Presidential campaign fund currently has over $190 million. Tens 
of thousands of Americans put that money there. They wanted their money 
to go for this purpose. We would be fooling and deceiving our very own 
citizens if we were to pass this bill. They put that money there to be 
able to have the small say that they can--with their $1 or $3 or 
whatever it may--and be able to say who they would want to support and 
put it towards campaigns. We would be giving it back to the Treasury. 
They already put their money in the Treasury. This would be wrong, and 
we would be fooling the American people.
  We would be telling them, We told you to check off a box and give us 
X number of dollars for a campaign. Now we're going to take $100 
million of the money we told you to check off to use for that purpose, 
and we're no longer going to use it for that purpose.
  That's wrong. It's not right. It's deceptive, which is why I urge a 
``no'' vote on this bill.

                                               Ohio Association of


                                           Election Officials,

                                                 October 12, 2011.
     Hon. Rob Portman,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
       Dear Senator Portman: We are writing today regarding the 
     possible elimination of the US Election Assistance Commission 
     (EAC) as part of the Super Committee's recommendations for 
     budget reductions. The EAC is an independent federal agency 
     created in the wake of the 2000 election to help solve 
     election related problems. The EAC provides assistance to 
     election officials in the form of best practices, guidance, 
     and the testing and certification of voting systems. 
     Basically, the EAC provides an outlet and open forum for 
     election officials to share their experiences, consider 
     alternatives, deliberate their outcomes, and establish 
     continuity of process, thus strengthening our democracy by 
     helping election officials to do their job well. However, if 
     Congress has its way, the EAC may not provide these services 
     much longer. There has been movement in the House to 
     eliminate the agency since last year, labeling it 
     ``wasteful'' and ``unneeded.'' However, election 
     administrators on the local level feel differently.
       Although it has been argued that the EAC has outlived its 
     usefulness because the Help America Vote Act funding it 
     oversees has been exhausted, the EAC has become far more than 
     a distributor and auditor of money; the EAC is a repository 
     and resource of election management procedures, performance 
     measures, election materials, and administrative knowledge. 
     Effective designs of polling place signage, webinars on 
     topics such as contingency planning, minority language 
     glossaries of election terminology, Quick Start Guide 
     publications regarding Developing an Audit Trail, Conducting 
     a Recount, and Acceptance Testing are all pertinent reminders 
     for veteran election officials as well as critical learning 
     tools for those officials newly elected, appointed, or hired.
       The EAC is not without its issues. The agency's Voting 
     System Testing and Certification program was slow to develop 
     and continues to struggle to certify systems in a timely 
     manner. As with many federal agencies greater efficiencies of 
     operation should be considered in order to more effectively 
     produce election materials at less cost to the public. Also, 
     as the EAC has grown so has its overhead costs and management 
     size. These areas should all be addressed through greater 
     Congressional oversight, not through eliminating the agency.
       Ironically, proponents of the elimination of the EAC would 
     simply reassign the various function of the Commission to 
     other more bureaucratic federal agencies such as the Federal 
     Election Commission (FEC). Claims that any savings would be 
     realized by its elimination are specious at best. We see no 
     need to eliminate or dismantle the only federal resourc 
     available to local election officials.
       The EAC has never been needed more than now. Election 
     officials across Ohio and the United States are doing more 
     with less and it's only going to get worse. As budgets 
     tighten and voting equipment ages, the chances of another 
     election disaster increase. Without the EAC's help, another 
     Florida 2000 election may be inevitable, and Congress will 
     have no one to blame but itself. With a total operating 
     budget of just under 18 million dollars the EAC would make up 
     approximately half a percent of the total federal operating 
     budget: a small price to pay for helping protect our 
     democracy. If you think a good election costs a lot, you 
     should see how much a bad election costs.
       We urge you to reject these efforts as part of the Super 
     Committee review of federal spending.
           Respectfully submitted,
     Dale Fellows,
       President, Ohio Association of Election Officials.
     Llyn McCoy,
       First Vice President, Ohio Association of Election 
     Officials.
                                  ____



                                     State Board of Elections,

                                      Raleigh, NC, March 27, 2011.
     Chairman Gregg Harper,
     Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, 
         Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Robert Brady,
     Committee on House Administration,
     Washington, DC.
     Re H.R. 672.

       Gentlemen: As with any governmental agency, commission, 
     department or other entity, methods of improving efficiency, 
     streamlining procedures, and modernizing responsiveness 
     should all be considered to maintain viability for 
     constituents. These studies would be beneficial for the 
     Election Assistance Commission. However, I strongly oppose 
     H.R. 672. Termination of this Commission is not in the best 
     interests of the elections process. The EAC serves a vital 
     role in the conduct of Federal elections as well as the 
     smallest municipal election. During an election, information 
     sharing is vital--from clerical administration to public 
     communication. The EAC can serve as a clearinghouse of 
     information so that local jurisdictions receive real-time, 
     necessary data during the conduct of a Federal election.
       North Carolina adopted uniform procedures and forms for 
     Elections Administration while still allowing for local input 
     and decision-making that fits individual jurisdictions. Many 
     of the problems Federal elections in the United States face 
     can be traced to a lack of consistency and efficiency. The 
     Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is the Agency that can 
     provide that needed consistency and broad guidance. In fact, 
     in its short history, the EAC already has adopted standards 
     for voting systems that can allow for nationwide uniformity. 
     Elections jurisdictions may use those standards as a baseline 
     when choosing voting systems and vendors.
       One of the most disturbing trends occurring in the field of 
     elections is the rapid turnover of commission officials, 
     board

[[Page 18531]]

     members and elections staff. Although elections comprise a 
     mere fraction of a percent of total budgets, the elections 
     budgets are continually cut and reduced. Already 
     understaffed, we are reaching a point of compromising our 
     ability to adequately perform necessary duties. The EAC is 
     essential, filling a vital role when a local jurisdiction 
     does not have the personnel or equipment to conduct an 
     election without assistance.
       Even more important is the status of voting systems and 
     equipment. By transferring the certification of voting 
     systems to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
     (NIST) and the Voluntary Voting System Standards to the 
     Federal Election Commission (FEC), the very real possibility 
     emerges that there will be no communication or compatibility 
     between the two efforts. This could lead to an impasse. Much 
     progress has been made in the struggle to uplift voting 
     equipment standards. The significant work done by the EAC 
     will be lost amongst the myriad other NIST responsibilities.
       Additionally, the FEC is already overburdened, 
     understaffed, and currently does not handle any aspect of 
     election administration. How can the FEC effectively advise 
     state and local officials or provide the necessary support 
     and guidelines needed for full voter confidence in the 
     elections process? Piling more responsibility on an already 
     encumbered agency will only lessen its efficacy and will do a 
     disservice to taxpayers.
       Perhaps a focus of this legislation should be to address 
     keeping both the EAC and the FEC fully staffed with 
     Commissioners so that each Agency has the ability to function 
     at full capacity, providing much-needed guidance to election 
     administrators while also judiciously stewarding taxpayer 
     dollars. As H.R. 672 is written, there is no provision for 
     the election community to provide input to either NIST or the 
     FEC. This participation and dialogue is critical to make sure 
     that all future voting systems truly meet the needs of the 
     voter as well as the requirements and limitations of poll 
     workers.
       The EAC has amassed the most comprehensive public elections 
     library in the country. Their website is a wonderful tool for 
     both elections officials and the general public. Similarly, 
     North Carolina's award-winning website has been heralded as 
     an invaluable resource for our citizens. These communications 
     tools are an integral facet of the way election 
     administrators must interface with the American public in 
     this rapidly changing technological world. Without dedicated 
     resources for the public broadcasting of election information 
     and news, the elections process will become less transparent 
     and voters will become less aware of processes, procedures 
     and laws.
       Another facet of the elections process in North Carolina is 
     the concept of the ``Wellness Check.'' Wellness Checks are 
     audits of our county boards of elections, serving as 
     preventative maintenance to keep things on the right track 
     and identify problems before they manifest. Results are 
     available for public inspection, with the goal of further 
     increasing voter confidence in elections. This concept could 
     become a function of the EAC, be carried into other aspects 
     of elections, and could further strengthen the integrity of 
     and faith in the national elections process.
       Although elections are the responsibility of the States and 
     of local jurisdictions, they are mandated by Federal law. 
     Congress needs to do its part to ensure the Federal 
     government adequately and appropriately contributes to local 
     responsibilities. The EAC is an excellent way in which 
     Congress may manifest its support. Reassigning these 
     responsibilities to other, already strained entities will 
     diminish the modernization progress accomplished during the 
     first decade of the twenty-first century.
       One of the greatest gifts Congress could give to the nation 
     is its continued support and investment into the elections 
     modernization process. By stewarding and tending the process 
     begun in the earlier years of this decade, Congress can 
     guarantee that all jurisdictions; large, small and somewhere 
     in-between, are equally equipped to handle the future of 
     elections; that each has modern and certified equipment; and 
     that the resources are available so that every qualified 
     voter in America has the same access to and confidence in the 
     elections process.
       Respectfully, I ask that you reconsider the submission of 
     H.R. 672. My opposition to this legislation has been 
     articulated herein. Please do not hesitate to contact me 
     should you have any questions or require further commentary.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                 Gary O. Bartlett,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                Election Officials of Arizona,

                                                 October 14, 2011.
     The Next 2000 Election May be Just Around the Corner
     Honorable Members of Congress Representing the Great State of 
         Arizona.

       Is another 2000 election disaster lurking? At this point it 
     may not be a question of when, but rather a question of 
     where. While pundits, newspapers and politicians debate 
     issues like voter ID and early voting, election 
     administrators across the country are worrying about the 
     issues that will directly impact an election. The number one 
     issue facing election officials today is limited and ever-
     shrinking budgets combined with aging equipment, technology, 
     and workers.
       Direction on how to address these concerns exists . . . for 
     now. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is an 
     independent federal agency created in the wake of the 2000 
     election to help solve these problems. The EAC provides 
     assistance to election officials in the form of best 
     practices, guidance, and the testing and certification of 
     voting systems. Basically, the EAC provides an outlet and 
     open forum for election officials to share their experiences, 
     consider alternatives, deliberate their outcomes, and 
     establish continuity of process thus strengthening our 
     democracy by helping election officials to do their job well. 
     However, if some members of Congress have their way, the EAC 
     may not provide these services much longer. There has been 
     movement in the House to eliminate the agency since last 
     year, labeling it ``wasteful'' and ``unneeded.'' However, 
     election administrators on the local level feel differently.
       Although it has been argued that the EAC has outlived its 
     usefulness because the Help America Vote Act funding it 
     oversees has been exhausted, the EAC has become far more than 
     a distributor and auditor of money; the EAC is a repository 
     and resource of election management procedures, performance 
     measures, election materials, and administrative knowledge. 
     Effective designs of polling place signage, webinars on 
     topics such as contingency planning, minority language 
     glossaries of election terminology, Quick Start Guide 
     publications regarding Developing an Audit Trail, Conducting 
     a Recount, Acceptance Testing are all pertinent reminders for 
     veteran election officials as well as critical learning tools 
     for those officials newly elected, appointed, or hired.
       The EAC has never been needed more than now. Election 
     officials across the United States are doing more with less 
     and it's only going to get worse. As budgets tighten and 
     voting equipment ages, the chances of another disaster 
     increase. Without the EAC's help, another Florida 2000 
     election may be inevitable, and Congress will have no one to 
     blame but itself. With a total operating budget of just under 
     18 million dollars the EAC would make up approximately half a 
     percent of the total federal operating budget: a small price 
     to pay for helping protect our democracy. If you think a good 
     election costs a lot, you should see how much a bad election 
     costs.
       We speak out in opposition to the dissolution of the EAC 
     and the distribution of the remaining functions to the 
     Federal Election Commission.
       Respectfully submitted for your consideration by the 
     Election Officials of Arizona.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that we haven't done 
anything about jobs. Here we have a card that lists 25 different bills 
that we've passed which help manufacturing, the economy, energy--bills 
that are going to be great job creators. Yet the complaint has been 
that the EAC is not dealing with those issues.
  Members on the other side of the aisle who said that this is not 
appropriate and that it's going to disenfranchise voters should 
remember they all voted for this in 2002 when it had its 3-year 
provision to sunset after that. So I think that argument will not fail. 
In addition, the EAC has no regulatory or enforcement authority.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 3463, which simply combines two bills, H.R. 672 and H.R. 359, 
previously considered during this Congress. I opposed those bills then 
and I oppose them now. Terminating the Election Assistance commission 
and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, is a worse idea and a 
greater waste of precious legislative time today than they were when 
the Republican majority first brought these bills to the floor earlier 
this year.
  Mr. Speaker, since its creation, the Federal Election Commission has 
served the valuable purpose of preserving the voting and civil rights 
of our citizens which was born out of the scandal know as Watergate. 
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund succeeds in its purpose of 
leveling the playing field when it comes to corporate versus public 
funding of campaigns. By terminating taxpayer financing of presidential 
election campaigns and party conventions, the Republican majority seeks 
to permanently tilt the playing field in favor of special interest 
groups and corporate money at the expense of the public interest.
  Presidential campaigns are currently funded through the voluntary $3 
check-off on income tax returns. Given the size of the deficit and the 
national debt, the amount of money saving by terminating taxpayer 
financing is de minimis--less than $1 billion--but will achieve a

[[Page 18532]]

goal long sought by conservatives who have never believed that public 
financing of campaigns is a permissible use of federal revenues.
  The Election Assistance Commission is charged with developing 
standards for voting systems, advising and counseling on best voting 
practices, assuring that every American has the right to vote, as well 
as to facilitate such vote, and to make sure that every single vote is 
counted. The precedent-setting work of the Election Assistance 
Commission has been recognized by nations around the world. The 
Election Assistance Commission has also played a central role in 
improving the accessibility of voting for the country's more than 37 
million voters with disabilities.
  Let us not forget that the Election Assistance Commission was borne 
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 Election Assistance Commission 
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 collection is essential if we are going to improve our 
citizens' trust and confidence in election results. The Election 
Assistance Commission develops and fosters the training and 
organization of our nation's more than 8,000 election administrators.
  Mr. Speaker, every vote counts--and every vote should be counted--and 
that is why we must preserve the Election Assistance Commission and 
oppose this legislation.
  It is also important to note that abolishing the Election Assistance 
Commission will not save taxpayers money, but rather simply shift costs 
to the Federal Election Commission, FEC, and local governments. 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 Election Assistance Commission 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.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people elected us to work on their 
priorities and real problems, like the lack of jobs. They do not want 
us to waste time on inconsequential matters of interest only to the Tea 
Party. H.R. 3463 is unnecessary and a diversion from addressing the 
real challenge facing our country. Therefore, I strongly oppose H.R. 
3463 and I would urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this 
misguided and reckless legislation that puts the integrity of our 
election systems, and public confidence in campaign financing at risk.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the last thing we need to do in this House 
as this legislative year draws to a close is to further the corrupting 
influence of special interest money in presidential campaigns. But this 
is what the Republican leadership is determined to do.
  Last January, the House Republicans stampeded one part of this bill 
through the House--provisions that terminate the system of public 
funding of presidential campaigns that was established in the wake of 
the infamous Watergate scandals, under Richard Nixon's presidency, 
nearly 40 years ago. It's not enough to pass this bill once--the 
Republicans insist we pass it again today. It is not enough that 
virtually unlimited amounts of private money can now slosh through our 
political system--over $280 million last year alone, thanks to the 
Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court last year--we have to 
pass a bill that asphyxiates the supply of public money in our 
presidential campaigns.
  The Republicans are also practicing gross hypocrisy. While this bill 
ends public financing of presidential campaigns, the Republican Party 
is seeking $18 million in public funding to support their nominating 
convention next year.
  Everyone knows that this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate and 
would be vetoed by the President--because it is a corruption of good 
government. But that does not impede the Republican leadership in the 
House today. Rather than work with us on real legislation that would 
deliver real jobs, real investment and real growth to the American 
economy, the House Republicans would rather waste our time and continue 
to deliver nothing to the American people.
  To treat our democracy so cavalierly is disgraceful; to persist in 
policies that, should they ever become law, will result in the complete 
privatization of the political process by monied special interests, is 
shameful.
  The other part of this bill would eliminate the Election Assistance 
Commission, which was established in the wake of the 2000 election 
debacle in Florida. Its mission is to ensure that elections are 
conducted properly, with assistance that promotes voter registration, 
trained poll workers, and access to the polls by disabled Americans. 
There is no justification for terminating this small agency, which 
helps ensure our democracy works as intended.
  The American people, and our democratic processes, deserve far better 
than this legislation in the House today.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, once again, this House is 
taking up a proposal that represents a direct attack on the will of the 
American people.
  Public financing for Presidential elections, which began in the 
1970s, is one of the few opportunities where Americans are allowed to 
specify how they want their tax dollars spent.
  As Members of Congress, we are charged with representing the 
interests of our constituents. In this particular instance, however, we 
know precisely what the American people want. By voluntarily checking 
this box on their tax forms, more than 10 million of our fellow 
Americans have made their intentions explicitly clear. The Presidential 
Election Campaign Fund exists because individual Americans expressly 
opted to dedicate a portion of their taxes to that purpose.
  In January, House Republicans voted to ignore the explicit intentions 
of the American people and eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign 
Fund. Thankfully, the Senate heard Americans' call and killed the bill. 
And this year, millions of Americans again checked the box on their tax 
forms for calendar year 2010, once again, explicitly telling the 
government how they wanted their taxes spent.
  Ironically, our Republican colleagues cite their own YouCut website 
as a representative site, with at most, a few hundred thousand 
followers. They disdain 10 million citizens but revere the few. This is 
selective representation in its most rawest and worst form.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 3463, will break faith with the 
American people by ignoring their direction. Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in defending the will of American taxpayers by 
opposing this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, while the Republican sponsors of the two 
bills before us contend they will create jobs, their claim is spurious. 
Economists have told us again and again that easing regulations has a 
negligible effect on job creation. The only thing these bills will do 
is make it harder for federal agencies to protect Americans through 
safety standards and environmental protections.
  One of the bills adds 35 pages to what is currently a 45 page law, 
and is likely to add 21 to 39 months to the rulemaking process. 
Agencies will be tied in knots and leave businesses without the 
certainty they need.
  To pay for this expansion of the federal regulatory process, 
Republicans would have us eliminate the Election Assistance Commission.
  I was proud to be one of the authors of the Help America Vote Act, 
which established the EAC in order to fix the flawed system that led to 
the electoral debacle of 2000. It passed with a strong bipartisan vote 
of 357-48. The Commission's sole purpose is to provide states with the 
resources they need to ensure everyone eligible to vote can cast their 
ballots and have them counted. We cannot risk having our elections 
determined by ``hanging chads.''
  Instead of trying to erode our ability to protect voters, and instead 
of promoting regulatory bills that will not put Americans back to work, 
Republicans should join with Democrats to pass real jobs legislation. 
Democrats have two plans on the table to create jobs and grow our 
economy--the President's American Jobs Act and our Make It In America 
plan. We should be debating and voting on those.
  I strongly urge the defeat of these bills and hope Republicans will 
finally set partisanship aside and work with us to help businesses hire 
workers and to invest in our economy's future.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to reaffirm 
a fundamental value of our democracy: elections must be decided by the 
American people, not the special interests. I come to the floor to 
defend the right of American citizens to vote in every election. I come 
to the floor on behalf of clean campaigns.
  Republicans, instead, have brought to the floor legislation that 
would both diminish the voting rights of Americans and shift control of 
our elections into the hands of secret corporate donors. Once again, 
Republicans refuse to focus on creating jobs and strengthening the 
economy for middle-class Americans, the 99 percent, but are instead 
pursuing a narrow agenda to benefit special interests, the 1 percent.
  Last year, the Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent in a 
court case called the Citizens United case. Their decision has 
undermined our democracy and empowered

[[Page 18533]]

the powerful by opening the floodgates to big, secret money, resulting 
in a corporate takeover of our elections.
  As a result, the Democratic majority in the Congress, working with 
President Obama, created the DISCLOSE Act. It would restore 
transparency and accountability to federal campaigns, and ensure that 
Americans know who is behind political advertisements.
  Democrats in the House passed the DISCLOSE Act, but Senate 
Republicans blocked its progress.
  As a result, secret dollars are flowing into campaigns that represent 
the interests of the 1 percent--not the urgent national interest--to 
create jobs. Indeed, special-interest groups spent tens of millions of 
dollars more in 2010 than any previous election cycle.
  Today, Republicans want to take it another step further. The anti-
reform legislation we debate today strengthens the role of foreign-
owned entities and large corporations in funding political campaigns by 
eliminating the Presidential Election Fund. For nearly 30 years, the 
Fund has promoted small campaign donations and disclosure. It should be 
strengthened and reformed, not eliminated.
  Likewise, the legislation also eliminates the Election Assistance 
Commission, which was created in the aftermath of 2000 elections. The 
EAC should also be strengthened, especially as states across the nation 
are taking active efforts to enact partisan measures to disenfranchise 
the rights of American voters.
  According to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU: since the 2010 
elections, almost 34 states have introduced voting legislation in 2011 
that significantly impacts access to voting. These laws have the 
potential of eliminating or making voting harder for more than 5 
million Americans--harming millions of minorities, and hindering the 
rights of seniors, students, and low income voters.
  This legislation is opposed by a broad range of good government 
organizations, from the League of Women Voters, to Americans for 
Campaign Reform, to Democracy 21, and U.S. PIRG. In a letter, they have 
warned against a 2012 presidential campaign ``being dominated by 
bundlers, big donors, Super PACs, candidate-specific Super PACs, secret 
contributions and the like.''
  Further, polls have found that more than 70 percent of the American 
people support the continuation of the presidential public financing 
system.
  In our democracy, voters determine the outcome of our elections--not 
special interests.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort to further empower the 
special interests--the 1 percent--in American elections--and to protect 
the right to vote for all Americans.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed H.R. 3463, a bill 
terminating the Election Assistance Commission and the Presidential 
Election Campaign Fund. I voted ``no''.
  I also opposed the House-passed legislation in January to eliminate 
the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (H.R. 359), as well as the 
previously unsuccessful attempt in June to pass a bill eliminating the 
Election Assistance Commission (H.R. 672). H.R. 3463 combined these 
previously considered bills to pay for the cost of the two bills the 
House considered yesterday and today (H.R. 527 and H.R. 3010). I also 
voted against those bills because they reduce the ability of federal 
agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to 
implement regulations to protect public health, workers, and the 
environment.
  The Election Assistance Commission was established in 2002 as part of 
the Help America Vote Act. That legislation was enacted because of the 
widespread irregularities and controversy surrounding the 2000 
presidential elections. The commission's immediate role was to oversee 
payments to states to help them replace punch card and lever voting 
systems and to develop statewide voter databases. The commission also 
operates a federal voting system testing and certification program and 
maintains an election administration information clearinghouse. State 
and local governments rely on the services provided by the Commission. 
One year before another presidential election, now is not the time to 
eliminate the Commission.
  The Presidential Campaign Fund was created to establish a system and 
spending limits for publicly financed presidential elections, providing 
opportunities for greater competition and transparency. The law that 
created the Fund in 1972 clearly needs some updating, but it should not 
be repealed.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to 
H.R. 3463, which would strip funding from the public financing of 
presidential campaigns and the Election Assistance Commission. I 
wholeheartedly believe that we should be looking closely at faults in 
our electoral system, but this bill is a step in the entirely wrong 
direction.
  Make no mistake--our election system is in crisis. Money has a 
corrupting influence at every level in the process. Candidates must 
constantly raise more and more money to remain competitive, and large 
corporations such as insurance, oil or other special interest groups 
are able to exert a substantial influence. It is increasingly hard for 
middle class or low income individuals to have their voices heard.
  This bill would only worsen the problem. Matching funds are intended 
to give small donors a more effective voice by doubling the impact of 
dollars given by those who can only afford to contribute small amounts 
of money. It gives presidential candidates a substantial reason to 
focus on small donations, instead of merely courting big donors. 
Eliminating matching funds will all but guarantee that candidates focus 
even more on donors who are able to contribute large amounts of money 
each cycle.
  Instead we should be looking at how to make money play less of a role 
in the system--not more. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 
1404, the Fair Elections Now Act. This bill would shift a candidate's 
focus to receiving a large number of small donations from constituents 
in their states or districts. This would level the playing field and 
give small donors--working families, seniors, and others--as much 
influence as the 1% and mega corporations. If H.R. 1404 were passed, it 
would go a long way towards righting what is so wrong about our process 
today.
  Rather than considering H.R. 3463 today, we should be discussing how 
to stop the avalanche of state laws that will have the effect of 
suppressing voter turnout--laws promoted under the guise of eliminating 
voter fraud--a virtually non-existent problem. According to the Brennan 
Center for Justice, recent changes to voting requirements could result 
in disenfranchising more than five million legitimate, eligible voters 
this cycle. That number is more than the margin of victory in two of 
the last three presidential elections.
  The various initiatives proposed--whether they are photo 
identification requirements, the reduction or elimination of same-day, 
early or absentee voting opportunities, or placing onerous hurdles on 
voter registration--all disproportionately impact vulnerable voting 
populations that we should actively be encouraging to vote. Instead, 
over and over we see state legislatures doing whatever they can to stop 
these groups from turning out at the polls.
  It is our duty as members of Congress to investigate those practices 
and ensure that American citizens are encouraged and able to 
participate in the electoral process. What agency is similarly tasked 
with making sure that Americans are given every opportunity to exercise 
this right? The Election Assistance Commission. I believe its role is 
fundamental. Disbanding the entire agency is the worst possible 
solution, given recent changes in voting requirements across the 
country. Rather, the Commission must be given the tools necessary to 
ensure that disadvantaged, low-participation and other groups are not 
disenfranchised by recent changes in state law.
  It is by addressing these two key issues--the role of money and how 
to boost voter participation, that we will meaningfully address some of 
the most serious problems with the electoral system today. I would 
encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and instead 
pursue positive election reform.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
3463, legislation that terminates taxpayer financing of presidential 
election campaigns and party conventions and the Election Assistance 
Commission.
  Once again, the Republican Congress is bringing legislation to the 
floor that puts more control of our elections in the hands of big 
business. H.R. 3463 combines two bills that have previously been 
brought before this House that I opposed and that were roundly rejected 
by Democrats.
  In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress established the 
current system of public financing of our presidential elections, 
enabling taxpayers to voluntarily contribute a small donation to the 
fund. While there has been bipartisan agreement that this system should 
be fixed, not eliminated, one of the Republican House majority's top 
priorities is, not to focus on creating jobs and building our economy 
but, to give corporate secret donors more control of our presidential 
elections.
  The American people are rightly concerned that only big money and 
special interests get a hearing in Washington. The Supreme Court ruling 
in the Citizens United case opened the floodgates to greater influence 
by powerful special interests--effectively drowning out the voices of 
average Americans. Last year, House Democrats worked on bringing 
fairness and transparency to campaigns with passage

[[Page 18534]]

of the bipartisan DISCLOSE Act, legislation that would ensure 
Americans' voices are not drowned out by corporate dollars.
  Unfortunately, before us today is legislation that did not receive an 
opportunity for debate or amendment, which would make presidential 
candidates more dependent on big corporate money that corrupts our 
political system.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 477, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 3463 is postponed.


                                 Recess

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess for a period of less than 15 
minutes.
  Accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

                              {time}  1405


                              After Recess

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Denham) at 2 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3463) to reduce Federal spending and 
the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election 
campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the Election 
Assistance Commission, will now resume.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I am in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bishop of Georgia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3463 
     to the Committee on House Administration with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 207. PROTECTIONS FOR ELDERLY, DISABLED, AND MILITARY 
                   VOTERS.

       Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or any amendment 
     made by this Act, to the extent that the Election Assistance 
     Commission is responsible for the administration or 
     enforcement of any of the following provisions of law as of 
     the Commission termination date described in section 1004(a) 
     of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (as added by section 
     201(a)), any successor to the Commission shall remain 
     responsible for the administration or enforcement of such 
     provisions after such date:
       (1) Any provision of law relating to the rights of the 
     elderly to vote and cast ballots in elections for Federal 
     office.
       (2) Any provision of law relating to the rights of the 
     elderly and other individuals who are registered to vote in 
     elections for Federal office to obtain absentee ballots in 
     such elections.
       (3) Any provision of law relating to the access of the 
     elderly, the disabled, and other individuals to polling 
     places in elections for Federal office, including the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
       (4) Any provision of law relating to the protection of the 
     rights of members of the uniformed services and overseas 
     citizens to vote and cast ballots in elections for Federal 
     office, including the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 
     Absentee Voting Act.
       (5) Any other provision of law relating to the protection 
     of the right of citizens of the United States to vote in 
     elections for Federal office, including the Voting Rights Act 
     of 1965.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I offer the 
final amendment of the bill which, if adopted, will not kill the bill 
or send it back to committee. Instead, the bill will proceed to final 
passage, as amended. The purpose of my amendment is simple. It deals 
with one of my most valuable rights as an American citizen.
  It is a right which many Americans throughout the course of our 
history have shared blood, sweat, and tears to protect, including our 
colleague and my dear friend, Representative John Lewis of Georgia. He 
marched from Selma to Montgomery and endured billy clubs, horses, and 
tear gas to preserve this sacred right.
  The right to which I'm referring is the right to vote, as enshrined 
in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and further protected in the 
landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Help America Vote Act of 
2002 and various other measures.
  Today, nearly five decades after the Voting Rights Act was signed 
into law and nearly 10 years since the Help America Vote Act, there is 
still an unprecedented attack on voting rights in States across this 
country.
  Yet, the underlying legislation before the House today would abolish 
one of the key provisions of the Help America Vote Act, the Election 
Assistance Commission, which was designed to avoid a repeat of the 
turmoil surrounding the 2000 Presidential election in Florida, where 
problems with absentee and military ballots played a large role and led 
to many of these ballots not being counted.
  If the commission is abolished, it will undermine America's faith in 
the integrity of our elections. According to the Brennan Center for 
Justice, more than 5 million Americans in 2012 could be adversely 
impacted by laws that tighten or restrict voting that were put into 
effect just this year. The number is larger than the margin of victory 
in two of the last Presidential elections.
  Seniors, the disabled, and our Nation's veterans are now being turned 
away from the polls for not having the photo identification. Popular 
reforms like early voting and same-day voter registration are being 
rolled back.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. Speaker, this situation should not be happening in the United 
States of America today.
  My final amendment, therefore, is simple. It states that any 
successor to the Election Assistance Commission shall remain 
responsible for the administration or enforcement of laws relating to 
the rights of the elderly, the disabled, members of the uniformed 
services, and overseas citizens to vote and cast ballots in elections 
for Federal office.
  In signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Lyndon Johnson 
said that ``the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by 
man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which 
imprison men because they are different from other men.''
  If this final amendment is approved, we can continue to tear down the 
walls of injustice and ensure that our democracy is open for all 
Americans to deliberate, to participate, and to engage with each other.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield the balance of my 
time to my colleague, Representative Marcia Fudge of Ohio.
  Ms. FUDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, there is no doubt that a concerted 
voter suppression effort is under way in this Nation. Abolishing the 
Election Assistance Commission, an agency charged with ensuring that 
the vote of every American counts, is just another step in the voter 
suppression effort and would completely remove oversight of the most 
important process in our democracy.
  Does it make sense to remove oversight at a time when Republican-led 
legislatures across this Nation are passing laws to obstruct voting? 
No, it absolutely does not.
  In the first three quarters of 2011, 19 new State laws and two 
executive actions were enacted to limit the ability of American 
citizens to vote. They would make it significantly harder for more than 
5 million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
  Many of the bills, including one signed into law in my home State of 
Ohio, include the most drastic voter restrictions since before the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  Seniors will be denied their right to the franchise, and the disabled 
will find

[[Page 18535]]

it more difficult to vote. Minorities and students will face more 
challenges than ever before. Soldiers honorably serving our country 
will be left with their absentee ballots uncounted. And let's not 
forget the people who died for our right to vote. People were slain to 
create the rights we enjoy today.
  This determined effort is really about targeting a specific 
population of eligible voters to change the outcome of the 2012 
elections. Plain and simple, H.R. 3463 is yet another voter suppression 
tactic.
  Join me today in supporting this final amendment to guarantee the 
right of every American citizen to cast their vote.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that an argument could be made 
that in any way the elimination of the EAC would result in 
disenfranchising any voter. We all believe that every person who should 
vote, that needs to vote, that's allowed to vote, that wants to vote 
should be allowed to do so.
  I would like to point out that all of those that are speaking in 
opposition that were here in 2002 when HAVA passed voted for HAVA. And 
in HAVA, it contained the provision that created the EAC, which was 
only supposed to last for 3 years. This is not a complicated lift to do 
away with this. Does that mean when they voted for this in 2002 that 
they were trying to disenfranchise voters? Obviously not. In no way is 
this intended to do anything but clean up an agency that has an average 
employee salary of $106,000 a year, has been sued for political 
discrimination, problems with the military, an agency that cannot be 
corrected but needs to be eliminated.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit and to 
support this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190, 
nays 236, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 872]

                               YEAS--190

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bachmann
     Giffords
     Hartzler
     Paul
     Schmidt
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1442

  Mrs. BLACKBURN and Mr. HALL changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 2011, I was unavoidably 
detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 872. Had I 
been present I would have voted ``yea''--On Motion to Recommit with 
Instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.

[[Page 18536]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 190, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 873]

                               AYES--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--190

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bachmann
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Hartzler
     McNerney
     Paul
     Schmidt
     Waxman

                              {time}  1449

  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________