[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 18743]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 3463, THE TERMINATE ELECTION ASSISTANCE 
COMMISSION AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND ACT, H.R. 3010, THE 
REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND H.R. 527, THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY 
                            IMPROVEMENTS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, December 2, 2011

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the current House rule provides for 
consideration of three separate pieces of legislation: H.R. 3463, the 
Terminate Election Assistance Commission and Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund Act, H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act and 
H.R. 527, the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act. I oppose all 
three ill-conceived bills, because they weaken our democracy by giving 
powerful special interest influence at the expense of the public. We 
should be focusing on legislation to create jobs today and these bills 
do nothing to create jobs or improve the sluggish economy.
  The first bill, H.R. 3463, eliminates the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund, which was established as part of landmark political 
reforms following the Watergate scandal. The fund is critical in 
ensuring that wealthy donors and corporations are not able to 
monopolize the political process. Critics of the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund contend that it is outdated and fails to provide enough 
money for candidates to run modern campaigns. I recognize that the fund 
needs to be modernized, but strongly oppose its elimination. Instead, I 
introduced H.R. 414, the Presidential Funding Act, with Rep. David 
Price to reform the presidential public financing system and again make 
it an attractive and viable option for candidates. Our bill would bring 
available funds into line with the high cost of campaigns, enhance the 
role of small donors, adjust the program to today's front-loaded 
primary calendar, and end the public financing of party conventions. 
Presidential campaigns should not be limited to candidates who can 
raise the most money from corporations and the super wealthy.
  H.R. 3463 also eliminates the important Election Assistance 
Commission, which was created in the wake of the 2000 presidential 
election to help states update their voting systems. The commission 
provides voting system testing and certification programs to ensure 
that every qualified citizen's vote is counted. Since the commission 
was created, it has greatly improved the accessibility and reliability 
of voting machines. The commission works to provide states with 
financial and informational resources to upgrade their voting and 
registration systems, train their poll workers, and improve access to 
voting machines for more than 37 million voters with disabilities. The 
Republican bill to turn back the clock on fair elections is opposed by 
a wide-range of public interest groups dedicated to protecting voting 
rights--including the League of Women Voters, Democracy 21, Common 
Cause, Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, 
Campaign Legal Center, People for the American Way, Public Campaign, 
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Public 
Citizen, and U.S. PIRG. Congress should assist the commission with 
additional resources; it should not eliminate it.
  The Republican leadership combined H.R. 3463 in a rule to pay for two 
other flawed bills, the misnamed Regulatory Accountability Act and the 
Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act. In contrast to their nice-
sounding titles, these bills create unnecessary delays and additional 
red tape in federal rulemaking. These delays could be detrimental to 
public health and safety.
  It is important to recognize that President Obama has implemented 
reforms to the rulemaking process. In January 2010, the President 
signed an Executive Order that required agencies to determine if the 
benefits of proposed rules are justified considering their cost to 
society. He also directed agencies to consider input from affected 
public and private stakeholders and experts when developing rules and 
regulations. President Obama required an interagency review of 
repetitive rules and regulation between agencies that may prevent 
innovation in the private sector. In response to concerns from small 
business owners, President Obama requested departments and agencies to 
decrease unjustified economic burdens on small businesses through 
increased flexibility. This increased flexibility can include 
postponing compliance deadlines for small businesses, establishing 
different requirements for small firms and large firms, and providing 
partial or total exemptions for small businesses. I believe that the 
steps taken by the Obama Administration address many of the problems 
these bills seek to fix without creating additional layers of 
unnecessary bureaucracy and legal uncertainty.
  In 1980, Congress passed the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 
that federal agencies consider the potential economic impact of federal 
regulations on small businesses. The current law has worked well, but 
the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act creates excessive 
requirements in federal rulemaking by subjecting 50 additional federal 
agencies to conduct small business peer review panels and additional 
costly analyses. The bill would create major delays in important rules. 
These delays could adversely impact rules that would protect families 
from fraudulent practices in the mortgage industry or safeguard 
children from toxic toys among other things.
  The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act adds more than 60 new 
requirements in the federal rulemaking process. These new requirements 
would prevent government agencies from addressing public health, 
consumer protections, environmental standards, workplace safety and 
financial malfeasance and many other important actions. The new 
requirements contained in these bills could prevent federal agencies 
from fulfilling their core missions under the law. If federal 
requirements are overly burdensome, Congress already has the oversight 
responsibility to address the problem. I stand ready to work with all 
my colleagues to eliminate any outdated unnecessary regulations that 
are not cost-effective.

                          ____________________