Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act

Floor Speech

Location: Washington, DC


Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi?

There was no objection.

Mr. HARPER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we move forward on the difficult job of securing our Nation's financial future, the Congress will face many difficult decisions. Programs will have to be cut, and some even eliminated. All of those programs are there because someone wants them. We have to look carefully at each one and decide whether the benefit it creates is worth the cost of maintaining it.

After more than 2 years of hearings, investigations and oversight, the Committee on House Administration has identified not just a program but a Federal agency that we cannot justify to the taxpayers. That agency, the Election Assistance Commission, should be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, while the House is going to be making some very difficult spending decisions in the future, this is actually a clear and easy choice. The EAC was created in 2002 by the Help America Vote Act. HAVA passed the House with a large bipartisan majority. One hundred seventy-two Republicans voted for the bill that created the EAC. Its creation was a bipartisan choice, and so should be its termination. One of the primary reasons the EAC was created was to distribute money to States to update voting equipment and voter registration systems. The EAC has accomplished that, paying out over $3 billion to States for those purposes. With our deep debt and deficit, there almost certainly will be no more money for the EAC to distribute, meaning that that function is complete.

Another of the EAC's main functions, conducting research on election issues, is also complete. The agency has completed all of 19 planned election management guidelines as well as the 21 planned quick start guides. It has completed four of the five studies required under HAVA, and the fifth is tied up in an interagency controversy, making it unlikely that it will ever be finished.

The EAC also maintains a clearinghouse for election officials to share experiences working with voting systems, and it operates a program to develop voluntary guidelines for voting systems, test voting systems against those guidelines, and certify that systems comply with those guidelines. Thirty-five States and territories use the Federal testing and certification system in some way to decide what voting systems their election officials can purchase and use. Unlike the grants and research programs that are now obsolete, the clearinghouse and the testing and certification programs provide continuing value for State and local election officials.

Against that backdrop, we have to look at the reality of what has happened to the EAC. When it was created by HAVA, the EAC was a small agency authorized for 3 years to spend up to $10 million per year. That was 9 years ago. The agency is still there, and its last full-time, full-year appropriation was for almost $18 million. Since a staff ceiling was removed in 2007, the agency has doubled in size, and this doubling came despite the fact that many of the EAC's responsibilities were completed or diminished. The average salary at the EAC is over $100,000. It has an executive director, a chief operating officer, a chief financial officer, and an accounting director. In its budget request for 2012, the EAC proposed to spend 51.7 percent of its budget on management and administration costs. Mr. Speaker, that bears repeating. The EAC planned to spend more than half of its budget on overhead. An agency with that plan is an agency that should be eliminated.

The need to eliminate the EAC is so great that the National Association of Secretaries of State, a bipartisan group, whose members have received the more than $3 billion distributed by the EAC, has passed two resolutions calling for Congress to dissolve the agency. In 2005 and again in 2010, the Secretaries of State asked us to do what I am asking this House to support today.

Beyond simply being an agency with an increasing size and a dwindling purpose, the EAC has proven time and time again that what the agency knows how to do best is to be reckless and irresponsible with taxpayer dollars. In the short time I have served on the Committee on House Administration, we have learned of two different cases where legal claims were filed against the EAC for discrimination against candidates for the position of general counsel. The first case involved discrimination based on the candidate's political affiliation. The second involved discrimination based on the candidate's service in the military. Political neutrality and assistance to military and overseas voters are values the EAC should promote, not undermine.

On top of that, these cases are expensive for the taxpayers.

In the development of this bill, we have sought out and received a considerable amount of input from election officials and others, in hearings at the committee and other settings. That input has allowed us to improve this bill as we have moved forward. Perhaps most importantly, we added a Guidelines Review Board that gives election officials and others a formal seat at the table when voting system guidelines are developed. This board streamlines two existing boards into a single, smaller one but preserves the ability of States and local election officials to stay involved directly.

Before I close, I would like to thank Chairman Hall from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. He has worked closely with us as a partner in developing this bill. I appreciate his efforts to improve the bill and to bring it to the floor.

This bill is a careful and thoughtful measure to close down a Federal agency in a responsible way. To sustain an agency that has completed its assigned studies, dispersed its assigned grants, and fulfilled most of its mandates is the definition of irresponsibility. We haven't rushed through this process. We've held hearings. We've listened to numerous experts. We've kept and reassigned the programs that provide true value for election administrators. And now is simply the time to end the EAC and save American taxpayers at least $33 million in the next 5 years.

It doesn't get any easier to find an example of wasteful government spending. If we can't do this, we might as well pack up and go home because this is as obvious as it gets.

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


Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi has 3 1/2 minutes remaining.

Mr. HARPER. Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the statement was just made that the FEC is too political to take on the responsibilities of the EAC. That's an amazing statement in light of the fact that the EAC has been sued for political discrimination--the very agency that's supposed to take care of fairness and do things in these issues gets sued for political discrimination. So that is hardly an argument to say that it can't be transferred.

We are looking at transferring the essential functions of the EAC over to the FEC with the personnel and funding that's necessary to do that job. It's a very responsible and adult thing to do to take care not only of spending issues, but we have an agency that is spending 51.7 percent of its budget on administration and management, not in program administration, not in taking care of grants, those have come and gone. So here we are in that situation of an agency that needs to be eliminated.

And I want to make it clear that in no way, by eliminating the EAC, are we doing anything to repeal or have any intent to do away with HAVA. That is something that came about in a bipartisan effort, and it will remain and shall remain as we move forward. But the EAC was created and funded for a 3-year period. Nine years later, we have one of the most inefficient agencies that we will probably ever see. It is beyond tweaking and correcting to do that.

I want to say that we all believe it is essential in our country that everyone has a right to vote and has access to vote and that no one be disenfranchised. In no way does that have any impact in a negative way. In fact, it will make the election process more efficient to do away with an agency like this. It is a Federal agency that has long outlived its usefulness. And if we look at the people that are on the ground in the States, the Secretaries of State in each of our States, that NASS would pass a resolution, not once, but twice, that this agency needs to be done away with--we need to follow that great advice of those that are most intimately familiar with what's going on.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.


Skip to top

Help us stay free for all your Fellow Americans

Just $5 from everyone reading this would do it.

Thank You!

You are about to be redirected to a secure checkout page.

Please note:

The total order amount will read $0.00 but know that a recurring donation of the amount and frequency that you selected will be processed and initiated tomorrow. You may see a charge of $0.00 on your statement.

Continue to secure page »

Back to top