Share This Page Slashdot Del.icio.us Google Digg Reddit Newsvine Furl Yahoo Facebook

Washington, Dec 2, 2011 - 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    Critics of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund contend that it is outdated and fails to provide enough money for candidates to run modern campaigns.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. 

I yield back the balance of my time.