The publication is reproduced in full below:
REGARDING H.R. 139
______
HON. RODNEY DAVIS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Friday, October 14, 2022
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I must say that I am perplexed by the Chairwoman's statements on the COCOA Act. Her interpretation of the COCOA Act is misleading and inaccurate. There have been instances in past election cycles where election officials were not aware of Congress' role and responsibility in having its own observers on site to watch the election administration process and, as a result, were denied access. As I stated earlier, this bill fixes a bi-partisan problem by providing a citation of convenience for existing law that gives the House authority to deploy official observers to watch the conduct of congressional elections in the States and territories. This way, there is no question regarding Congress' authority to have observers present.
To my surprise, the Chairwoman identifies two late breaking concerns she has with the bill. First, she states that while the bill provides broad authority to Congress, it fails to provide election officials with the ability to protect personally identifiable information. This concern appears to be a novel one, particularly in light of the long history of the Congressional observer program. We certainly would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss it further in our multiple efforts to work with majority staff on this topic.
Second, the Chairwoman expresses concern over an election official's inability to remove congressional observers that are disruptive to the process. Contrary to the Chairwoman's statement, the bill outlines the role of congressional observers and specifically prohibits these individuals from handling ballots, elections equipment, advocating for a position or candidate, taking any action to reduce ballot secrecy, or otherwise interfering with the elections administration process. The bill also permits state and local authorities to remove any observer who misbehaves. As such, state and local election officials across the country would have appropriate protections in place and should not be distressed by the presence of congressional observers.
Over the course of the past two years, my staff made a concerted effort to engage majority staff on the COCOA Act as we view this as a bi-partisan measure. We provided draft language to them for review. They did not reference either of the aforementioned concerns or flag any language that they believed to be problematic in the few conversations we had with them. My staff repeatedly offered to confer on any issue that majority staff may have with the bill and received nothing but radio silence.
It is important to note that we had an initial agreement in principle to move the COCOA Act together with the PAVA Act. However, at the eleventh hour, the majority reneged on our agreement in principle to move the COCOA Act forward. Again, here on the House Floor is the first time we are learning of any issues with the bill.
This bill benefits both sides of the aisle and serves as an additional layer of transparency and integrity in the elections process. I am concerned that, without the COCOA Act in place this fall, the majority and minority's ability to execute this House's constitutional responsibility will continue to face serious challenges.
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 168, No. 163(1), Congressional Record Vol. 168, No. 163(2)
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up