[House Report 114-361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 114-361
======================================================================
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION TERMINATION ACT
_______
December 3, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mrs. Miller of Michigan, from the Committee on House Administration,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 195]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 195) to terminate the Election Assistance
Commission, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
Background and Need for Legislation
INTRODUCTION
Congress established the Election Assistance Commission
(EAC) as part of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). HAVA
allocated large sums of federal money to states to replace
punch card and lever voting systems and to develop statewide
voter registration databases. The administration of these
payments to states was a principal function of the EAC. In
addition, the EAC was established to operate a federal voting
system testing and certification program, maintain a
clearinghouse of election administration information, and
perform a series of research studies mandated by HAVA.
Today, the flow of election administration funds to states
from the federal government has ended. The EAC has completed
its HAVA-required research (with one exception discussed
below). Even with those programs, the EAC has overhead costs
that exceed its budget for program administration. Without
them, the EAC is a bureaucracy in search of a mission.
Worse, it is a bureaucracy with a history of poor financial
and managerial decisions and (apparently meritorious) claims of
employment discrimination based on political viewpoint and
military service. The EAC has repeatedly become mired in
partisan controversies. The National Association of Secretaries
of State has in 2005, 2010 and 2015 called on Congress to
dissolve the EAC.
Heeding the Secretaries' call and recognizing the record
before it, this Committee reported H.R. 672 in the 112th
Congress to eliminate the EAC. The full House in the 112th
Congress approved H.R. 3463, which would have eliminated the
EAC along with the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. The
Committee's report on H.R. 672, House Report 112-100, part 1,
details the Committee's findings regarding the EAC's completion
of its functions and history of mismanagement.
The EAC has existed with no commissioners from 2011 to
2014, no quorum of commissioners from 2010 to 2014, no
executive director from 2011 to 2015 and no general counsel
from 2012 to 2015.
ORGANIZATION AND BUDGET OF THE EAC
The EAC was established with four full-time commissioners
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. HAVA
directs that one commissioner be appointed at the
recommendation of each of the Speaker of the House, House
Minority Leader, Majority Leader of the Senate, and Minority
Leader of the Senate. HAVA also established the positions of
executive director and general counsel, each appointed by the
commissioners. All other staff positions are established and
hired at the discretion of the executive director. The EAC has
existed with no commissioners from 2011 through 2014, no quorum
of commissioners from 2010 to 2014, no executive director from
2011 to 2015 and no general counsel from 2012 to 2015.
HAVA authorized appropriations for the EAC of up to $10
million in each of the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. No
appropriations were authorized for years after 2005.
Notwithstanding the authorization's limit of $10 million per
year and its duration only through 2005, in FY 2010 the EAC's
budget was $17.959 million. In FY 2012, the appropriated budget
fell to $11.5 million. In FY 2014, the appropriated budget was
$11.062 million. The FY 2015 current appropriated budget is $10
million. The EAC's budget request for FY 2016 is $9.6 million.
Of that, $1.5 million is transferred to NIST for technical and
scientific support of the testing and certification program and
$8.1 million is for operation of the agency. The budget request
the EAC submitted to Congress breaks the operating budget
request into the following amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Indirect Costs'' (management/ 57.2% $4,955,552
overhead)........................
Grants............................ 3.3% $287,055
Research.......................... 10.5% $914,299
Testing and Certification......... 10% $862,204
Communications.................... 5.6% $487,163
Inspector General................. 13.4% $1,157,241
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding up the budgets for the four program departments,
they total $2,550,721. This means the agency has a management
cost of $4.95 million for $2.5 million worth of programs. This
is an unjustifiably inefficient organization by any measure,
and an even worse ratio than in the last Congress.
THE EAC'S ROLE IN ELECTIONS
Since the enactment of HAVA, there have been three major
contested elections that called into doubt the functioning of
the election process: for Governor of the State of Washington
in 2004, for the House of Representatives in the 13th District
of Florida in 2006 and for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota in
2008. Each resulted in a protracted dispute that was not
resolved until months after the election, and each led to
charges of system breakdowns in the election process and
partisan manipulation by election officials. Neither HAVA nor
the EAC prevented the problems uncovered in those elections,
and the EAC had no role in resolving them.
The EAC does not register voters, nor does it have any
enforcement authority over laws governing voter registration.
The EAC has no role in the casting or counting of ballots, or
resolving election disputes. Election officials have direct
functional connections to the EAC when they receive funds from
it and when they seek to use voting systems certified by it.
Other contact is informational, and the informational function
does not need to be performed by the federal government.
Likewise, voters have direct functional connections to the
EAC only when they use the EAC's website to download the
national voter registration form--which is available from other
sources and can be made available on any government web site.
Other contact between the EAC and voters is informational, and
the information from the EAC is second-hand because the actual
rules and procedures for elections are set by state and local
jurisdictions.
When the President deemed it necessary to conduct a review
of the 2012 election, he did not turn to the EAC to perform it.
Instead he created, through executive order, a Presidential
Commission on Election Administration. This shows both a lack
of confidence in the EAC and the lack of a need for it to
address perceived issues in election administration.
EAC PROGRAM AREAS
Grants
Some election officials have questioned the elimination of
the EAC because of the hardship their jurisdictions will suffer
without continued federal funding. No funds have been provided
since 2010 and it appears unlikely they will be provided in the
future. The lack of funding is not caused by the proposed
termination of the EAC. Rather, the absence of funds available
in a strained federal budget is merely one more reason why
operation of the EAC is an unnecessary and wasteful use of
scarce taxpayer resources. With no funds left to distribute,
there is no reason to retain the EAC to disburse them.
Research
HAVA required the EAC to perform five specified research
studies: (1) facilitating military and overseas voting, (2)
human factors in voting system design, (3) using Social
Security numbers in voter registration, (4) electronic and
Internet voting and (5) free or reduced postage for absentee
ballots. Four of those studies have been completed. The fifth
study, on the use of Social Security numbers in voter
registration, is now some eight years overdue. In the face of
this delay, it seems unlikely the final study will be completed
in the foreseeable future.
The EAC also produces documents called Election Management
Guidelines and Quick Start Guides. The agency has completed all
of these documents that it plans to produce. Even if they had
not been completed, their value has been questioned in
congressional testimony and elsewhere.
With the required research effectively complete, and other
materials likewise complete, there is no reason to retain the
EAC to perform research. There is no Congressional mandate for
further research, and any research conducted likely would be
designed to justify the EAC's continued existence rather than
to fulfill an important and uniquely federal need.
Testing and certification
Prior to the enactment of HAVA, the National Association of
State Election Directors operated a program to test and certify
voting systems so that election officials purchasing such
systems had some independent validation of their quality and
performance. The Federal Election Commission also played a role
in the process prior to the enactment of HAVA through the
voting system standards it issued in 1990.
HAVA created a federal program to perform this function.
The program involves four parts: developing the standards
voting systems are required to meet in order to be certified
(the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines or VVSG), accrediting
labs to test voting systems against those standards, conducting
the tests, and certifying that systems satisfy the standards.
Twenty states and territories make no use of the federal
testing and certification program. The other 35 states and
territories use the federal standards and certification process
in some way--some by requiring federal certification of the
systems they purchase, some by requiring that systems be tested
to federal standards in a federally-accredited lab and some by
requiring testing to federal standards without specifying the
type of lab that may conduct the tests.
The last full adoption of a VVSG occurred in 2005, leaving
the EAC process far behind the development of technology in
voting systems. The federal testing and certification program
using standards developed under the HAVA system is not
effectively supporting voting system quality. For states who
want to participate in a joint process rather than create and
test to their own standards, there are alternative institutions
to the federal government such as one or more academic
facilities, an association of election officials, or a
consortium of states established for the purpose. The state
stakeholders who bear the burdens of selecting and paying for
voting systems are in the best position to decide upon and
manage the appropriate process. Even if the testing and
certification program were to continue as a function of the
federal government, it does not justify operating a separate
federal agency.
Communications
Prior to the enactment of HAVA, the Federal Election
Commission operated a clearing house of election administration
information for state and local election officials. This
clearinghouse has been absorbed into the EAC's web site. The
operation of a web site collecting data on election
administration does not justify operating a separate federal
agency.
MANAGEMENT AND PARTISAN CONTROVERSY
As described in the report accompanying H.R. 672 in the
112th Congress, a series of incidents at the EAC have shown a
pattern of questionable decision-making, poor financial choices
and partisan controversy. These include questionable spending,
claims of retaliation and a hostile work environment, and
politicized decision-making. Most disturbingly, in two separate
attempts to hire a general counsel the EAC discriminated
against applicants, first on the basis of political affiliation
and then on the basis of military service. Both resulted in the
payment of substantial sums of taxpayer funds to the
applicants.
CONCLUSION
The EAC has completed most of its major functions. Its
operations and budget show that its mission cannot justify
maintaining a federal agency. The EAC has a record of
discrimination based on political affiliation and military
service and a history of partisan controversy. The functions of
the EAC that continue to be necessary and valuable can be
performed elsewhere more efficiently and at least as
effectively.
Introduction and Referral
On January 7, 2015, Congressman Gregg Harper of Mississippi
introduced H.R. 195, which was referred to the Committee on
House Administration.
Hearings
There were no legislative hearings held on H.R. 195
Committee Consideration
On March 4, 2015, the Committee on House Administration met
to consider H.R. 195. The Committee ordered the bill reported
favorably to the House without amendment by voice vote with a
quorum present.
Committee Record Votes
In compliance with House rule XIII, clause 3(b), requiring
the results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to
report, together with the names of those voting for and
against, to be printed in the Committee report, the Committee
states that there were no record votes during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 195.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
In compliance with House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1), the
Committee states that the findings and recommendations of the
Committee, based on oversight activities under House Rule X,
clause 2(b)(1), are incorporated into the general discussion
section of this report.
Statement of Budget Authority and Related Items
The bill does not provide new budget authority, new
spending authority, new credit authority, or an increase or
decrease in revenues or tax expenditures and a statement under
House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2), and section 308(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is not required.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 24, 2015.
Hon. Candice Miller,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 195, the Election
Assistance Commission Termination Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 195--Election Assistance Commission Termination Act
Summary: H.R. 195 would eliminate the Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) and transfer some of its responsibilities to
the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) would be responsible for winding down the
commission's contracts and agreements. The EAC would terminate
within 60 days of the bill's enactment.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 195 would reduce
spending that is subject to appropriation by $40 million over
the 2016-2020 period. Enacting the bill would affect direct
spending and revenues because we expect some EAC employees
would retire earlier than they otherwise would; therefore, pay-
as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any
net changes in the deficit would not be significant.
H.R. 195 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 195 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 800
(general government).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Terminating Election Assistance Commission
Estimated Authorization Level.................. -8 -8 -9 -9 -9 -43
Estimated Outlays.............................. -8 -8 -9 -9 -9 -43
Federal Election Commission
Estimated Authorization Level.................. * * * * * 1
Estimated Outlays.............................. * * * * * 1
Office of Management and Budget
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 1 1 * * 0 2
Estimated Outlays.............................. 1 1 * * 0 2
Total Changes
Estimated Authorization Level.............. -7 -7 -9 -9 -9 -40
Estimated Outlays.......................... -7 -7 -9 -9 -9 -40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
legislation will be enacted late in fiscal year 2015, that
amounts not needed after eliminating the EAC would not be
appropriated, that the necessary amounts for activities that
would be transferred to other agencies would be appropriated
near the start of each fiscal year, and that the new spending
would follow historical patterns for similar activities.
The EAC advises state and local governments on
administering elections and provides grants to states to
replace punch-card voting machines and to make other
improvements to voting systems. The commission also develops
voluntary standards for managing elections, serves as a
clearinghouse for information, and reviews procedures for
administering federal elections.
Terminating Election Assistance Commission
Eliminating the EAC would reduce the need for appropriated
funds in future years. In fiscal year 2015, the commission
received an appropriation of $8 million. Assuming
appropriations would continue under current law at that level
with an adjustment for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates
that terminating the EAC would reduce discretionary spending by
$43 million over the 2016-2020 period.
Federal Election Commission
H.R. 195 would transfer some of EAC's responsibilities to
the FEC. Based on information from the EAC and the FEC, CBO
expects that those responsibilities would require the FEC to
hire one or two additional employees. CBO estimates that those
additional employees would cost nearly $1 million over the next
five years, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.
Office of Management and Budget
OMB would be responsible for closing down the EAC and
fulfilling the agency's final contracts and agreements. Based
on information from the EAC, final responsibilities would
involve auditing competitive grant programs, closing the
office, and terminating its active contracts. CBO estimates
that those activities would cost $2 million over the 2016-2020
period, assuming the appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. Enacting H.R. 195 would affect direct spending and
revenues because some EAC employees would retire earlier under
the legislation than they otherwise would; therefore, pay-as-
you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any
changes in direct spending and revenues would not be
significant in any one year or over the next 10 years because
fewer than a dozen of the agency's employees are eligible to
retire. Based on information from the EAC, CBO expects most
would probably not retire early.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 195
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state,
local, or tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Jon Sperl;
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
In compliance with House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4), the
Committee states that the general discussion section of this
report includes a statement of the general performance goals
and objectives, including outcome-related goals and objectives,
for which H.R. 195 authorizes funding.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to Amendment XVI of the U.S. Constitution relating to the
collection of income tax and additionally to Article I, Section
4 of the U.S. Constitution granting Congress the authority to
make laws governing the time, place and manner of holding
Federal elections.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with House rule XXI, clause 9, the Committee
states that H.R. 195 does not contain any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Help America
Vote Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is
as follows:
* * * * * * *
Title X--Termination of Commission
Sec. 1001. Termination.
Sec. 1002. Office of Management and Budget to perform transition
functions.
Sec. 1003. Savings provisions.
Sec. 1004. Return to Federal Election Commission of authority to carry
out certain functions under National Voter Registration Act of
1993.
Sec. 1005. Commission termination date.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--COMMISSION
Subtitle A--Establishment and General Organization
* * * * * * *
PART 3--TECHNICAL GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
SEC. 221. TECHNICAL GUIDELINES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established the Technical
Guidelines Development Committee (hereafter in this part
referred to as the ``Development Committee'').
(b) Duties.--
(1) In general.--The Development Committee shall
assist the Executive Director of the Commission in the
development of the voluntary voting system guidelines.
(2) Deadline for initial set of recommendations.--The
Development Committee shall provide its first set of
recommendations under this section to the Executive
Director of the Commission not later than 9 months
after all of its members have been appointed.
(c) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Development Committee shall be
composed of the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (who shall serve as its
chair), together with a group of 14 other individuals
appointed jointly by the Commission and the Director of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
consisting of the following:
(A) An equal number of each of the following:
(i) Members of the Standards Board.
(ii) Members of the Board of
Advisors.
(iii) Members of the Architectural
and Transportation Barrier Compliance
Board under section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
792).
(B) A representative of the American National
Standards Institute.
(C) A representative of the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
(D) Two representatives of the National
Association of State Election Directors
selected by such Association who are not
members of the Standards Board or Board of
Advisors, and who are not of the same political
party.
(E) Other individuals with technical and
scientific expertise relating to voting systems
and voting equipment.
(2) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the
Development Committee shall constitute a quorum, except
that the Development Committee may not conduct any
business prior to the appointment of all of its
members.
(d) No Compensation for Service.--Members of the Development
Committee 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 Development Committee.
(e) Technical Support From National Institute of Standards
and Technology.--
(1) In general.--At the request of the Development
Committee, the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology shall provide the Development
Committee with technical support necessary for the
Development Committee to carry out its duties under
this subtitle.
(2) Technical support.--The technical support
provided under paragraph (1) shall include intramural
research and development in areas to support the
development of the voluntary voting system guidelines
under this part, including--
(A) the security of computers, computer
networks, and computer data storage used in
voting systems, including the computerized list
required under section 303(a);
(B) methods to detect and prevent fraud;
(C) the protection of voter privacy;
(D) the role of human factors in the design
and application of voting systems, including
assistive technologies for individuals with
disabilities (including blindness) and varying
levels of literacy; and
(E) remote access voting, including voting
through the Internet.
(3) No private sector intellectual property rights in
guidelines.--No private sector individual or entity
shall obtain any intellectual property rights to any
guideline or the contents of any guideline (or any
modification to any guideline) adopted by the
Commission under this Act.
(f) Publication of Recommendations in Federal Register.--At
the time the Commission adopts any voluntary voting system
guideline pursuant to section 222, the Development Committee
shall cause to have published in the Federal Register the
recommendations it provided under this section to the Executive
Director of the Commission concerning the guideline adopted.
(g) Termination.--Effective on the Commission termination
date described in section 1005, the Development Committee is
terminated.
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--TERMINATION OF COMMISSION
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. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO PERFORM TRANSITION
FUNCTIONS.
Except as provided in section 1004, 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) take the necessary steps to wind up the affairs
of the Commission.
SEC. 1003. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.
(a) Prior Contracts.--The termination of the Commission under
this title 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 title 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 title shall
not affect any proceeding to which the Commission is a
party that is pending on the Commission termination
date, including any suit to which the Commission is a
party that is commenced prior to such date, and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget 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 Director of
the Office of Management and Budget in the exercise of
functions of the Commission under section 1002 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 Director.
SEC. 1004. RETURN TO FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY
OUT CERTAIN FUNCTIONS UNDER NATIONAL VOTER
REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993.
Effective on the Commission termination date, there are
transferred to the Federal Election Commission any functions
transferred to the Election Assistance Commission under section
802 (relating to functions described in section 9(a) of the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993).
SEC. 1005. 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 title.
----------
FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT OF 1971
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS
* * * * * * *
administrative provisions
Sec. 311. (a) The Commission shall--
(1) prescribe forms necessary to implement this Act;
(2) prepare, publish, and furnish to all persons
required to file reports and statements under this Act
a manual recommending uniform methods of bookkeeping
and reporting;
(3) develop a filing, coding, and cross-indexing
system consistent with the purposes of this Act;
(4) within 48 hours after the time of the receipt by
the Commission of reports and statements filed with it,
make them available for public inspection, and copying,
at the expense of the person requesting such copying,
except that any information copied from such reports or
statements may not be sold or used by any person for
the purpose of soliciting contributions or for
commercial purposes, other than using the name and
address of any political committee to solicit
contributions from such committee. A political
committee may submit 10 pseudonyms on each report filed
in order to protect against the illegal use of names
and addresses of contributors, provided such committee
attaches a list of such pseudonyms to the appropriate
report. The Secretary or the Commission shall exclude
these lists from the public record;
(5) keep such designations, reports, and statements
for a period of 10 years from the date of receipt,
except that designations, reports, and statements that
relate solely to candidates for the House of
Representatives shall be kept for 5 years from the date
of their receipt;
(6)(A) compile and maintain a cumulative index of
designations, reports, and statements filed under this
Act, which index shall be published at regular
intervals and made available for purchase directly or
by mail;
(B) compile, maintain, and revise a separate
cumulative index of reports and statements filed by
multi-candidate committees, including in such index a
list of multi-candidate committees; and
(C) compile and maintain a list of multi-candidate
committees, which shall be revised and made available
monthly;
(7) prepare and publish periodically lists of
authorized committees which fail to file reports as
required by this Act;
(8) prescribe rules, regulations, and forms to carry
out the provisions of this Act, in accordance with the
provisions of subsection (d); [and]
(9) transmit to the President and to each House of
the Congress no later than June 1 of each year, a
report which states in detail the activities of the
Commission in carrying out its duties under this Act,
and any recommendations for any legislative or other
action the Commission considers appropriate[.];
(10) carry out the duties described in section 9(a)
of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
(b) The Commission may conduct audits and field
investigations of any political committee required to file a
report under section 304 of this Act. All audits and field
investigations concerning the verification for, and receipt and
use of, any payments received by a candidate or committee under
chapter 95 or chapter 96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
shall be given priority. Prior to conducting any audit under
this subsection, the Commission shall perform an internal
review of reports filed by selected committees to determine if
the reports filed by a particular committee meet the threshold
requirements for substantial compliance with the Act. Such
thresholds for compliance shall be established by the
Commission. The Commission may, upon an affirmative vote of 4
of its members, conduct an audit and field investigation of any
committee which does not meet the threshold requirements
established by the Commission. Such audit shall be commenced
within 30 days of such vote, except that any audit of an
authorized committee of a candidate, under the provisions of
this subsection, shall be commenced within 6 months of the
election for which such committee is authorized.
(c) Any forms prescribed by the Commission under subsection
(a)(1), and any information-gathering activities of the
Commission under this Act, shall not be subject to the
provisions of section 3512 of title 44, United States Code.
(d)(1) Before prescribing any rule, regulation, or form under
this section or any other provision of this Act, the Commission
shall transmit a statement with respect to such rule,
regulation, or form to the Senate and the House of
Representatives, in accordance with this subsection. Such
statement shall set forth the proposed rule, regulation, or
form, and shall contain a detailed explanation and
justification of it.
(2) If either House of the Congress does not disapprove by
resolution any proposed rule or regulation submitted by the
Commission under this section within 30 legislative days after
the date of the receipt of such proposed rule or regulation or
within 10 legislative days after the date of receipt of such
proposed form, the Commission may prescribe such rule,
regulation, or form.
(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``legislative
day'' means, with respect to statements transmitted to the
Senate, any calendar day on which the Senate is in session, and
with respect to statements transmitted to the House of
Representatives, any calendar day on which the House of
Representatives is in session.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the terms ``rule'' and
``regulation'' mean a provision or series of interrelated
provisions stating a single, separable rule of law.
(5)(A) A motion to discharge a committee of the Senate from
the consideration of a resolution relating to any such rule,
regulation, or form or a motion to proceed to the consideration
of such a resolution, is highly privileged and shall be decided
without debate.
(B) Whenever a committee of the House of Representatives
reports any resolution relating to any such form, rule or
regulation, it is at any time thereafter in order (even though
a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to
move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution. The
motion is highly privileged and is not debatable. An amendment
to the motion is not in order, and is not in order to move to
reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed to or
disagreed with.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person
who relies upon any rule or regulation prescribed by the
Commission in accordance with the provisions of this section
and who acts in good faith in accordance with such rule or
regulation shall not, as a result of such act, be subject to
any sanction provided by this Act or by chapter 95 or chapter
96 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
(f) In prescribing such rules, regulations, and forms under
this section, the Commission and the Internal Revenue Service
shall consult and work together to promulgate rules,
regulations, and forms which are mutually consistent. The
Commission shall report to the Congress annually on the steps
it has taken to comply with this section.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 9 OF THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993
SEC. 9. FEDERAL COORDINATION AND REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The [Election Assistance Commission] Federal
Election Commission--
(1) in consultation with the chief election officers
of the States, shall prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3);
(2) in consultation with the chief election officers
of the States, shall develop a mail voter registration
application form for elections for Federal office;
(3) not later than June 30 of each odd-numbered year,
shall submit to the Congress a report assessing the
impact of this chapter on the administration of
elections for Federal office during the preceding 2-
year period and including recommendations for
improvements in Federal and State procedures, forms,
and other matters affected by this chapter; and
(4) shall provide information to the States with
respect to the responsibilities of the States under
this chapter.
(b) Contents of Mail Voter Registration Form.--The mail voter
registration form developed under subsection (a)(2)--
(1) may require only such identifying information
(including the signature of the applicant) and other
information (including data relating to previous
registration by the applicant), as is necessary to
enable the appropriate State election official to
assess the eligibility of the applicant and to
administer voter registration and other parts of the
election process;--
(2) shall include a statement that.--
(A) specifies each eligibility requirement
(including citizenship);
(B) contains an attestation that the
applicant meets each such requirement; and
(C) requires the signature of the applicant,
under penalty of perjury;
(3) may not include any requirement for notarization
or other formal authentication; and
(4) shall include, in print that is identical to that
used in the attestation portion of the application--
(i) the information required in section
20507(a)(5)(A) and (B) of this title;
(ii) a statement that, if an applicant
declines to register to vote, the fact that the
applicant has declined to register will remain
confidential and will be used only for voter
registration purposes; and
(iii) a statement that if an applicant does
register to vote, the office at which the
applicant submits a voter registration
application will remain confidential and will
be used only for voter registration purposes.
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
ELIMINATION OF THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION--H.R. 195
The Democratic Members of the Committee on House
Administration oppose H.R. 195, which is the latest of the
Majority's repeated and unsuccessful efforts to terminate the
Election Assistance Commission (EAC). Instead, the agency,
which was restored to bi-partisan function by Congress last
December with the confirmation of three new commissioners, must
be renewed and strengthened.
The EAC is not a regulatory agency. The EAC's mission is to
assist states in administering their federal elections and to
provide information to voters. While House Republicans insist
that the Commission has ``outlived its purpose,'' the facts
tell a different story. One need only look at the flawed
administration of the 2012 presidential election for
confirmation of the continuing need for the EAC. Termination of
the EAC is opposed by state and local election officials
regardless of their party affiliation, as they realize that
many of the costs of election administration will be shifted
onto them.
The EAC was the creation of a bipartisan effort by Members
of Congress who recognized the sanctity of the right to vote
and were committed to its protection. We remain steadfast in
upholding this legacy and ensuring that election officials have
access to the resources they need, voters have access to
information, and our federal elections are an efficient and
transparent process.
To that end, Ranking Member Brady offered an amendment in
the nature of a substitute to the bill during the markup that
would reauthorize the EAC through fiscal years 2016-2020,
require states to participate in post-general election surveys
to uncover potential election administration issues, conduct
studies to identify options for reducing election
administration costs and identify efficiency and cost-saving
measures within the EAC itself. Unfortunately, this amendment
was defeated in a party-line vote during the mark-up of H.R.
195.
Robert A. Brady,
Ranking Member.
Zoe Lofgren.
Juan Vargas.
[all]