[House Report 114-361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

114th Congress   }                                      {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session     }                                      {      114-361




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


    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.


    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
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 
    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


    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.


    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.


    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 


    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 


    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 

                       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.


    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 
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.

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 
    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


  (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 
Sec. 1003. Savings provisions.
Sec. 1004. Return to Federal Election Commission of authority to carry 
          out certain functions under National Voter Registration Act of 
Sec. 1005. Commission termination date.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          TITLE II--COMMISSION

Subtitle A--Establishment and General Organization

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



  (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 
                          (iii) Members of the Architectural 
                        and Transportation Barrier Compliance 
                        Board under section 502 of the 
                        Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
                  (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 
                  (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 
  (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 

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



  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.


  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.


  (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 
          (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.

                    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).


  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.


           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                       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 
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *




  (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


    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. 

                                   Robert A. Brady,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Juan Vargas.