69–006. Part 1 

110TH CONGRESS REPT. 110–886 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DESERVE TO VOLUNTEER ON THE 

ELECTIONS ACT OF 2008 OR THE FEDVOTE ACT OF 2008 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House 

Administration, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 6339] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on House Administration, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 6339) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide 

additional leave for Federal employees to serve as poll workers, 

and to direct the Election Assistance Commission to make grants 

to States for poll worker recruitment and training, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendments (stated in terms of the page and line numbers 

of the introduced bill) are as follows: 

Page 3, line 14, strike ‘‘nonpartisan’’. 

Page 4, line 16, strike ‘‘nonpartisan’’. 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DESERVE TO VOLUNTEER ON THE ELECTIONS

ACT OF 2008 

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

Across the country, election administrators struggle to recruit 

and properly train a sufficient numbers of poll workers. The Election Assistance Commission estimates that approximately two million poll workers are needed to run a national election. However, 

in the last national election in 2004, there was a shortage of over 

50,000 poll workers. A recent study by the National Associations of 

Counties reported that 54% of offices surveyed had been unable to 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

staff polls fully on Election Day. Federal employees, who are uniformly literate, well-trained and often bilingual, can be a valuable 

resource to state and local election officials on Election Day and 

should be encouraged to be actively involved in civic engagement 

activities in their communities. 

H.R. 6339, would allow Federal employees to receive administrative leave for up to 6 days per year to serve as poll workers for 

their state or local governments on Election Day and to receive any 

mandatory pre-election training. H.R. 6339 instructs the Office of 

Personnel Management to formulate the regulations necessary to 

establish a workable and effective administrative leave program for 

Federal employees choosing volunteer at the polls. It is intended 

that this administrative leave program will operate similarly to the 

manner in which Federal employees presently use administrative 

leave for jury duty and other excused time away from the office not 

covered by sick or vacation leave. The Office of Personnel Management will establish guidelines that balance both the federal agency’s need for continuous operations and a Federal employee’s desire 

to volunteer for the nation. 

In addition, H.R. 6339 provides $75 million in grants to States 

for recruiting and training poll workers using the Elections Assistance Commission’s well regarded manual on best practices for poll 

worker recruiting, training and retention. The grants can only be 

used to pay for the training and recruitment of poll workers. In 

order to maximize participation among eligible states, the Committee adopted an amendment offered by Rep. Lofgren that struck 

the requirement in Section 3 of the bill that all poll workers 

trained and recruited with grant money be ‘‘nonpartisan.’’ This 

amendment acknowledges that certain states require the disclosure 

of the party affiliation of their poll workers. The bill further requires detailed reporting by the grantees to the Election Assistance 

Commission and by the Commission to Congress on the activities 

and administration of the grant program. 

Finally, H.R. 6339 exempts the Elections Assistance Commission 

from the Paperwork Reduction Act in order to increase its efficacy 

and make it easier for the agency to request information from the 

public without having to first secure approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

(a) States the bill’s short title as the ‘‘Federal Employees Deserve 

to Volunteer on the Elections Act of 2008’’ or the ‘‘FEDVOTE Act 

of 2008’’. 

Section 2. Leave to serve as a poll worker 

(a) Amends Subchapter II of chapter 63 of Title 5 of the United 

States Code by adding new section §6329. 

(b) Provides that a federal employee in or under an Executive 

agency is entitled to leave of up to 6 days, without loss of or reduction in pay, leave to which otherwise entitled, credit for time or 

service, or performance or efficiency rating in order to provide election administration assistance to a State or unit of local governVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:06 Sep 29, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR886P1.XXX HR886P1

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
3 

ment on any election day for public office, or to receive training for 

such administrative assistance. 

(c) Directs the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to 

prescribe regulations for the administration of this section. 

Section 3. Grants to States 

(a) Directs the Election Assistance Commission to make grants 

to eligible States for the recruitment and training of poll workers. 

(b) Directs States that receive poll worker grants to make use of 

the Commission’s manual on successful practices for poll worker recruitment, training and retention, and to develop training programs with the participation and input of experts in adult learing. 

(c) Requires that a State, in order to be eligible to receive grants, 

file an application with the Commission at such time and in such 

manner and containing such information as the Commission shall 

require. 

(d) Stipulates the amount of the grant made to any State under 

this subsection shall be equal to the product of the aggregate 

amount made available for grants to State and the voting age population percentage for the State. 

(e) Requires each State recipient of a grant to submit a report 

to the Commission within 6 months on the activities conducted 

with the funds provided by the grant. 

(f) Requires the Commission to submit a report to Congress within one year of the date the final grant is made to a State, detailing 

the grants made the activities conducted by the recipient States 

and such recommendations the Commission considers appropriate. 

(g) Authorizes an appropriation of $75,000,000. 

Section 4. EAC exemption 

(a) Amends Section 3502(1) of Title 44 of the United States Code 

to exempt the Election Assistance Commission from the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATION 

INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL

On June 20, 2008, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California (for herself, Mr. 

Van Hollen, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Ms. 

Norton, and Mr. Hoyer) introduced H.R. 6339; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and additionally to the Committee on House Administration. 

HEARINGS

On October 3, 2007, the Committee on House Administration 

Subcommittee on Elections held a hearing entitled ‘‘The Importance of Poll Workers: Best Practices & Recommendations.’’ The 

following subcommittee members were present at the hearing: Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren, Reps. Susan A. Davis, Artur Davis 

and Vernon Ehlers. 

Witnesses 

1. The Honorable Michael Mauro, Secretary of State of Iowa 

2. Mr. Lance Gough, Executive Director, Chicago Board of Elections Commission 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
4 

3. Ms. Jennifer Collins-Foley, President, The Pollworker Institute 

4. Ms. Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder and Elections 

Director, Maricopa County, Arizona 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Wednesday, July 30, 2008, the Committee met to mark up 

H.R. 6339. The Committee ordered H.R. 6339 reported favorably by 

voice vote with amendments. 

MATTERS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE 

COMMITTEE RECORD VOTES

Clause 3(b) of House rule XIII requires that 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. No recorded votes occurred during committee consideration of H.R. 6339. 

Amendment agreed to by voice vote 

The Committee agreed to technical amendments offered by Ms. 

Lofgren’s, which struck the ‘‘nonpartisan’’ requirement from Section 3 of the bill providing for grants to States to train and recruit 

poll workers. 

Amendments that were withdrawn 

After discussion in the Committee, Mr. Ehlers withdrew his offered Amendment No. 1, which would have struck Section 4 of the 

bill providing for exemption for the Elections Assistance Commission from the Paperwork Reduction Act. Mr. Ehlers also withdrew 

Amendment No. 2, which would have limited the Commission’s exemption from the Paperwork Reduction Act to a period of one year 

from the date of enactment. 

The Committee voted to order H.R. 6339 reported favorably with 

amendments by a voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee states that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

In compliance with clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII, the Committee 

states that Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to make laws governing the time, place and 

manner of holding Federal elections. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, H.R. 6339 does not include any 

congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
5 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the 

report of any committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a 

committee statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state or local law. H.R. 6339 would require states that accept federal grant monies under this bill to 

abide by grant requirements and that such requirements would 

preempt related state laws. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the to the bill, the following estimate and comparison prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, August 18, 2008. 

Hon. ROBERT A. BRADY, 

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC, 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6339, the Federal Employees Deserve to Volunteer on Elections Act of 2008. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickfard. 

Sincerely, 

PETER H. FONTAINE

(For Peter R. Orszag, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 6339—Federal Employees Deserve to Volunteer on the Elections Act of 2008 

Summary: H.R. 6339 would authorize the appropriation of $75 

million for the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to provide 

grants to state government to recruit and train poll workers. In addition, the legislation would provide executive branch employees 

with up to six days of paid leave per year for training and working 

at polling stations on election days. 

Assuming appropriation of the specified and necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 6339 would cost about $75 

million over the 2009–2013 period. Although the bill could affect 

agencies not funded through annual appropriations (such as the 

Tennessee Valley Authority or the U.S. Postal Service), CBO estimates that any net increase in spending by those agencies would 

not be significant. As a result, enacting the bill would have a negligible impact on direct spending and would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 6339 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 6339 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall primarily within budget function 800 (general 

government). 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
6 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009– 

2013 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Grants to States for Poll Workers: 

Authorization Level .............................................................. 75 0 0 0 0 75 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 75 0 0 0 0 75 

Administrative Leave for Government Poll Workers: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. * * * * * * 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... * * * * * * 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level .................................... 75 * * * * 75 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................... 75 * * * * 75 

Note: * = less than $500,000. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

6339 will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2009, that 

the amounts authorized will be appropriated for each year, and 

that outlays will follow historical spending patterns for similar programs. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 6339 would cost 

about $75 million over the 2009–2013 period, assuming appropriation of the those amounts. 

Grants to States for poll workers 

Section 3 would authorize the appropriation of $75 million in fiscal year 2009 for grants to states for recruiting and training poll 

workers. Based on information from the EAC, CBO estimates that 

those amounts would be spent in 2009. 

Administrative leave for Government poll workers 

Section 2 would allow federal employees to receive up to six days 

of paid administrative leave per year to serve as poll workers for 

elections. The leave would be similar to court leave (which allows 

for paid time off for service as a juror or witness). Under the legislation, the leave could be used to train for and work at polling stations on election days. Based on the information from the Office of 

Personnel Management regarding the volunteer rates of the working-age population at polling stations and the use of current administrative leave programs, CBO estimates that enacting section 2 

would result in a negligible cost. That cost would reflect an increase in salary payments to federal employees for increased costs 

of accrued annual leave that otherwise might be used for poll service. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 6339 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. The bill would benefit state governments by providing 

grants to recruit and train poll workers. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Barry Blom and Matthew 

Pickford; Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Elizabeth 

Cove; Impact on private sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

H.R. 6339 makes no changes to existing law. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
(7) 

1See 5 U.S.C. § 6322. 

MINORITY VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE VERNON J. EHLERS, 

THE HONORABLE DAN LUNGREN, AND THE HONORABLE 

KEVIN McCARTHY 

H.R. 6339: FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DESERVE TO VOLUNTEER ON THE

ELECTION ACT OF 2008 (FED VOTE ACT) 

On July 30, 2008, the Committee on House Administration ordered H.R. 6339 reported favorably by voice vote. H.R. 6339 provides for up to six days paid leave for a federal executive agency 

employee to be trained as and serve as a poll-worker, establishes 

a poll-worker recruitment and training grant program to be administered by the Election Assistance Commission, and exempts the 

Election Assistance Commission from the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. As we have repeatedly stated, we support efforts to recruit and 

train poll-workers; however, we have some reservations about the 

practicalities of H.R. 6339. 

PAID LEAVE TO SERVE AS A POLL-WORKER

Although the Committee on House Administration does not have 

jurisdiction over Section 2 of H.R. 6339 (and accordingly our Members were not able to offer amendments to this section), we have 

concerns about its practical implications. 

The sponsors of H.R. 6339 have likened it to those provisions of 

federal law providing for paid leave for federal employees for jury 

service.1 However, there are certain material differences between 

serving jury duty and serving as a poll-worker, which need to be 

taken into account, and which raise concerns about section 2 of 

H.R. 6339. For example, H.R. 6339 does not account for the potential disruption to the workplace which may occur if multiple employees are concurrently absent. On the one hand, the odds of multiple employees from the same workplace being called to serve on 

a jury at the same time are by relatively low; but conversely, and 

by necessity, temporary poll-workers serve on Election Day, and 

poll-worker training sessions are generally held on a limited basis 

shortly before Election Day. Therefore, whereas the disruption 

caused by a single employee being absent to serve on a jury may 

be absorbed without too much trouble, the disruption caused by 

multiple employees being absent for up to six days at the same 

time may cause a serious disruption to an executive branch workplace. This unintended consequence amounts to a reduction in service, and adversely affects the citizens of this country who rely upon 

a functioning federal government. This concern is especially acute 

as it applies to sensitive federal government facilities, such as border crossing stations and offices providing immediate assistance to 

citizens. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
8 

2 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for H.R. 6339, issued August 18, 2008; available 

at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9695/hr6339.pdf (accessed August 25, 2008). 3See 5 U.S.C. § 5515 (which provides that employees must reimburse to their agency fees paid 

for service as a juror or witness). 

So while we fully support efforts to promote poll-worker recruitment and training, we must ensure that such efforts do not have 

a detrimental effect on the operation of the federal government. 

Consequently, we suggest that the Office of Management and 

Budget, in drafting regulations implementing H.R. 6339, take into 

account the nature of serving as a poll-worker, and provide workplace supervisors with the discretion necessary to ensure that the 

operations of the federal government are not unduly disrupted on 

and around Election Day. 

In addition, we are concerned about the disparate impact of H.R. 

6339. Locations such as Washington D.C., and other areas with 

large concentrations of federal executive branch employees, will 

benefit from H.R. 6339, unlike other areas of the United States 

where there may be fewer or no eligible employees, but where the 

need for poll-workers is no less critical. 

Likewise, we are concerned about the cost of H.R. 6339 to the 

federal government, and question the propriety of the federal government subsidizing the cost of state and local poll-workers. Although the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that the cost 

to the federal government of this provision is ‘‘negligible,’’ the CBO 

also acknowledges that their cost estimate does not account for lost 

productivity, and is based upon the current volunteer rates of the 

working-age population at polling stations (which does not account 

for the fact that currently most poll-workers are not part of the 

working-age population, or for the need for additional poll-workers 

in 2008).2 Moreover, since this legislation does not provide for reimbursement by state and local jurisdictions for the cost of the paid 

leave of federal employees, this arrangement amounts to the federal government paying for the cost of poll-workers for federal, 

state and local elections. This intrusion of the federal government 

into the realm of state and local election administration points us 

down the slippery slope of federalizing elections, a concept we do 

not support. 

As a final matter, during the markup Mr. Ehlers expressed concern that federal employees who take advantage of the paid leave 

made available under H.R. 6339 would receive an unfair benefit by 

also being able to collect a stipend or other reimbursement from 

the state or local jurisdiction for serving as a poll-worker. Ms. 

Lofgren provided assurances that the text of H.R. 6339 prohibits a 

participating federal employee from receiving any stipend or other 

compensation for serving as a poll-worker while on paid administrative leave under the provisions of this bill, such as is the case 

with an employee who is entitled to paid time off without charge 

to leave for service as a juror or witness.3 Nonetheless, we urge the 

Office of Management and Budget, in drafting such regulations as 

are required under section 2(b) of H.R. 6339, to make clear this 

prohibition, which is the unambiguous intent of Congress. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
9 

4 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq. 

5 44 U.S.C. § 3502. 

6 According to the legislative history of the PRA, which was passed in 1980, the FEC was exempted because of a provision in the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979 (Public Law 96–187) which made FEC regulatory action subject to a legislative veto; however, in 

1983 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto as contrary to the principles of 

bicameralism and presentment. 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT EXEMPTION

Section 4 of H.R. 6339 would exempt the Election Assistance 

Committee from the Paperwork Reduction Act. We oppose such an 

exemption as drafted. The Committee has not held a hearing on 

this issue, and moreover, this is the first time this issue has come 

before the Committee. In particular, when the Committee held an 

Election Assistance Commission oversight hearing earlier this year, 

this issue was not brought up for discussion. Therefore, we are 

wary of moving ahead so quickly and with such finality on this 

issue. 

Mr. Ehlers intended to offer an amendment to strike this section 

entirely, with the hopes of working with the Majority to explore 

this issue further. Mr. Ehlers did offer an amendment to limit the 

duration of the exemption to one year, but withdrew this amendment after Ms. Lofgren agreed to work with him on a compromise. 

After working with the Majority on this issue, we agreed to proceed 

with a three-year trial exemption with the requirement that the 

EAC report back to the Congress to afford us the opportunity to review the impact of the PRA exemption. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), every time a federal 

agency proposes collecting information from ten or more people, the 

information collection must first be approved by OIRA through a 

clearance process.4 The purpose of the PRA is to minimize any unnecessary costs and burdens associated with federal reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. Certain entities are statutorily exempt from the PRA: the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 

the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and government-owned 

contractor-operated facilities.5 The GAO is exempt because it is a 

legislative branch agency. The FEC’s exemption is based upon a 

provision of law that has since been held unconstitutional.6 No 

other executive branch agency is exempt, in whole or in part, from 

the PRA. In addition, there does not appear to be a commonly accepted justification or rationale for such an exemption. Therefore, 

to enact section 4 of H.R. 6339 as drafted would establish a new 

statutory precedent, and accordingly Congress should act cautiously. 

We are willing to consider an exemption of limited duration, with 

the requirement that the EAC report back to the Congress about 

the impact of the exemption. However, we reiterate our opposition 

to a permanent exemption at this time, and hope that the Majority 

will, in the meantime, provide a more thorough explanation for this 

special treatment to be accorded the EAC, especially in light of the 

agency’s poor track record of organizational management. 

CONCLUSION

As we have stated repeatedly, we fully support efforts to attract 

and train poll-workers, especially younger people who have not traVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:06 Sep 29, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR886P1.XXX HR886P1

smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
10 

ditionally served in this capacity. However, we have concerns about 

the practical implications of granting up to six days of paid leave 

for federal employees to serve as poll-workers, and moreover, we 

oppose exempting the EAC indefinitely from the Paperwork Reduction Act at this time. 

VERNON J. EHLERS. DANIEL E. LUNGREN. KEVIN MCCARTHY. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
11 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 14 here HR886.001
12 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 15 here HR886.002
13 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 16 here HR886.003
14 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 17 here HR886.004
15 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 18 here HR886.005
16 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 19 here HR886.006
17 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 20 here HR886.007
18 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 21 here HR886.008