The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and Issues

Kevin J. Coleman
Analyst in Elections

Members of the uniformed services and U.S. citizens who live abroad are eligible to register and vote absentee in federal elections under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA, P.L. 99-410) of 1986. The law was enacted to improve absentee registration and voting for this group of voters and to consolidate existing laws. Since 1942, a number of federal laws have been enacted to assist these voters: the Soldier Voting Act of 1942 (P.L. 77-712, amended in 1944), the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 (P.L. 84-296), the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-203, both the 1955 and 1975 laws were amended in 1978 to improve procedures), and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986. The law is administered by the Secretary of Defense, who delegates that responsibility to the director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program at the Department of Defense (DOD).

Improvements to UOCAVA were necessary as the result of controversy surrounding ballots received in Florida from uniformed services and overseas voters in the 2000 presidential election. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107; S. 1438) and the Help America Vote Act (P.L. 107-252; H.R. 3295) both included provisions concerning uniformed services and overseas voting. The President signed P.L. 107-107 on December 28, 2001, and P.L. 107-252 on October 29, 2002. The Ronald W. Reagan Defense Authorization Act for FY2005 (P.L. 108-375) amended UOCAVA as well, to ease the rules for use of the federal write-in ballot in place of state absentee ballots, and the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (P.L. 109-364) extended a DOD program to assist UOCAVA voters.

In the 111th Congress, a major overhaul of UOCAVA was completed when the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-84) on October 28. It included an amendment (S.Amdt. 1764) that contained the provisions of S. 1415, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (the MOVE Act).

Several relevant bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress. H.R. 702 would prohibit a state from certifying general election results until absentee ballots were collected from uniformed services voters and delivered to election officials. H.R. 5799 includes provisions that would guarantee residency of military personnel family members, require express or electronic delivery of ballots under certain circumstances, allow for the use of a single ballot application for subsequent elections in the state, and apply the UOCAVA to the Northern Mariana Islands. H.R. 5828 would permit an absentee ballot application to be treated as an application for subsequent elections in the state through the next regular general election. S. 331 would ensure that military voters have the right to bring a civil action under UOCAVA to safeguard their right to vote. S. 1253, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for 2012, included a provision that would have amended UOCAVA to prohibit states from rejecting voter registration or ballot applications from overseas voters under certain circumstances; the enacted House version (H.R. 1540) did not include the provision. S. 3322, among its other purposes, would require states to issue preelection reports about the availability and timely transmission of absentee ballots, and repeal the provision that allowed states to seek a waiver from transmission requirements.

In October 2011, both the Election Assistance Commission and the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) issued reports on participation by UOCAVA voters in the 2010 elections. FVAP announced a state grants program in May 2011, to advance electronic options for military and overseas voters.


Date of Report: August 21, 2012
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: RS20764
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RS20764.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Congressional Liaison Offices of Selected Federal Agencies

Audrey Celeste Crane-Hirsch
Information Research Specialist

This list of about 200 congressional liaison offices is intended to help congressional offices in placing telephone calls and addressing correspondence to government agencies. In each case, the information was supplied by the agency itself and is current as of the date of publication. Entries are arranged alphabetically in four sections: legislative branch; judicial branch; executive branch; and agencies, boards, and commissions.

Specific telephone numbers for correspondence, publications, and fax transmissions have been provided for each applicable agency. When using fax, it is important to include the entire mailing address on a cover sheet, as many of the listed fax machines are not directly located in the liaison offices.

A number of agency listings include an e-mail address. When e-mailing agencies please remember to include your name, affiliation, phone number, and return address, to ensure a speedy response. Users should be aware that e-mail is not a confidential means of transmission.


Date of Report: September 21, 2012
Number of Pages: 39
Order Number: 98-446
Price: $29.95

To Order:

98-446.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Salaries of Members of Congress: Recent Actions and Historical Tables

Ida A. Brudnick
Specialist on the Congress

Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its own pay. Prior to 1969, Congress did so by enacting specific legislation. From 1789 through 1968, Congress raised its pay 22 times using this procedure. Members were initially paid per diem. The first annual salaries, in 1815, were $1,500. Per diem pay was reinstituted in 1817. Congress returned to annual salaries, at a rate of $3,000, in 1855. By 1968, pay had risen to $30,000. Specific legislation may still be used to raise Member pay, as it was most recently in 1982, 1983, 1989, and 1991; but two other methods—including an automatic annual adjustment procedure and a commission process—are now also available.

The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 established the current automatic annual adjustment formula, which is based on changes in private sector wages as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The adjustment is automatic unless denied statutorily, although the percentage may not exceed the percentage base pay increase for General Schedule (GS) employees.

Members of Congress last received a pay adjustment in January 2009. At that time, their salary was increased 2.8%, to $174,000 from $169,300. A provision in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act prohibited any pay adjustment for 2010. Under the pay adjustment formula, Members were originally scheduled to receive an adjustment in January 2010 of 2.1%, although this would have been revised downward automatically to 1.5% to match the GS base pay adjustment. Members next were scheduled to receive a 0.9% pay adjustment in 2011. The pay adjustment was prohibited by P.L. 111-165 (H.R. 5146), which was enacted on May 14, 2010. Additionally, P.L. 111-322, which was enacted on December 22, 2010, prevented any adjustment in GS base pay before December 31, 2012. Since the percentage adjustment in Member pay may not exceed the percentage adjustment in the base pay of GS employees, Member pay is also frozen during this period. If not limited by GS pay, Members could have received a salary adjustment of 1.3% in January 2012 under the ECI formula.

Under the pay adjustment formula, Members could receive a maximum pay adjustment in January 2013 of 1.1%. This percentage could be lowered due to (1) lower increases for the General Schedule, as proposed by the President, which would automatically limit the Member pay adjustment; and (2) legislation introduced in the House and Senate (for example, H.R. 3630, H.R. 3835, H.R. 3858, S. 2079) to extend the current pay freeze.

This report contains information on the pay procedure and recent adjustments. It also contains historical information on the rate of pay for Members of Congress since 1789; the adjustments projected by the Ethics Reform Act as compared to actual adjustments in Member pay; details on past legislation enacted with language prohibiting the annual pay adjustment; and Member pay in constant and current dollars since 1992. For information on actions taken each year since the establishment of the Ethics Reform Act adjustment procedure, see CRS Report 97-615, Salaries of Members of Congress: Congressional Votes, 1990-2012, by Ida A. Brudnick.

Members of Congress only receive salaries during the terms for which they are elected. Former Members of Congress may be eligible for retirement benefits. For additional information on benefit requirements, contributions, and formulas, see CRS Report RL30631, Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress, by Katelin P. Isaacs.


Date of Report: September 20, 2012
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: 97-1011
Price: $29.95

To Order:

97-1011.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Contracting and Subcontracting with Small Businesses: Issues in the 112th Congress

Kate M. Manuel
Legislative Attorney

Erika K. Lunder
Legislative Attorney

Congress has generally broad authority to impose requirements upon the federal procurement process, or the process whereby agencies obtain goods and services from the private sector. One of the many ways in which Congress has exercised this authority is by enacting measures intended to promote contracting and subcontracting with “small businesses” by federal agencies. Among other things, these measures (1) declare a congressional policy of ensuring that a “fair proportion” of federal contract and subcontract dollars are awarded to small businesses; (2) establish government-wide and agency-specific goals for the percentage of contract and/or subcontract dollars awarded to small businesses; (3) require or authorize agencies to conduct competitions in which only small businesses may compete (i.e., set-asides), or make noncompetitive awards to them in circumstances when such awards could not be made to other businesses; and (4) task the Small Business Administration (SBA) and officers of the procuring agencies with reviewing and helping to restructure proposed procurements so as to maximize opportunities for small business participation. A companion report, CRS Report R42391, Legal Authorities Governing Federal Contracting and Subcontracting with Small Businesses, by Kate M. Manuel and Erika K. Lunder, provides an overview of these statutes, the regulations implementing them, and the various judicial and other tribunals that construe them.

This report describes and analyzes measures that Members of the 112th Congress have enacted or proposed in response to particular issues pertaining to small business contracting and subcontracting. The majority of such measures appear to address (1) the standards under which firms’ size is measured, including the establishment of size standards for “early stage” small businesses and “mid-sized” firms (H.R. 585, H.R. 1812, H.R. 3184, H.R. 3987, H.R. 4121, H.R. 4310, S. 1590); (2) government-wide or agency-specific goals for contracting and subcontracting with small businesses (H.R. 2424, H.R. 2921, H.R. 2949, H.R. 3184, H.R. 3438, H.R. 3779, H.R. 3850, H.R. 4048, H.R. 4310, H.R. 5829, H.R. 6078, S. 180, S. 1110, S. 1154, S. 1334, S. 3213); and (3) eligibility for the set-aside programs for particular types of small businesses (e.g., HUBZone small businesses) (H.R. 598, H.R. 2131, H.R. 2416, H.R. 2424, H.R. 2921, H.R. 3754, H.R. 5729, S. 236, S. 633, S. 976, S. 1334, S. 1756, S. 1874, S. 2157).

Other measures address federal contractors’ obligations vis-à-vis small business subcontractors (H.R. 2424, H.R. 3893, H.R. 4310, S. 370, S. 1334); limitations on the amount of work that may be subcontracted under contracts awarded under the authority of the Small Business Act (H.R. 3893, H.R. 4310); expedited payment of small business contractors (S. 1736); increases to the maximum surety bond amount that SBA may guarantee (H.R. 12, H.R. 2424, H.R. 4310, S. 1334, S. 1549, S. 1660, S. 2187, S. 3442); bundling and consolidation of requirements into contracts unsuitable for award to small businesses (H.R. 2424, H.R. 4081, H.R. 4310, S. 1334); and agency “insourcing” of functions performed by small businesses (H.R. 3851, H.R. 3893, H.R. 3980, H.R. 4310). Yet other measures address the responsibilities of SBA Procurement Center Representatives and agency Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (H.R. 3851, H.R. 3980, H.R. 4310; S. 3442); the circumstances in which agencies may set aside contracts for small businesses or make non-competitive awards to them (H.R. 240, H.R. 4118, H.R. 4203, S. 129, S. 2172); the use of small businesses when making “small purchases” (H.R. 2424, S. 1334); mentor-protégé programs wherein large businesses provide financial and other assistance to small businesses (P.L. 112-81, H.R. 3985, H.R. 4310); the deterrence and punishment of fraud in small business contracting programs (H.R. 3184, H.R. 4206, H.R. 4310, S. 633, S. 914, S. 1184, S. 3442); and contracting or subcontracting with small businesses by particular agencies (P.L. 112- 74, P.L. 112-81, H.R. 4310, H.R. 6004, S. 1546, S. 3405).


Date of Report: September 11, 2012
Number of Pages: 41
Order Number: R42390
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42390.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress

R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in American National Government

Super PACs emerged after the U.S. Supreme Court permitted unlimited corporate and union spending on elections in January 2010 (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). Although not directly addressed in that case, related, subsequent litigation (SpeechNow v. Federal Election Commission) and Federal Election Commission (FEC) activity gave rise to a new form of political committee. These entities, known as super PACs or independent-expenditure-only committees (IEOCs), have been permitted to accept unlimited contributions and make unlimited expenditures aimed at electing or defeating federal candidates. Super PACs may not contribute funds directly to federal candidates or parties.

This report explores what super PACs are, how they developed, what they raised and spent in the 2010 election cycle, and preliminary analysis of 2012 activity. As of this writing, Congress has not amended the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to formally recognize the role of super PACs. No legislation introduced in the 112th Congress focuses specifically on super PACs, but some bills contain relevant provisions. H.R. 3585 (Price, N.C.) proposes new disclaimer requirements that would apply to ads funded by super PACs and other entities. The same is true for a revised version of the DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 4010 (Van Hollen), introduced in the House in February 2012. Two Senate companion measures (S. 2219; S. 3369) have been introduced by Senator Whitehouse. The DISCLOSE Act would also require additional funding disclosure that could affect super PACs. The FEC has issued advisory opinions, but has not yet approved regulations on the subject.

Despite limited policy action on super PACs, these new entities are quickly occupying a major place in federal elections. In just 10 months of operation in 2010, almost 80 super PACs emerged, spending a total of approximately $90 million—more than $60 million of which went to elect or defeat federal candidates through independent expenditures. Super PAC financial activities appear likely to be even more ambitious in 2012. Approximately 600 super PACs are currently registered with the FEC. Some of the most prominent such groups are reportedly staffed by operatives with close ties to 2012 presidential campaigns. As of September 2012, the groups had reported spending more than $236 million for the 2012 cycle. Various issues related to super PACs may be relevant as Congress considers how or whether to pursue legislation or oversight on the topic. These include relationships with other political committees and organizations, transparency, and independence from campaigns.

For those advocating their use, super PACs represent freedom for individuals, corporations, and unions to contribute as much as they wish for independent expenditures that advocate election or defeat of federal candidates. Opponents of super PACs contend that they represent a threat to the spirit of modern limits on campaign contributions designed to minimize potential corruption.


Date of Report: September 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 36
Order Number: R42042
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42042.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.