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, 42 U.S.C.1973ff) 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 (amended in 1944), the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955, the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 (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 (P.L. 99-410) 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 uniformed services and overseas voters.

In the 111th Congress, a major overhaul of UOCAVA was accomplished 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 Senate had approved the conference committee report (H.Rept. 111-288) on the defense authorization act (H.R. 2647) on October 22 and the House had done so on October 8. Also on the House side, the Committee on House Administration reported H.R. 2393, which would require the collection and express delivery of ballots from overseas military voters before the polls close on election day. A similar provision was included in the defense authorization act as enacted.


Date of Report: October 27, 2010
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: RS20764
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA): Congressional Interest and Executive Enforcement

Michael V. Seitzinger
Legislative Attorney

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA) was intended to prevent corporate bribery of foreign officials. The act has three major provisions; they concern the accounting standards of corporations, the requirements of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registered issuers, and anti-bribery. The act was amended in 1988 and in 1998, but the three major areas of coverage remain.

Criticisms of the act’s operation and scope began almost immediately after its passage and have continued. These kinds of criticisms range from its being too strict and therefore harmful to the competitive position of American businesses to its being unethical by allowing certain kinds of payments to foreign officials in the course of doing business. Especially prominent recently have been suggestions that businesses convicted of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act should be debarred from receiving federal government contracts. Bills have been introduced in the 111th Congress to address this issue.

In addition to congressional scrutiny of the act, the executive branch appears to have increased oversight of suspected American businesses for alleged violations. There have been a number of settlements and indictments in 2010 concerning violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.


Date of Report: October 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 6
Order Number: R41466
Price: $19.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

History of the Joint Committee on Reduction of Non-Essential Federal Expenditures (1941-1974), with Observations on Oversight Today

Michael L. Koempel
Senior Specialist in American National Government

Justin Murray
Information Research Specialist

PJ Tabit
Research Associate

With today’s large federal deficit, some Members of Congress have become interested in institutional mechanisms that Congress has used in the past in attempts to address one component of this issue—federal spending. One mechanism that has drawn interest is the Joint Committee on Reduction of Non-Essential Federal Expenditures, which existed from 1941 to 1974. It was also known eponymously as the Byrd committee, after its advocate and long-time chair, Senator Harry F. Byrd. The joint committee was established by Section 601 of the Revenue Act of 1941, and terminated by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

In reporting the Revenue Act, the Senate Finance Committee recommended an amendment to create the joint committee with the duty to “make a full and complete study and investigation of all expenditures of the Federal Government with a view to recommending the elimination or reduction of all such expenditures deemed by the joint committee to be nonessential.”

On the eve of U.S. entry into World War II, the federal debt was so high and the prospect of war so certain that immediate action was required to strengthen federal finances. The call in Congress and among policymakers, then, for a reduction of nonessential federal expenditures served many purposes. Spending that was eliminated would save money that could be applied to the war effort. American taxpayers, it was argued, would be more willing to shoulder the high taxes needed to fund the war if they saw that the federal government was acting frugally. Finally, reduced federal deficit spending could help lessen potentially damaging rates of inflation.

The joint committee was a study committee, without legislative authority. Its recommendations on cutting or reducing nonessential spending were reported to the House and Senate and submitted to the Appropriations Committees. Individual Members might also have been interested in the joint committee’s work and have based arguments or amendments on the committee’s recommendations. It is not possible to track the joint committee’s influence over the course of its existence, although the provenance in 1974 of the Budget Committees’ scorekeeping was the joint committee’s scorekeeping reports.

The work of the joint committee was characterized by a dual narrative—one of genuine interest in reducing federal expenditures, and another concerned with projecting legislative control over federal spending. This report briefly discusses representative investigations conducted by the joint committee and several issues that interested the joint committee over much of its existence.

With political support, creation of a new committee with a role in cutting federal spending would be a straightforward process. The House or Senate may create a committee through adoption of a simple resolution or by law. Together they may create a joint committee through adoption of a concurrent resolution or by law. A committee may be created as a study committee, or it may be given legislative authority. This report concludes with some considerations involved with the creation of a committee—the purpose of which is to assist Congress in reducing federal spending—and with a brief examination of committee oversight authority extant in House and Senate committees and of alternative mechanisms for cutting spending. .


Date of Report: October 26, 2010
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R41465
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Presidential Appointments to Full-Time Positions on Regulatory and Other Collegial Boards and Commissions, 110th Congress

Henry B. Hogue
Analyst in American National Government

Maureen Bearden
Information Research Specialist

The President makes appointments, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to some 152 fulltime leadership positions on 34 federal regulatory and other collegial boards and commissions. This appointment process consists of three distinct stages: selection, clearance, and nomination by the President; consideration by the Senate; and appointment by the President. These advice and consent positions can also temporarily be filled by the President alone through a recess appointment. Membership positions on this set of collegial bodies often have fixed terms, and incumbents are often protected from arbitrary removal by the President. The enabling statutes for most of these boards and commissions require political party balance in their membership.

During the 110th Congress, President George W. Bush submitted nominations to the Senate for 74 of these 152 positions. (Most of the remaining positions on these boards and commissions were not vacant during that time.) A total of 88 nominations were submitted, of which 46 were confirmed, 15 were withdrawn, and 27 were returned to the President. The number of nominations exceeded the number of positions because the President submitted multiple nominations for some positions. In some cases the President submitted one nomination for the end of a term in progress and a second nomination of the same person to the same position for the succeeding term. In other cases, the President submitted a second nomination after his first choice failed to be confirmed. President Bush made one recess appointment to a board covered by this report during the 110th Congress, and he submitted an “extra” nomination of that individual in order to comply with a law affecting the payment of that appointee. At the end of the 110th Congress, 15 incumbents were serving past the expiration of their terms. In addition, there were 22 vacancies among the 152 positions.

This report specifies, for the 110th Congress, all nominations to full-time positions on 34 regulatory and other collegial boards and commissions. Profiles of each board and commission provide information on their organizational structures, membership as of the end of the 110th Congress, and appointment activity during that Congress. The organizational section discusses the statutory requirements for the appointed positions, including the number of members on each board or commission, their terms of office, whether or not they may continue in their positions after their terms expire, whether or not political balance is required, and the method for selection of the chair. Membership and appointment activity are provided in tabular form. The report also includes tables summarizing the collective appointment activity for all 34 bodies, and identifying Senate recesses during the 110th Congress.

The calculations of nomination-to-confirmation intervals provided in this report counted all the days within the interval, including those during summer recesses and between sessions of the Senate. The inclusion of all days differs from the methodology used in similar CRS reports for previous Congresses. The new methodology takes into consideration changes in Senate adjournment practices and is consistent with published research in this area. This change may reduce the comparability of statistics in this report with those of the earlier research.

Information for this report was compiled from data from the Senate nominations database of the Legislative Information System at http://www.congress.gov/nomis/, telephone discussions with agency officials, agency websites, the United States Code, and the 2008 edition of United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (more commonly known as the “Plum Book”).

This report will not be updated.


Date of Report: October 25, 2010
Number of Pages: 57
Order Number: R41463
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2011 Appropriations

Garrett Hatch, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government

The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill includes funding for the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the judiciary, the District of Columbia, and 26 independent agencies. Among the independent agencies funded by the bill are the General Services Administration (GSA), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the United States Postal Service (USPS).

The FSGG FY2010 appropriations were provided through P.L. 111-117, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. P.L. 111-117 provided $46.265 billion for FSGG agencies in FY2010. In addition, P.L. 111-80 provided an additional $169 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—which is under the jurisdiction of the FSGG Subcommittee in the Senate but not in the House—for a total of $46.434 billion for FSGG agencies in FY2010.

On February 1, 2010, President Obama issued his FY2011 Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) budget request for $48.219 billion, an increase of $1.785 billion over FY2010 appropriations. On July 29, 2010, Senator Durbin introduced, and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved, S. 3677, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2011. S. 3677 would provide $48.296 billion for FY2011, an increase of $1.861 billion above FY2010 appropriations. No further action has been taken in the Senate. Also on July 29, 2010, the House Appropriations FSGG Subcommittee marked up a draft appropriations bill, but the draft has neither been reported to the full committee nor made public.

On September 30, 2010, President Obama signed P.L. 111-242, a continuing resolution that provides funding for federal agencies from October 1 to December 3, 2010, generally at FY2010 levels.

The wide scope of FSGG appropriations—which provide funding for two of the three branches of the federal government, a city government, and 26 independent agencies—encompasses a number of potentially controversial issues, some of which are identified below. 

• Department of the Treasury. Are the funding and strategy for taxpayer services, enforcement, and the business systems modernization program under the proposed budget for the IRS likely to result in a significant improvement in taxpayer compliance in the next year or two? 
• Executive Office of the President. Should Congress approve the President’s requests for (1) an increased appropriation for the combined National Security Council and Homeland Security Council to fund the expanded mission of both councils, and (2) $50 million for a new information technology related account to be appropriated to the EOP and administered by OMB? 
• The Judiciary. What level of funding should Congress provide for judicial security enhancements and other administrative issues, such as hiring of additional staff to meet the demands of rising workloads, including increases in bankruptcy filings and criminal cases? 
• United States Postal Service. In light of USPS’s financial challenges, should Congress consider removing the six-day delivery requirement that has appeared in annual appropriations laws?

Date of Report: October 14, 2010
Number of Pages: 70
Order Number: R41340
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. 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.