Datasets:

vgoldberg

/

6k-longform-summ

like 0

Cosgrove seems to wear the pressure lightly. At Mary Fay Pendleton elementary school, she extolled the virtues of broccoli and regular exercise, her affect appealingly, accessibly awkward — just like a real girl. Her flowered swing top (purchased, she told me, the night before to go with the garden theme), skinny jeans and fake-distressed combat boots were fashionable yet modest; pretty but not sexy. When she leaned forward to sign a few hurried autographs, children hugged her, kissed her. Advertisement Continue reading the main story After a few more quick publicity photos, her escort suggested that Cosgrove wait for her driver inside the principal’s office. “They’re about to let the kids go,” he explained, “and you’ll be mobbed.” Cosgrove glanced hesitantly at her mother, Chris, who accompanied her to the event. “It’s O.K.,” Miranda said. “I don’t mind.” Chris added firmly, “She’s here for the kids.” Two more officials rushed over to shoo her away, and each time, Cosgrove was reassuring. Finally, the school principal called the escort’s cell and said: “They’re coming! Tell her to just get in the car and go!” So, reluctantly, she did. As Cosgrove’s Town Car pulled away, I noticed a mother hurry forward with her two small daughters, looking expectant. “She’s leaving?” the woman said, disgusted. “That’s just terrible.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story Disney has churned out more tween-girl idols, but Nickelodeon pioneered the concept back in 1991, with “Clarissa Explains It All,” starring Melissa Joan Hart. That show demonstrated that a female lead could play to both sexes. Until then, the conventional Hollywood wisdom held that girls would watch a male protagonist but that the reverse was not the case, so a show with a female star would instantly halve your market share. Additionally, “Clarissa” featured an actress who, at 14, was the same tender age as the part she played, intensifying fans’ identification with her. Advertisement Continue reading the main story It took Disney until 2001 to broadcast its own perky-girl-centered sitcom: “Lizzie McGuire,” starring Hilary Duff, who was then 13. “Lizzie” books, “Lizzie” albums, a “Lizzie” movie and a “Lizzie” clothing line soon followed. When Duff quit the brand over a contract dispute, Disney merely replicated the formula with Raven-Symoné, filming 65 episodes of “That’s So Raven” in rapid succession, before its star could age out of her role. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Then came “Hannah Montana,” a show about a girl named Miley Stewart (played by Miley Cyrus, who also took on the role at age 13) with a secret: an ordinary teen by day, at night she becomes — a pop star! Lizzie and Raven were big, but nothing like this: by 2008 “Hannah” had 200 million viewers globally, and Cyrus was on her way to becoming a billionaire. The show was an ideal fit for a generation whose increasing access to celebrities — through Web sites, Facebook, Twitter feed — changed the nature of their dreams: stardom was no longer confined to the distant climes of Hollywood or New York. It was available to anyone with access to a smartphone and YouTube. “iCarly,” which made its debut in 2007, trades on that notion as well. In it, Cosgrove plays Carly Shay, a spunky-yet-relatable teenager who, when she’s not attending high school, hosts a wacky-yet-wholesome Web show — let’s make chicken soup in a toilet! — with her two best friends. On the program’s online counterpart, fans can watch webisodes of those shows-­within-a-show. They’re also encouraged to post their own videos (a kid squirting milk out of his eyes) for the entertainment of the cast and one another, further blurring the distinction between performer and fan. Such contrived intimacy fuels brand loyalty and also the belief that “iCarly” truly is the young viewer’s friend. All the more crucial, then, that the actress who plays her behave in an exemplary way. “The first time someone called me a role model,” Cosgrove recalled, “I remember thinking, What does that mean? But I feel aware of it when I’m reading scripts. I want to be able to make things that the people who watch my show can see and that they would enjoy.” Cosgrove likes to say she’s “doing home-school,” though that is normalizing what is a very unusual situation. Child actors are required by law to spend 15 hours a week being tutored until they complete high school or (a popular choice) test out at 16. Cosgrove used to do her studying in public libraries, but since the success of “iCarly,” that’s become impossible. Kids recognize her, word spreads and soon she’s beset by crowds begging for autographs. “We’ve been told to leave about half the libraries in Los Angeles for being distracting,” she said. Advertisement Continue reading the main story I joined her and her tutor, Patti Foy, one morning in a conference room on the Nickelodeon lot in Los Angeles. Cosgrove was busily composing an essay on “Macbeth.” Chris Cosgrove was there, too, getting ready to run some errands. Foy, who has been tutoring Miranda for nine years, gushed over what a model pupil her charge is: Cosgrove completed precalculus over the summer and was now taking Shakespeare, French III, economics and government. Her progress is evaluated by a college prep “distance learning” school called Laurel Springs, from which she has always gotten straight A’s. While I didn’t doubt her intelligence or diligence, it almost seemed too much: could this girl be more perfect? A more glittering ideal? “There are lots of easy ways to get by,” Foy added proudly. “Miranda has always chosen the hard path.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story Cosgrove’s acting career seems to have proceeded along an easier road, or at least a charmed one, beginning with a random Lana Turner moment at age 3: an agent spied Miranda clowning around with her parents at a Los Angeles food festival and handed Chris a card. Perhaps the girl could model. Chris wasn’t especially keen to put her only child in front of the camera, but after checking out the agency, her parents thought they would give it a go. “Our big plan when we decided to do this was to get money for college,” she said. Within a few weeks, Cosgrove landed a commercial for the soft drink Mello Yello. More ads and a few small TV roles followed; then, at age 9, she was cast as an elementary-school prig turned band manager in the movie “School of Rock.” Shortly before that film was released, she landed another role, as Megan, the diabolical younger sister on the Nickelodeon show “Drake and Josh.” The reaction of her fourth-grade classmates to that news marked the moment, Cosgrove recalled, “when I really understood I was acting. Since I did it from the time I was so little, I never thought of it as ‘a job.’ And I didn’t realize that everybody didn’t do it.” Her mother, Chris, and her father, Tom, were wary of the impact that fame could have on their daughter. They’ve tried, as much as they can with a superstar child, to maintain a normal life — the one they might have had if all this had not happened. They live in a middle-class suburb of Los Angeles, in the same house they have owned since Miranda was born. Tom Cosgrove still works every day at the dry-cleaning business he owns. “We don’t feel like we’re a part of her world,” Chris explained. “Like what are we going to do later? And, you know, it’s not our money. So we’re doing our own thing.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story For as long as they could, they also kept Miranda in public school, but by sixth grade, coordinating multiple teachers and a more complex schedule proved impossible. “It took a lot for my mom to give in,” Cosgrove said. “I remember her asking: ‘Are you sure you want to do this? Are you sure you want to stay in acting?’ ” “At first I was kind of happy to be home-schooled,” she continued, “because all my friends were afraid of that first day of middle school. But actually it’s harder. You’re all alone.” For a short time, her co-stars, Drake Bell and Josh Peck, shared her classroom, but they were several years older than she and quickly obtained their G.E.D.’s. “I cried when they left,” Cosgrove admitted. “It’s cool in a way, but I miss being in a regular school.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story Child stars tend to be isolated from other kids. The perpetual scrutiny of adults — even those they love — can feel at least as intense as that of fans and the media, and it’s that spotlight that seems to make Cosgrove squirm. Whenever one of her “team” praised her talent or intellect, which happened regularly, she ducked her head in the typical adolescent combination of mortification and pride. When Foy pulled out a homework essay for me to read, Cosgrove put her book over her face and moaned, “Oh, my God!” A child performer must always be accompanied by a parent or guardian while working. A publicist shadowed Cosgrove during our interviews. Her manager is often with her, too, as is Foy. And of course, Chris (who won’t appear in photos and refuses to be interviewed) is almost always near her daughter, a protective and often corrective presence. After a concert one night, she noticed that Miranda, engrossed in conversation, unintentionally ignored someone who was leaving her dressing room. It was a small thing, and completely accidental, but Chris called her on it. Advertisement Continue reading the main story “Miranda,” she said, sharply. “Someone said goodbye to you!” Cosgrove stopped short and turned around. “Oh, I’m so sorry,” she said, earnestly. “Goodbye, it was nice to meet you.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story To give Miranda a break, Chris tries to carve out time at the end of each day for her daughter to hang out with old pals from elementary school (Miranda’s best friend, whom she has known since second grade, still lives next door). Yet even they are conscious of Cosgrove’s image. When a young man she didn’t know asked to take a picture with her during a party, her former classmates stopped him and insisted he first put down the bottle he was holding. “That could go up on the Internet,” one of them cautioned. “We don’t want anyone thinking Miranda is drinking a beer.” She couldn’t risk being perceived as doing something inappropriate — something realistic — like the rest of them. Photo With her millions of dollars, concert tours and celebrity chums, Cosgrove would seem the enviable one, the girl with all the opportunity. Yet in some ways she is more constrained than the friends she left behind: at least they are free to explore their identities, mess up, hook up, test their limits, taste a beer. At one point, Miranda regaled me with the story of how, on one of her rare dates, she looked into the rearview mirror of the boy’s car to find her mother tailing them. I glanced over at Chris, waiting for explanation. “Well,” she said, slowly, “it’s not the way it sounds.” Then, to her daughter’s amusement, she retold the story — exactly the same way, adding only, “I was going to have to pick her up at the restaurant anyway, so I figured I might as well go then and wait.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story It isn’t easy to watch a daughter’s incipient forays into romance and sexuality. If Miranda embodies the wish that girls could engage in the former without the latter, Chris was acting out a parent’s desire to ensure it. Most of us don’t (and can’t) chaperone our daughters at school, at concerts, at public appearances. Most of us accept, if with some ambivalence, that our daughters have to navigate the turbulence of romantic life on their own. Most of us have no choice but to let our daughters go. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Neither Disney nor Nickelodeon wants its lucrative teenage properties to become tabloid staples. When Disney retitled the last season of Cyrus’s show “Hannah Montana Forever,” the studio probably wished it could be true. But little girls grow bigger every day. And often the largest threat to the tween-girl franchises are the stars themselves, whose adolescent growing pains leave them vulnerable to empire-gutting scandal. Gary Marsh, president of entertainment for Disney Channel, sounded like a fretful father when he moaned to a reporter that concern over his stars’ behavior “keeps me up at night.” Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. Yet what is a good girl to do? By 16, playing the G-rated role no longer feels so sweet. After all, no one wants to be a role model to 9-year-olds forever. As a performer and a person, you have to grow up. And what is the fastest way for a young woman to shed the mantle of wholesomeness? Easy: take it off with the rest of her clothes. A lingerie-clad Hilary Duff appeared on the cover of Maxim magazine. So did Melissa Joan Hart from “Clarissa.” Jamie Lynn Spears, Britney’s younger sister and star of Nickelodeon’s “Zoey 101,” announced at age 16 that she was pregnant out of wedlock. As for Cyrus, she, more than anyone, was sold as the girl whom parents could trust. Much was made of her “true love waits” ring that symbolized her vow of premarital chastity. She told Oprah in 2007 that “I look way young, and that’s the way that’s more comfortable for me.” In 2008, Barbara Walters called her “any parent’s antidote to the current crop of teen train wrecks.” Two months later, Vanity Fair published several photos of Cyrus, including one of the 15-year-old seemingly nude, hair and makeup mussed, a rumpled sheet clutched to her chest. Then came a pole dance at the Teen Choice Awards and a string of outré videos, including one of the under-age star in a club grinding with a man who appeared to be in his mid-40s. Her former agent, Mitchell Gossett, advises his clients to “keep it clean till 18,” but she apparently couldn’t wait. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Parents who had bought Cyrus’s virginal hype (and praised her to their daughters) were livid. How dare she break character that way? She was supposed to be a poster girl for purity! Yet it may be the very expectations foisted on girls like Cyrus — the fetishizing of their innocence, the dogged refusal to acknowledge their changing selves, the denial of libido that the stars themselves collude in — that primes them to push hard in the other direction. No wonder that Selena Gomez, star of Disney’s popular “Wizards of Waverly Place,” recently quietly slipped off her own chastity ring — which she had called a “promise to myself, to my family and to God” — donned a black miniskirt and stilettos and told a fanzine, “I don’t want to be stuck in a box anymore.” By last November, when 18-year-old Demi Lovato — star of Disney Channel’s “Sonny With a Chance” and one of the girls Disney pushed forward in the wake of Cyrus’s mini-scandals — landed in rehab “for emotional and physical issues,” her crash seemed almost part of the script. That same month, in an AOL poll, Cyrus sank from TV’s No. 1 role model to the bottom of the heap, below the “Dancing With the Stars” contestant and abstinence advocate Bristol Palin. Cosgrove, by contrast, seems, at least for now, to feel less confined by her image, willing to nudge the boundaries rather than tear them down. Before a guest appearance in an episode of “The Good Wife,” in which she played a dissolute tween idol, both Patti Foy and a Nickelodeon executive vetted the script for untoward language or provocative clothing. A scene with suggestive dance moves was excised. “We want to make sure her golden-girl image is still there,” Foy told me. When, in “Dancing Crazy,” Cosgrove sings about “going all night” or “hot hot,” she’s referring solely to the dance floor. In a publicity still, her hair is blown back by invisible wind, and she’s wearing a T-shirt that says “I ♥ Boys.” For a girl of nearly 18, that is indeed keeping it clean. Advertisement Continue reading the main story The greenroom at the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show is tricked out like the ultimate man cave. During one evening’s preshow festivities, a bartender poured free drinks; a football game blared from a giant flat-screen TV. A group of guys in cowboy hats lounged on deep-cushioned couches, and some dude, maybe a friend of Kimmel’s, seemed hypnotized by a game of Pac-man. Cosgrove, who was there to promote her “Good Wife” appearance as well as an hourlong “iCarly” special, kept her distance from all of it. She stayed in her dressing room, chatting with her manager and publicist, as Chris and a stylist fussed around her, affixing her dress’s grosgrain straps to her body with double-sided tape to avoid any possible wardrobe malfunctions. A crew member popped by with his daughter, a blond first grader with a bowl haircut. When she saw Cosgrove, she froze, shoving all the fingers of both hands into her mouth. Advertisement Continue reading the main story “Go ahead,” the dad coaxed. “Say hi to Miranda.” The girl hesitated, then burst out, “I wish I was watching ‘iCarly!’ ” shoved her hands back in her mouth and ran out of the room as if she had been set on fire. Kimmel’s first guest that evening was Kathy Griffin. She strutted onstage and, before taking her seat, bragged about the loft of her breasts (though “breasts” wasn’t the word she used) and the tautness of her behind (again, different word), then twirled around, asking Kimmel over her shoulder, “Do you ever wish you tapped that?” She spent the rest of the segment riffing on the tabloid shenanigans of — tween idols. She mocked Britney and Justin, then did a bit about feeling outclassed at a tony cocktail party until the hostess turned to her and asked, “Now, Kathy, what is going on with the Lohans?” Advertisement Continue reading the main story “I’m on 24-hour-a-day Lohan watch,” she joked. “She’s got the government LoJack, and then she has the Kathy Griffin LoJack.” Watching on a monitor from her dressing room, Cosgrove laughed, but Chris was becoming visibly nervous. (Later she would tell me, “I thought maybe she’d say Miranda attacked Dakota Fanning or something.”) Advertisement Continue reading the main story I turned to Cosgrove’s manager, Mark Beaven, and asked how he thinks Cosgrove can age more gracefully than Griffin’s foils. No matter whom I asked that question, the answer was always the same — she had to evolve rather than leap to adulthood, look for good material, choose her roles carefully. That is, of course, what parents of her fans hope to hear. But while the generalities were true, the specifics were always vague. One thing for sure: no one imagines Cosgrove dancing on a pole. “Ultimately, it’s really up to Miranda,” Beaven said. “Miley is facing challenges because she’s stepping into other parts of her career. She can do that, but her following may not respond favorably, and that’s the reality.” Among the options Cosgrove discusses: walking away, at least for a while. She talked as often and enthusiastically to me about going to college in a year as she did about finding a great script or cutting a new album. During our time together, she was industriously filling out college applications, answering questions like “What is your concept of a global networked university” that would make most teenagers with a seven-figure-salary flee. But college has been the plan from the get-go, the reason she went into acting. “Yes, it could make her lose momentum,” Chris said. “I understand that. But if the talent is there, it will always be there. And in a way, maybe when you come back you won’t be stuck in the stigma of being the child star. So it could be an advantage.” Cosgrove’s manager was politic about the possibility that she’ll leave while still at her peak (“My mother was a college professor,” he said), but Kimmel was not. “Why do you want to go to college?” he asked with mock-incredulity when Cosgrove came on set. She started to answer, but he cut her off. “You’re already very successful and wealthy, and I see no reason to get an education.” Cosgrove laughed and answered, “Well, my dad went to U.S.C.” When I pressed her on the subject later, she said: “It’s weird for me. My friends are going through this thing of figuring out what they want to do with their lives. And I — at this point, I think I know what I want. But if I go to college, I can figure it out for sure.” Maybe for her, it’s not about finding a career path, though. Maybe college would give Cosgrove something else: four years to be a kid, or a budding adult, like any other, without everyone watching — something she’s never really gotten to be. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Back on the set, the applause swelled, and the camera pulled back for a commercial. Kimmel leaned in toward Cosgrove and, almost as a throwaway, said, “I hope you don’t wind up in a lot of trouble like all those other stars.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story It’s not quite the same as matriculating, but on a winter night in December, Miranda Cosgrove was attending San Jose State University. She was performing as part of a radio-sponsored holiday show called “Triple Ho.” As in ho-ho-ho. Only not. The other performers on the bill — the hip-hop artists Nelly and Jay Sean, the R&B singer Taio Cruz and the Latin crossover sensation Enrique Iglesias — skew to a decidedly older crowd. At a parking structure near the event, I overheard a conversation between two young women, students at the University of California, Berkeley, who drove down for the show. “I can’t wait to see Enrique,” said the first one, Anisa Young, who wore cutoffs over tights, ballet flats and a leather jacket. “And Nelly. Actually, everyone — except Miranda Cosgrove.” I broke in and introduced myself, asking her why Cosgrove didn’t appeal. “She’s too random in this lineup,” Young explained. “We’re looking at this cool list, and then we see her, and it’s like, What’s going on? She’s for little kids.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story And that is the bind of the tween-girl idol: If you sell your sexuality, your young fan base (and certainly their parents) will turn on you. Yet if you stay clean, you’re dismissed by your peers as too bland. What’s more, no one — neither young women who have gone through it nor girls who will — has patience for the mistakes and pratfalls of your transition to womanhood. Young and her friend each made a face when I mentioned Cyrus, though they were devotees as little girls. “All that stuff she’s done . . .” Young said, trailing off. It’s not the sexiness per se — they were both Katy Perry fans, and she shoots whipped cream from her breasts. It was the suddenness and the extremity of the shift. It felt disingenuous to them, overly calculated. They simply didn’t buy it. Nor apparently did many others: Cyrus’s last album, “Can’t Be Tamed,” was, for the first time in her career, a commercial disappointment, and the domestic gross of her 2010 film, “The Last Song,” was nearly 20 percent lower than her 2009 release, “Hannah Montana: The Movie.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story When Cosgrove performed early on in the show, however, she was received warmly enough by the crowd, which seemed happy to bop along to her hit “Kissin’ U.” It was a likable performance, and Cosgrove seemed content with it. The following week she would go back to the studio to finish up her new single with Max Martin, the producer who, as it happens, worked with Katy Perry on several of her singles. Perry, whom few parents would consider a role model for their girls, incited controversy last year when she appeared in a low-cut dress singing a duet with Elmo on “Sesame Street” (the segment was ultimately shelved). For the moment, anyway, Cosgrove would be welcomed in that neighborhood. By next year, who knows? Maybe she’ll be in college. Maybe she’ll land a slightly edgy role in an indie film, which is another of her fondest dreams. Maybe she’ll be touring stadiums, or maybe her pop career will go flat. When I asked her where she’d like to be in 5 or 10 years, she laughed and said she didn’t know. And really, how can 17 imagine 25? I tried again: “Where do you think you’ll be in a year?” She paused, thoughtfully. “I really don’t know,” she said. “I hope at least I have my driver’s license.” ||||| **Free hosting with domain name is ad-supported hosting. Ad-supported Web sites contain relevant online advertising on a small portion of the site, but DO NOT include obtrusive pop-up ads. Copyright © 1999 - 2012 GoDaddy.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Go Daddy Super Bowl Commercial Danica Patrick Dale Jr. Go Daddy Girls

A recent New York Times Magazine article about the challenges that a female teen star (Nickelodeon's Miranda Cosgrove) faces as she grows into adulthood struck Lux Alptraum more for what it didn't say: Why don't we worry about the boys as well? In that old boys-will-be-boys double-standard, we just assume they'll turn out fine no matter what, an attitude that does them a "tremendous disservice," he writes at Pop Culture Pen Pals. Consider that, like Cosgrove, Angus T. Jones of Two and a Half Men fame also turns 18 this year. But unlike her, "he hasn’t spent the decade sheltered in the bosom of Nickelodeon—he’s spent it at the side of a womanizing, drug abusing, violent, emotionally disturbed man (yes, that would be Charlie Sheen)," writes Alptraum. "Given the two situations, I’m vastly more concerned about the long-term mental wellness of Jones—yet I’ve yet to see any columnists agonizing about his future."

A vice principal at Eastside Catholic High School was dismissed after school administrators confronted him about his gay marriage, and more than 400 students had a sit-in Thursday morning. Hours after hundreds of Catholic school students protested their vice principal’s dismissal because of his gay marriage, alumni said they would stop financial support if the school didn’t make amends. “I read the story today about the firing of the Vice Principal because he is gay,” Eastside Catholic alumni Jason Hilton wrote to the school development director Thursday afternoon. “I hope this story is not true.” Hilton, who was the senior class president in 1999, said his feelings were echoed by many classmates – and he was surprised to learn the dismissal was at the direction of the Archdiocese. “Unless the people responsible are removed from ECHS and an apology to the students, alumni and the person himself is issued, please never reach out to me for money again and remove me from all communication,” he wrote. ““I am ashamed to be an alumnus of ECHS today.” Parents told KIRO 7 their children aren't sure they want to attend Eastside anymore. “She’s ashamed to be a student here,” parent Florence Colburn said of her daughter. Principal Polly Skinner wrote in a response to Hilton that “the dismissal of the Vice Principal was based on the Archdiocese of Seattle’s authority over a Catholic school. We are saddened and as a Catholic school, bound by Catholic Teaching regarding Same Sex marriage.” Skinner also said “this is a very challenging matter to all of us.” Zmuda – called Mr. Z by students – married his partner in July. He didn’t return calls from KIRO 7, and Thursday night he had his last practice as coach of the Eastside Catholic swim team. Students plan to rally in support of him again at the Friday afternoon swim meet. The Thursday student protest started in the Eastside Catholic lunch atrium and briefly moved outside before students went back in the school about 11:30 a.m. Eastside Catholic, at 232 228th Ave S.E. in Sammamish, has about 950 students. "The fact that you guys are all here for me means the world," Zmuda told students in a video obtained by KIRO 7. "I just wanted you to know that I love each and every one of you. I appreciate the love and concern." Pope Francis made the most progressive Church statement on homosexuality this summer when he asked a reporter, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about gay priests. The move helped make him Time magazine’s Person of the Year. After gay marriage was approved by the State Legislature in 2012, Archbishop Sartain supported getting signatures to back Referendum 74, which put gay marriage to a statewide vote. A week before the election, pro-gay marriage Catholics demonstrated outside St. James Cathedral, near the Archdiocese headquarters. Zmuda is a graduate of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Virginia. He has a masters of education in educational leadership and policy studies from the University of Texas with principal certification, according to his Eastside Catholic biography. Zmuda had taught math and held several administrative roles. Before coming to Eastside Catholic Zmuda was at Cardinal Gibbons School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Students at Bishop Blanchet High School in North Seattle and Seattle Prep on Capitol Hill - both part of the Seattle Archdiocese - held gatherings Thursday to support the Eastside Catholic community. On Facebook and other social media, Eastside alumni were vocal that dismissing Zmuda was the wrong decision. “I’d like to see the school issue an apology,” Hilton said, “bring him back to work and rebuild the trust with the students and the faculty and the community.” KIRO 7 obtained a recording of Zmuda addressing students gathered at the school Thursday. This is what he said: The fact that you guys are all here for me means the world. I just wanted you to know that I love each and every one of you. I appreciate the love and concern. I just want to make one brief statement and that is to tell you that yes, I am gay. Yes, I did get married this past summer and I know it is against the Catholic teaching. I think a lot of you guys are raised in a generation that is more open and acceptable to things that are legal now in the State of Washington. But, I just want you to know that my personal life is a small part of who I am. I am first a teacher and administrator. And, I try my best to be an educator to each and every one of you. And, I hope that no matter what happens to me and to the school, that all of you guys will seek a career and work very hard, find the love of your life, hopefully one day get married as well. At the same time, no matter what happens, strive to do your best. ||||| Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. ||||| Originally published December 19, 2013 at 9:35 PM | Page modified December 20, 2013 at 5:48 PM Eastside Catholic High School says Mark Zmuda’s marriage to his same-sex partner violates Catholic teachings and a contract he signed when he was hired by the school. Students called the rule “totally unfair” and walked out of class in protest on Thursday. When Eastside Catholic High School ended the employment of its vice principal for marrying his same-sex partner, it joined a growing list of Catholic institutions that have fired gay employees for marrying, announcing wedding plans or advocating too enthusiastically for gay marriage. The terminations — more than 15 across the country in the last two years or so — continue, despite what appears to be a softening by Pope Francis on a number of contentious church issues, including homosexuality and gay unions. Friday will be the last day at Eastside Catholic for vice principal and swim coach Mark Zmuda, 38, who joined the staff about a year and a half ago. On Thursday afternoon the Sammamish school announced that Friday classes would be canceled and the school would close early for Christmas break due to forecast snow “and in light of the difficult day” the school had had after hundreds of students staged a sit-in and rally against the dismissal that drew widespread media attention. Their protest spread via texts and Twitter to students at other area Catholic schools. Seattle Preparatory School students showed solidarity with a similar protest. Mike Patterson, an attorney for the Archdiocese of Seattle and for Eastside Catholic, said the process that led to Zmuda’s departure began about two weeks ago. “We became aware of his same-sex marriage through some other employees at the school who indicated that he had related that to them,” said Patterson. Officials gave conflicting messages about the nature of Zmuda’s departure, insisting that he had resigned even as the school, in a letter to parents, stated that his employment had been terminated because he violated his contract. “He resigned,” Patterson said Thursday afternoon. “I just spoke with him within the last two hours. He agrees he resigned.” Zmuda did not return calls from The Times. Church teachings Whether Zmuda left voluntarily or was forced out, once he married another man his fate at the school was sealed. While parochial schools and other Catholic institutions do hire gay people, many employees, particularly those in schools overseen by dioceses, sign a contract promising to uphold the teachings of the church as a condition of their employment. Same-sex unions violate church teachings. “Mark’s same-sex marriage over the summer violated his employment contract with the school,” stated the letter to Eastside Catholic parents. In recognition of their constitutional rights, faith-based employers generally are afforded greater latitude than secular employers in complying with anti-discrimination laws. Eastside Catholic president Sister Mary Tracy said she discussed Zmuda’s case in person with Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain within the last two weeks and they had what she described as a collaborative conversation. Sartain didn’t give her an explicit order to fire Zmuda, Tracy said. Rather, “We were directed to comply with the teachings of the church.” “The Archdiocese works through me as the head of the school,” Tracy said. “It was clear that this is the teaching of the church. I know what we need to do.” Patterson said he and Tracy met with Zmuda in a cordial meeting on Tuesday and everyone understood that Zmuda could no longer work at Eastside Catholic. “It was just one of those situations where he knew ... that he needed to comport with the [teachings] of the church, and his same-sex marriage was not comporting with that,” Patterson said. Patterson said Zmuda’s same-sex marriage, not the fact that he is gay, is the reason he cannot work for the school. “He’s a great administrator,” Patterson said. “We fully support him. We’re going to give him glowing reference letters, all that sort of thing. But Eastside Catholic doesn’t have the power to change that law,” Patterson said, referring to church teachings. Students “pretty upset” Tracy said she informed the school staff of Zmuda’s termination at a regularly scheduled faculty meeting Thursday morning and word spread quickly among students. Senior Christian Leider, 18, said he found out on Twitter. “The students were pretty upset about that so we all came together and rebelled against it,” he said. “Once one person found out it went on Twitter and then everyone found out.” He and others started rounding up students for a sit-in at the school commons area around 9 a.m. He said the students then hiked outside to the turnoff for the street that winds up a hill to the campus to show their support for Zmuda to the media gathered there. “We did not know he was gay before today,” Leider said. “He’s always looking out for the best in everyone and he always wants everyone to do their best.” Sophia Cerino, a freshman at Eastside Catholic, said most students support the rights of gays to marry. “Just because I’m Catholic doesn’t mean I need to believe every rule the church has,” Cerino said. “We think the rule over gay marriage is totally unfair. Everyone seems to think the same thing — that we should all be treated equal.” When the students were gathered on the street, she said, Zmuda came to talk to them about what had happened. “He told us he had gotten fired because he is gay and married. He told us to grow up, get a job and find true love. He was crying and told us what we were doing meant a lot to him.” According to the school’s website, Zmuda previously worked at Cardinal Gibbons High School in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and has held a variety of teaching and administrative positions for the last 13 years. He received a bachelor’s degree in mathematics education from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Va., and a Master of Education degree in educational leadership and policy studies with principal certification from the University of Texas. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” A national gay-rights group condemned his termination. “At a moment when Pope Francis is urging the Catholic hierarchy to put aside judgment ... it’s shameful that this school and others are ignoring that hopeful message in favor of explicit and baseless discrimination,” said Charles Joughin, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest, author and former editor of America, a weekly Catholic magazine, said Catholic institutions tend to ignore an employee’s sexual orientation and activities as long as those activities are not widely known. But entering into a same-sex marriage, he said, crosses the line. “Catholic institutions have been following ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ long before the U.S. miliary was,” he said. In the 1950s and 1960s, he said, it wasn’t unheard-of for people employed by the church to be fired if they divorced and then remarried. “We are seeing greater acceptance (of gay marriage) in American society — among young people and among a majority of Catholics,” Reese said. “The church isn’t going to be celebrating gay marriage, but eventually people aren’t going to be fired for this kind of thing.” Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or [email protected]. On Twitter @turnbullL. ||||| December 19, 2013 at 11:36 AM Update: to read full story, go here. Students and faculty at Eastside Catholic High School in Sammamish protested this morning after learning their popular vice principal resigned after school officials learned he had married his male partner. The protest spread via Twitter and text messaging to other students at area Catholic high schools. At at least one — Seattle Preparatory School — students showed solidarity with a similar sit-in protest. Officials at Seattle Prep notified parents that staff members had discussed the situation at Eastside Catholic with students. “Diversity Director, Heidi Kim, moderated a discussion with our students,” according to the statement to Seattle Prep parents. “Following that, Principal Maureen Reid asked students to return to class, where they were able to take up the discussion with their classmates and instructors.” According to an online blog, Eastside Catholic vice principal Mark Zmuda married Dana Jergens at a ceremony at the Golf Club at Newcastle last July — seven months after same-sex marriage became legal in this state. One student at Eastside Catholic said the entire student body was protesting; students either walked out of class or never went. Many were crying along with their teachers. Students said they were told the decision to fire Zmuda was made by the Archdiocese of Seattle. They said they and students from other Catholic schools within the diocese planned to collect and submit signatures hoping to win Zmuda his job back. Mike Patterson, spokesman for Eastside Catholic, said that by entering into a same-sex marriage, Zmuda violated teachings of the church, which he had agreed to follow. Teachers at Catholic schools, Patterson said, sign contracts that they will abide by the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which opposes and forbids same-sex marriage. “We just learned about it,” Patterson said of Zmuda’s marriage. “He understood he could no longer be employed there because of his current circumstances.” At a rally at Eastside Catholic, one student questioned the decision, given Pope Francis’ recent statements regarding homosexuality. “Just because I’m Catholic doesn’t mean I need to believe every rule the Church has,” freshman Sophia Cerino said. “We think the rule over gay marriage is totally unfair. Everyone seems to think the same thing – that we should all be treated equal.” Zmuda holds a bachelor’s degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute. He has been a mathematics teacher, department chair and handled a variety of administrative roles at the middle- and high-school levels over the past 13 years, according to an online biography. Before joining Eastside Catholic, he taught at Cardinal Gibbons School in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Cerino said Zmuda, who was also the high-school swim coach, was a kind person who cared about the students. While students were protesting on the street, she said, Zmuda came to talk to them about what had happened. “He told us he had gotten fired because he is gay and married. He told us to grow up, get a job and find true love. He was crying and told us what we were doing meant a lot to him.”

A Seattle-area Catholic high school canceled classes today, partially because there was snow in the forecast, but also "in light of the difficult day" it had just been through. The difficulty? Hundreds of students staged a rally yesterday at Eastside Catholic High School to protest the termination of vice principal and swim coach Mark Zmuda, who was forced out after other administrators learned he had married his male partner over the summer, the Seattle Times reports. The protest even went viral and spread to nearby Catholic schools, with more protests taking place today. At one point, Zmuda went outside to tell the story from his perspective. "He was crying and told us what we were doing meant a lot to him," one student says. As the news went national, some alumni began contacting the school and threatening to stop donating, KIRO 7 reports, and a Change.org petition to reinstate Zmuda has already garnered more than 14,000 signatures. But officials are holding fast. In a letter to parents, the school said Zmuda's marriage violated his employment contract. "It was clear that this is the teaching of the church. I know what we need to do," said sister Mary Tracy, the school president. A lawyer for the school said Zmuda was a "great administrator" and would get a "glowing reference."

EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - BLOCKING PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN AND IRANIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) (NDAA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995, particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks to conceal transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies in Iran's anti-money laundering regime and the weaknesses in its implementation, and the continuing and unacceptable risk posed to the international financial system by Iran's activities, hereby order: Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property of the Government of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in. (b) All property and interests in property of any Iranian financial institution, including the Central Bank of Iran, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in. (c) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order. Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to: (a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and (b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. Sec. 4. (a) The prohibitions in section 1 of this order apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order. (b) The prohibitions in section 1 of this order do not apply to property and interests in property of the Government of Iran that were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12170 of November 14, 1979, and thereafter made subject to the transfer directives set forth in Executive Order 12281 of January 19, 1981, and implementing regulations thereunder. Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. Sec. 6. Nothing in section 1 of this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof. Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order: (a) the term "person" means an individual or entity; (b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; (c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; (d) the term "Government of Iran" means the Government of Iran, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Iran, and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of Iran; (e) the term "Iran" means the territory of Iran and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Iran claims sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Iran exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements; and (f) the term "Iranian financial institution" means a financial institution organized under the laws of Iran or any jurisdiction within Iran (including foreign branches), any financial institution in Iran, any financial institution, wherever located, owned or controlled by the Government of Iran, and any financial institution, wherever located, owned or controlled by any of the foregoing. Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order. Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order, other than the purposes described in section 11. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions and authorities to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order. Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(d)(1)(A) of the NDAA and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby further authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(g)(1) of the NDAA to the extent necessary to exercise the other functions and authorities delegated in this section and may redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. Sec. 11. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of National Intelligence, is hereby authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(d)(4)(D) of the NDAA and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is hereby further authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by sections 1245(e)(1) and 1245(e)(2) of the NDAA and to redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is hereby further authorized to exercise the functions and authorities conferred upon the President by section 1245(g)(1) of the NDAA to the extent necessary to exercise the other functions and authorities delegated in this section and may redelegate these functions and authorities consistent with applicable law. Sec. 12. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Sec. 13. The measures taken pursuant to this order are in response to actions of the Government of Iran occurring after the conclusion of the 1981 Algiers Accords, and are intended solely as a response to those later actions. Sec. 14. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on February 6, 2012. BARACK OBAMA ||||| President Barack Obama announced tough new sanctions on Iran's Central Bank Monday amid increased tensions over Tehran's nuclear program and the specter of an Israeli attack on the Islamic republic. In a letter to Congress, Obama said more sanctions were warranted, "particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks." He said the problems included the hiding of transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies of Iran's anti-money laundering regime and the unacceptably high risk posed to the entire international financial system posed by Iran's activities. The Central Bank sanctions were included as an amendment in the wide-ranging defense bill that Obama signed into law at the end of the year. The White House said Obama signed the executive order enforcing the sanctions on Sunday, well ahead of the six-month deadline he was afforded in the defense bill. Obama's fresh swipe at Tehran comes as the White House tries to ratchet up pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear program and dissuade Israel from launching a unilateral strike on Iran, a move that could roil the Middle East and jolt the global economy. Obama said Sunday he does not believe Israel has yet decided whether to attack Iran and still believes a diplomatic solution is possible. Iran insists that its nuclear pursuit is for peaceful purposes, but the West accuses Tehran of developing the know-how to build a nuclear bomb. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week would not dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back the Islamic republic's nuclear program. A Treasury Department statement said Monday the new sanctions underscore that the administration is determined to hold Iran accountable for meeting international obligations over its nuclear program. The statement said Iran should get the message that "it will face ever-increasing economic and diplomatic pressure" until it answers the world's well-founded concerns about its nuclear intentions. The department also said foreign financial institutions engaged in "arms-length transactions" with the Central Bank would not be impacted by the sanctions that Obama ordered Sunday, but remain at risk of such penalties if they undertake significant transactions with the bank or other Iranian financial institutions. The sanctions amendment in the defense bill compelled U.S. punishment of foreign financial institutions that conduct transactions through Iran's Central Bank in order to import petroleum. Several U.S. allies in Europe and Asia engage in such business with Iran. The administration expressed concern at the time that the sanctions could lead to a spike in global oil prices, hampering the American economic recovery and perhaps perversely enabling Iran to reap even greater revenues from its oil exports. That would defeat the purpose of the bill, which is to hamper Tehran's alleged support for international terrorism and its ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. Under the law, Obama had the option of waiving penalties for national security reasons. In an interview that aired Monday, Obama said the U.S. has a "very good estimate" of when Iran could complete work on a nuclear weapon, but cautioned that there are still many unanswered questions about Tehran's inner workings. "Do we know all of the dynamics inside of Iran? Absolutely not," Obama said during an interview with NBC that aired on the "Today" show. "Iran itself is a lot more divided now than it was. Knowing who is making decisions at any given time inside of Iran is tough." Despite Obama's insistence that diplomacy is the best course to pursue, he has long said all options are on the table _ an allusion to military intervention. On Monday, he said the U.S. has done extensive planning for that range of options. "We are prepared to exercise these options should they arise," Obama said. The White House sees sanctions as an effective method of increasing pressure on Iran and officials say the penalties have started to squeeze Iran's economy. In recent weeks, both the U.S. and European Union have imposed harsher sanctions on Iran's oil sector, the lifeblood of its economy. In Washington, the Senate Banking Committee also easily approved yet more penalties on Tehran last week. The sweeping measure, which is not yet law, would target Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, require companies that trade on the U.S. stock exchanges to disclose any Iran-related business to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expand penalties for energy and uranium mining joint ventures with Tehran. ___ Associated Press writer Ben Feller contributed to this report. ||||| President Barack Obama ordered a freeze on all Iranian government and financial institutions’ assets that are under U.S. jurisdiction, the White House said today. The president cited “deceptive practices” of the Iranian central bank in hiding transactions of sanctioned parties and its failure to prevent money laundering, concluding that Iran activities pose an “unacceptable risk” to the international financial system. Obama’s executive order follows comments by U.S. officials, such as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who have expressed concern that Israel may attack if international sanctions fail to stop Iran’s suspected pursuit of nuclear-weapons capability. “The practical impact is less important than the message it sends to Iran,” Nigel Kushner, chief executive officer of Whale Rock Legal, a London-based law firm whose clients include Europeans involved in legal trade with Iran, said in a telephone interview today. “It’s a declaration of economic warfare, to the extent that it’s not already been declared,” The order blocks all property and interests in property belonging to the Iranian government, its central bank, and all Iranian financial institutions, even those that haven’t been designated for sanctions by the U.S. Treasury Department. Lawyers such as Kushner who specialize in Iran sanctions said the blanket freeze on Iranian government assets, including those belonging to entities not proven to be involved in illegal activities, underscores the mounting pressure on Iran. �?Severe Reaction’ Predicted Kushner predicted a “severe reaction by Iran” that might include further naval exercises or threats related to the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf sea passage through which one-fifth of the world’s globally traded oil transits. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast couldn’t be reached to comment on the asset freeze when called at his office in Tehran after work hours. Previously, only assets of sanctioned Iranian entities or individuals determined by the U.S. to be involved in weapons proliferation or other illicit activities were frozen. Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington policy group that has advised the administration and Congress on sanctions, called Obama’s executive order the logical next step in the “administration’s economic war on the Iranian regime.” Dubowitz, an attorney and sanctions specialist, said that freezing assets of Iran’s central bank and its government institutions, including the National Iranian Oil Company, makes them “subject to much tougher enforcement by the U.S. government and the global financial sector.” Obama �?Crystal Clear’ NIOC is owned by the government of Iran and is the world’s second-largest oil company by volume produced, after the Saudi Arabian Oil Co. David A. Harris, president of the National Jewish Democratic Council, which promotes Jewish support for Democrats, said the action today demonstrated Obama’s record of building economic and diplomatic pressure to halt any illicit nuclear activities by Iran. This “should end any doubt about the president’s singular commitment to ensuring Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon,” Harris said in a statement. “Obama’s record is crystal clear; he has done more than any president in history to isolate Iran and encourage Iran’s leaders to change course.” Long-standing U.S. regulations already prohibited American citizens or entities from virtually all direct and indirect transactions involving Iran or its government, aside from those exempted under general licenses for transactions involving food, medicine, remittances and humanitarian relief. �?Deceptive Practices’ The new measure was mandated as part of Iran sanctions legislation that was passed by Congress and signed by the president Dec. 31. “I have determined that additional sanctions are warranted, particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks to conceal transactions of sanctioned parties, the deficiencies in Iran’s anti-money laundering regime and the weaknesses in its implementation, and the continuing and unacceptable risk posed to the international financial system by Iran’s activities,” Obama said in his congressional notification. Iran, the second-largest oil producer in OPEC after Saudi Arabia, pumped about 3.545 million barrels of oil a day last month, a Bloomberg survey showed, and exported an average 2.58 million barrels a day in 2010, according to OPEC statistics. Crude for March delivery fell 93 cents to settle at $96.91 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. To contact the reporter on this story: Indira A.R. Lakshmanan in Washington at [email protected] To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at [email protected]

President Obama issued an executive order today imposing tough new sanctions on Iran's Central Bank. The order freezes "all property and interests in property of the Government of Iran," and of "any Iranian financial institution." The sanctions were included in the controversial defense bill Obama signed a little over a month ago, but Obama is instituting them well ahead of the six-month deadline the bill imposed, the AP reports. In a letter to Congress, Obama said sanctions were particularly necessary "in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks." Before these sanctions, the US had only frozen assets belonging to specific Iranian individuals or entities, Bloomberg adds.

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. (AP) — The U.S. Forest Service will postpone a tree-thinning project intended to decrease the wildfire risk at Lake Tahoe after a lawsuit raised concern about its effect on an endangered frog species. The agency had been removing and burning trees and brush on land near Upper Echo Lake, about 8 miles southwest of South Lake Tahoe, that is considered for designation as critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. Dennis Murphy, a renowned conservation biologist at the University of Nevada, Reno, filed the lawsuit last year. He said the logging threatens the survival of the frog, listed as an endangered species in April. The Forest Service agreed in a stipulation signed by a federal judge Wednesday to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about potential effects to the frog, the Tahoe Daily Tribune reported (http://bit.ly/1pJWztO ). It also said it would halt the project through this year and wait to resume thinning trees until finishing its consultation with wildlife officials. Forest Service spokeswoman Cheva Gabor declined to comment. "Once the matter is in the courts, we let the legal process unwind," she said. Murphy's attorney, Paul Weiland, said he was pleased with the outcome. "Certainly, it is welcome news that they were able to stop the project and address the issue with the project impacts with the Fish and Wildlife Service," he told the newspaper. The suit says the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. "At a minimum, the Forest Service should have conducted surveys of the project area to determine whether its activities would harm the species and its habitat," Murphy, a research professor in biology at UNR, said in a statement. "But instead the agency put on blinders to the impacts of the project hoping no one would notice." ___ Information from: Tahoe Daily Tribune, http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/ ||||| The U.S. Forest Service has agreed to hold off on a fuels reduction project near Upper Echo Lake this year, as part of ongoing litigation that, until recently, accused the agency’s tree thinning operations of threatening a protected animal species. Land under the Upper Echo Lakes Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project is being considered as a designated critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, an animal that was recently placed on the endangered species list in April. If the agency was to continue removing or burning trees and brush at the lake — a region the plaintiff says doesn’t need it — the work could further “result in harmful effects on ecological and historical resources,” according to the lawsuit. “At a minimum, the Forest Service should have conducted surveys of the project area to determine whether its activities would harm the species and its habitat,” said plaintiff Dr. Dennis Murphy, a Pew Scholar in conservation and the environment and research professor in biology at the University of Nevada, Reno, “but instead the agency put on blinders to the impacts of the project hoping no one would notice.” In a stipulation signed by Senior U.S. District Judge Garland Burrell, Jr., on Wednesday, the Forest Service agreed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts to the frogs. It has also committed to take no further on-the-ground action on the project through 2014 or resume activities before the consultation with the wildlife service is complete. The Forest Service was reached by phone Friday, but declined to comment on the case. “Once the matter is in the courts, we let the legal process unwind,” spokeswoman Cheva Gabor said. Following the Forest Service’s cooperation, Murphy, in a separate stipulation filed Friday, dismissed the claims that the agency violated the Endangered Species Act. His attorney, Paul Weiland, said he was pleased with the outcome. “Certainly it is welcome news that they were able to stop the project and address the issues with the project impacts with the Fish and Wildlife Service,” Weiland said. However, Murphy’s claim that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act still stands in the lawsuit. Murphy says the Echo Lake fuel reduction project, which is intended to decrease fire risk on forest land near the lake, violated NEPA by moving ahead without preparing a proper environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. The Forest Service worked on the project for several weeks in fall 2013. Work was about 40 percent done when the government shutdown halted progress. Murphy, whose family has owned a seasonal residence on Upper Echo Lake for more than 80 years, filed the lawsuit in November. “The Project area is littered with dozens of slash piles, many that are in or adjacent to wetland, including ephemeral streams, meadows and seasonal ponds,” Murphy said in a statement. “The Forest Service has abrogated its duty (to) analyze the deleterious environmental impacts of the Project under the National Environmental Policy Act.” Weiland believes attorneys with the Forest Service will file a motion to dismiss the NEPA claims on Monday. But the federal agency said it could “neither confirm nor deny” those assumptions. If that is the case, however, Murphy said he and Weiland are prepared to file a response. “In plain English, the Forest Service has a lot of fuel reduction work they could be doing in the basin, but it doesn’t need to be done here,” he said. ||||| The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog evolved in the fishless waters of Yosemite: "... advent of fish in a lake sooner or later nearly or quite eliminates the frogs. It seems probable that the fish prey upon the tadpoles, so that few or none of the latter are able to reach the stage at which they transform. The frogs which live along the streams probably spawn in small temporary pools in the meadows which the trout cannot reach."—Animal Life in the Yosemite by J. Grinnell and T.I. Storer, 1924 Basic Biology Endangered status: Federal Endangered species and California Threatened species Federal Endangered species and California Threatened species Physical description of adults: Pattern on back highly variable with ranging from a few large to many small discrete dark spots within a variably colored mosaic of pale spots of different sizes and shapes; back usually mixture of brown and yellow, but often gray, red, or green-brown; underside of hind legs yellow; throat is white or yellow Pattern on back highly variable with ranging from a few large to many small discrete dark spots within a variably colored mosaic of pale spots of different sizes and shapes; back usually mixture of brown and yellow, but often gray, red, or green-brown; underside of hind legs yellow; throat is white or yellow Size: Up to 3 ½ inches long Up to 3 ½ inches long Habitat: High mountain lakes, ponds, tarns and steams; rarely found more than 3 feet from water High mountain lakes, ponds, tarns and steams; rarely found more than 3 feet from water Reproduction: Eggs laid as snow begins to melt; egg mass may be as small as a walnut or as large as a grapefruit; tadpoles take up to 4 years to metamorphosis into adults Eggs laid as snow begins to melt; egg mass may be as small as a walnut or as large as a grapefruit; tadpoles take up to 4 years to metamorphosis into adults Population status: 95% decline 95% decline Threats: Non-native fish, disease, airborne contaminants At one time the rare Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae) was the most abundant amphibian in the high mountain lakes of the Sierra Nevada. Visitors hiking along lakeshores could encounter frogs by the hundreds. Populations have since declined approximately 95% in the Sierra Nevada, including in Yosemite. Recent surveys in 2005-2007 determined that the species is still in rapid decline and on a trajectory toward extinction. Because of the precipitous declines, the frog is proposed as an Endangered species for protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The ecological effects of the loss of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog from most of its range have been significant, as their former abundance made them a keystone predator and prey and a crucial agent of nutrient and energy cycling in Sierra Nevada aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Multiple factors have contributed to the decline of the frog, including the introduction of fish into naturally fishless waters throughout most of the park. As early as the turn of the 20th century, scientists in Yosemite noticed that frogs and fish rarely occurred in the same lake or stream. Non-native trout feed on eggs, tadpoles, and young adults and compete for natural food sources. Although fish stocking in Yosemite ceased in 1991, many non-native trout populations continue to exist. Studies suggest that the recently discovered amphibian chytrid fungus is a major contributor to observed declines in the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. Chytridiomycosis, an often fatal disease, was first discovered in the Sierra Nevada in 2001. Subsequent studies have found that the chytrid fungus has been present in the Sierra Nevada at least since the mid-'70s. The chytrid fungus appears to live on keratin—the same substance fingernails are made of—found on the external mouthparts of tadpoles, and in the outer skin layer of adults. The growth of the fungus on adult’s skin apparently disrupts the frog’s ability to breathe through its skin and osmoregulate—sustain an internal water balance; both effects resulting in nearly certain death. Much still needs to be learned about the chytrid fungus, what its origins are and how it is spread. Research suggests that the fungus is a "novel pathogen," meaning that it has recently spread from outside the geographic area to highly susceptible local species that did not evolve with the pathogen. Chytrid fungus has occurred in African clawed frog populations at least since the 1930s and is rarely fatal in this species. The African clawed frog has been transported around the world first for human pregnancy tests in the 1940s-1950s and later for laboratory testing and as pets. Release of animals into the wild could have infected new geographic areas. Also unknown is how the fungus moves between water bodies. While the fungal disease is highly fatal to Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs, there is some hope. A small number of frog populations have been able to persist and some populations have even increased in size despite the presence of the chytrid fungus. Ongoing research supported by the National Science Foundation is investigating why these few populations have been able to hang on. Such research will contribute to development of strategies to reestablish populations of frogs in the future. Additional causes of decline may include deposition of airborne contaminants, such as pesticides and other chemicals, from sources outside the park, other pathogens, and possibly a combination of these and other stressors. Two ongoing experimental projects are being conducted in Yosemite to determine the feasibility of expanding the distribution of the frog in the park. The park began a Yosemite Conservancy supported project in 2006 to re-introduce the frogs into several fishless lakes and started a project in 2007, supported by entrance fee funds, to restore habitat by removing non-native fish from a handful of remote sites. Fish removal has focused on 11 lakes in six areas. Six of these lakes are now considered fishless (Virginia Lake, Cold Mountain Area Lakes, and Bartlett Creek Lakes) and five more are currently being restored to their natural fishless state (Tiny McCabe, Ardeth, Miwok, Roosevelt, and Hutchings Creek Lakes). These lakes constitute 5% of the lakes that contain fish in the park. Research has shown that once fishless, the lakes are re-populated by native species, including frogs and invertebrates. SPECIES: View a list of Yosemite’s amphibian species and a list of the park’s special status animal species. Saving Yosemite's Frogs Can we save the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog from extinction? Human introduced non-native species (fish and fungus) have been causing the frog to go from the most abundant amphibian in the Sierra Nevada to critically endangered. However, habitat restoration efforts in Yosemite are showing promising signs for the frog's recovery and long-term survival. Duration: 8 minutes, 27 seconds Date created: 2013-12-11 Download Original File: yose-savingfrogs.m4v 94,967 KB Fish Removal FAQ Why are fish being removed from lakes in Yosemite National Park? The primary reason fish are being removed from a small number of lakes is to provide more available breeding and overwintering habitat for the recovery and conservation of the federally endangered Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. In addition, the restoration of mountain lakes to a fishless condition benefits ecosystem function as a whole, increasing insect diversity and abundance, which in turn benefits terrestrial wildlife species. Is Yosemite trying to remove fish from all waters within the park, and if not, how many lakes and streams will be affected? Yosemite has almost 2,700 lakes, of which about 250 currently contain fish. The National Park Service anticipates removing fish only from approximately 25 lakes (about 10% of lakes containing fish) total over the next 15 to 20 years. In addition, there are approximately 1,200 miles of streams in Yosemite of which 800 miles support fish. There are no plans to remove trout from stream locations other than short segments associated with lake inlets and outlets at restoration sites. Where is the best place to receive the latest information regarding the removal of fish in order to plan a visit to the park? The best place to receive the most current information for trip planning is at wilderness centers and permit stations. How do I express concerns, learn more about the fish removal program, and get on the mailing list for attending future public meetings with regards to plans involving fish removal? Superintendent Attn: High-Elevation Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery and Stewardship Plan Environmental Assessment P.O. Box 577 Yosemite, CA 95389 Phone: 209/379-1365 Fax: 209/379-1294 Email Learn more about the High-elevation Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery and Stewardship Plan Factsheet: High-Elevation Aquatic Ecosytem Recovery Plan [80 kb PDF]. Factsheet: Restoration of the Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog: Experimental Fish Removal - learn about the impact of non-native fish. [77 kb PDF] Factsheet: Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog - learn more about this frog's status. [299 kb PDF] Factsheet: Yosemite toad - learn more about protecting this species of concern. [74.5 kb PDF] Learn more about amphibians in Yosemite and how they have adapted to a more terrestrial lifestyle . amphibians in Yosemite and how they have adapted to a more terrestrial lifestyle Understand how Yosemite's air quality might affect aquatic animals. The Sierra Nevada Southern Cascades Contaminants (SNSCC) Workshop's 2009report [530 kb PDF] summarizes potential impacts of airborne contaminants on the Sierra Nevada ecosystems. SPECIES: View a list of Yosemite’s amphibian species and a list of the park’s special status animal species. View a list of Yosemite’s amphibian species and a list of the park’s special status animal species. SuperintendentAttn: High-Elevation Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery and Stewardship Plan Environmental AssessmentP.O. Box 577Yosemite, CA 95389Phone: 209/379-1365Fax: 209/379-1294

US officials are balancing forest-fire risk against the need to preserve an endangered species near Lake Tahoe in the Sierra Nevadas, the Tahoe Daily Tribune reports. Per a stipulation signed by a judge last week, the US Forest Service will delay its tree-thinning project there until it consults with the US Fish and Wildlife Service on whether a particular frog is being put at risk. The yellow-legged frog, already an endangered species, has a "designated critical habitat" on land in the Upper Echo Lakes where officials have been burning or taking away trees to reduce the chance of wildfires. Biologist Dennis Murphy—whose lawsuit started the case, and who owns a seasonal home at Upper Echo Lake—said in a statement cited by the AP that the Forest Service "put on blinders to the impacts of the project hoping no one would notice." Murphy also accused officials of not doing their due diligence of studying how the tree-burning would affect the frog species and its natural habitat (the frog was once the "most abundant amphibian in the high mountain lakes of the Sierra Nevada," notes the National Park Service). The Forest Service, which declined to comment, wrapped up about 40% of the project before the government closed it down. (Elsewhere, say hello to the world's newest toad.)

Before I go into detail regarding the Department of Education’s Year 2000 challenges, I would like to first discuss the Year 2000 issue in broader terms to put the department’s efforts into perspective. As the world’s most advanced and most dependent user of information technology, the United States possesses close to half of all computer capacity and 60 percent of Internet assets. Consequently, the upcoming change of century is a sweeping and urgent challenge for public-sector and private-sector organizations alike. For this reason we have designated the Year 2000 computing problem as a high-risk area for the federal government, and have published guidanceto help organizations successfully address the issue. To date, we have issued over 60 reports and testimony statements detailing specific findings and recommendations related to the Year 2000 readiness of a wide range of federal agencies. Our reviews of federal Year 2000 programs have found uneven progress, and our reports contain numerous recommendations, which the agencies have almost universally agreed to implement. Among them are the need to establish priorities, solidify data exchange agreements, and develop contingency plans. While progress has been made in addressing the federal government’s Year 2000 readiness, serious vulnerabilities remain and many agencies are behind schedule. The Department of Education’s mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. To carry out this mission, it works with states, schools, communities, institutions of higher education, and financial institutions by providing grants to education agencies and institutions to strengthen teaching and student loans and grants to help pay the costs of postsecondary education; grants for literacy, employment, and self-sufficiency training for adults; enforcement of civil rights laws to ensure nondiscrimination by recipients of federal education funds; and support for research, development, evaluation, and dissemination of information to improve educational quality and effectiveness. The largest single federal elementary and secondary education grant program is title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This program serves educationally disadvantaged children through program-specific grants. The fiscal year 1997 appropriation for the disadvantaged was $7.3 billion. Student financial aid programs are administered by Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. The department is responsible for the collection of more than $150 billion in outstanding loans, and its data systems track approximately 93 million student loans and 15 million grants. Four major types of student aid are currently in use: the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), the Federal Direct Loan Program (FDLP), the Federal Pell Grant Program, and campus-based programs. These programs together will make available about $51 billion to about 9 million students during the 1999-2000 academic year. FFELP and FDLP are the two largest postsecondary student loan programs, and Pell is the largest postsecondary grant program. FFELP provides student loans, through private lending institutions, that are guaranteed against default by some 36 guaranty agencies and insured by the federal government, while FDLP provides student loans directly from the federal government. Pell provides grants to disadvantaged students. In many ways, Education’s student financial aid delivery system is similar to functions performed in the banking industry, such as making loans, reporting account status, and collecting payments. As with the banks, the department faces a serious and complex challenge with the Year 2000 problem because of its heavy reliance on technology. The department currently maintains 11 major systems for administering student financial aid programs. These systems were developed independently over time by multiple contractors in response to new functions, programs, or mandates, resulting in a complex, highly heterogeneous systems environment. The systems range from legacy mainframes, several originally developed over 15 years ago, to recently developed client-server environments. The fiscal year 1998 budget to develop, operate, and maintain these systems is $311 million, and is expected to increase to $378 million in fiscal year 1999. According to Education’s own assessments of the severity of Year 2000 failures, the student financial aid delivery process could experience major problems unless all systems are compliant in time. These include delays in disbursements, such that lenders might not receive timely interest and allowance payments, if external data exchanges fail; reduction in the department’s ability to transfer payments, process applications for program benefits, or monitor program operations; risks that student financial aid programs may not function properly if they do not receive critical data for originating loans and for reporting payments and financial information; and risks that postsecondary education students may lack the ability to verify the current status of their loans or grants. To overcome these types of risks, Education must implement effective Year 2000 programs. An effective Year 2000 program requires the disciplined, coordinated application of scarce resources to an agencywide system conversion that must be completed by a fixed date, and an understanding of the wide range of dependencies among information systems. An organization can mitigate its risk of Year 2000 complications through a structured approach and rigorous program management. One generally accepted approach, presented in our Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14), has five phases: awareness — defining the problem and gaining executive-level support; assessment — inventorying and analyzing systems, and prioritizing their renovation — converting, replacing, or eliminating selected systems; validation — ensuring that all converted or replaced systems and interfaces will work in an operational environment; and implementation — deploying Year 2000-compliant systems and components, and implementing contingency plans, if necessary. Education was very slow to establish a comprehensive, timely Year 2000 program. One key factor contributing to this delay was the instability of the department’s Year 2000 project manager position, which suffered continual turnover. The department initially established the position in February 1995 to provide oversight and guidance to Education’s Year 2000 activities. During the 19-month tenure of the first project manager, a high-level Year 2000 briefing document (dated May 1996) was developed in response to a request from a congressional committee. At that time, Education estimated that it would complete a Year 2000 program strategy document and corresponding management plan by August 1996. However, no strategy document or management plan was developed, either by that deadline or during the 14-month tenure of the second project manager, which ended in September 1997. The third Year 2000 project manager, who spent only 3 months in the position, contracted with consultants to assist the department in developing a draft Year 2000 management plan. The fourth manager, during his 4-month tenure, initiated many awareness and assessment activities. Finally, the fifth project manager was assigned on March 30 of this year, and has continued the progress started by her predecessor. The frequency of turnover in project managers delayed Education in completing basic awareness activities. These activities included dedicating staff to the Year 2000 effort, communicating with data exchange partners, holding regular steering committee meetings, and developing a management plan. Project office staff to help the department coordinate Year 2000 activities were not assigned until December 1997, when the fourth project manager was appointed. In addition, while a draft management plan was distributed for comment in mid-November 1997, it was not made final until April of this year. Education experienced a corresponding delay with basic assessment activities, which it did not report as completed until this past March—about 9 months after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) milestone. These assessment activities included conducting an enterprisewide inventory of information systems and data interfaces, assessing and prioritizing systems, establishing Year 2000 project teams for business areas and major systems, and initiating contingency planning. Concurrent with its slowness in completing its assessment, Education’s estimated costs have fluctuated widely. The initial cost estimate in May 1996 was $60 million, which decreased dramatically to $7 million in February 1997 but then rose again in February 1998 with an estimate of $23 million. Last month, the cost estimate increased further, to $38 million, as Education continued renovating and testing its systems. Prior to February 1998, little documentation existed supporting how these estimates were derived. Figure 1 highlights the wide variation in cost estimates over the past 2 years. With its slow start, Education has been playing catch up and working to accelerate its progress. Management staff have regular meetings to discuss progress on Year 2000 compliance, and principal office staff meet biweekly to discuss progress on individual mission-critical systems. The biweekly meetings include Education staff responsible for the particular system; the system contractor; Year 2000 program office staff; and contractor staff responsible for independently verifying and validating renovation, validation, and implementation activities. According to department officials, Year 2000 compliance has also now been given top priority in terms of in-house resources. Education’s Year 2000 management plan established the Year 2000 project manager as the focal point for monitoring progress, providing support, and directing the plan. The project manager works with the program offices, which are responsible for assessing and renovating their systems, as well as tracking and reporting progress on compliance activities. Senior leadership of each program office is responsible for providing adequate support to its Year 2000 tasks and ensuring that Year 2000 compliance is achieved. The Department of Education has reported to OMB that it has 14 mission-critical systems, of which 11 are student financial aid systems. Table 1 summarizes the Year 2000 status of each mission-critical system as of this month. In brief, according to the department’s September 10, 1998, report, four mission-critical systems have been implemented and are in operation, one is in the process of being implemented, five systems are being validated, and the remaining four are still being renovated. While there has been recent progress, the Department of Education must mitigate critical risks that affect its ability to award and track billions of dollars in student financial aid. Specifically, the department must address the need for adequate testing, the renovation and testing of data exchanges, and the development of business continuity and contingency plans. Unless these issues are effectively addressed, the ability of the department to deliver financial aid to students will be compromised. Complete and thorough Year 2000 testing is essential to providing reasonable assurance that new or modified systems process dates correctly and will not jeopardize an organization’s ability to perform core business operations after the turn of the century. Moreover, since the Year 2000 computing problem is so pervasive, the requisite testing is generally extensive and expensive. Experience shows that Year 2000 testing is consuming between 50 and 70 percent of a project’s time and resources. Agencies must not only test Year 2000 compliance of individual applications, but also the complex interactions among numerous converted or replaced computer platforms, operating systems, utilities, applications, databases, and interfaces. It is also important to work early and continually with an organization’s data exchange partners so that end-to-end testing can be effectively planned and executed. The Society for Information Management Year 2000 Working Group has noted that because many enterprises do not have experience with testing at this order of magnitude, the results will often be significant cost overruns and missed commitments. Indeed, for Education, the task ahead is formidable—it requires a cooperative, coordinated, and thorough testing process across the disparate systems in the student financial aid delivery network. Because of Education’s late start and the compression of its Year 2000 compliance schedule to meet the OMB deadline (mission-critical systems to be implemented by March 31, 1999), time available for key testing activities within the renovation, validation, and implementation phases for individual mission-critical systems is limited. In fact, in some cases, the schedule for Education’s mission-critical systems has less time allocated for the renovation and validation phases than was spent on assessment. These are large, often complex systems encompassing hundreds of thousands and, in some cases, millions of lines of software code. Accordingly, the limited amount of time available raises concerns about Education’s ability to complete essential testing in time. Department officials have acknowledged that completing testing activities within schedule will be difficult. Indeed, the schedule constraints placed on test activities for individual systems have already been shown to be unrealistic in several cases. For example, the schedule for 7 of the 14 mission-critical systems has recently been extended to allow more time for testing. Beyond the testing of individual mission-critical systems, Education will also have to devote a significant amount of time to end-to-end testing of its mission-critical business processes and supporting systems, such as those associated with student financial aid delivery. According to Education officials, the department plans to conduct such testing between January and March 1999, after all individual mission-critical systems have been certified as Year 2000 compliant. Tentatively from April to September 1999, external data exchange partners will have time periods available for testing their interfaces. However, no detailed plans currently exist for this testing. Education officials stated that they are working on these plans and intend to have them completed shortly, pending discussion with the student financial aid community. As 2000 approaches, organizations must be diligent in implementing measures to ensure that exchanging data across systems compromises neither the systems nor the data. Conflicting data exchange formats or data processed on noncompliant systems could introduce and propagate errors from one system to another. To mitigate this risk, organizations must inventory and assess their data exchanges, reach agreements with data exchange partners on how data will be exchanged, test and implement data exchange formats, develop and test bridges and filters to handle nonconforming data, and develop contingency plans in the event of failure. Education’s student financial aid data exchange environment is massive and complex. It includes about 7,500 schools, 6,500 lenders, and 36 guaranty agencies, as well as other federal agencies. Figure 2 provides an overview of this environment. To address its data exchanges with schools, lenders, and guaranty agencies, Education has dictated how the data that these entities provide to the department should be formatted. Education handles this in one of two ways: it either provides software to the entity, such as EDExpress (which specifies the format—including dates—for data exchanges), or provides the technical specifications for the entity to use in developing the necessary interface. Education has followed up on this approach with its data exchange partners by (1) developing memorandums of understanding with each guaranty agency and federal agency and (2) conducting outreach on Year 2000 awareness with schools. Regarding its outreach to schools, Education has shared information through memoranda (i.e., “Dear Colleague” letters), presentations at conferences and training sessions, and over the Internet. The “Dear Colleague” letters provide an overview of the Year 2000 issue and summarize the department’s approach for ensuring compliance of student financial aid systems. To further ensure that Education’s data exchange partners have indeed made their interfaces compliant, the department will need to engage in end-to-end testing of its mission-critical business processes, including data exchanges. As noted earlier, Education has not completed these end-to-end test plans. Further complicating data exchange compliance is that Education will need to ensure that the data it is receiving from its partners are not just formatted correctly but are accurate. As we have previously reported, Education has experienced serious data integrity problems in the past. To assess how educational institutions are progressing with their Year 2000 programs, the department recently conducted a survey of the Year 2000 readiness of postsecondary schools participating in the Direct Loan Program. The preliminary results are not encouraging: up to one-third of the schools did not even have a compliance plan in place. Given the challenges Education faces in making sure that all of its mission-critical systems are adequately tested and in addressing the complexities of the massive number of data exchanges, it will be difficult for the department to enter the new century without some problems. Therefore, it is critical that Education initiate the development of realistic contingency plans to ensure continuity of core business processes in the event of Year 2000-induced failures. Business continuity and contingency plans should be formulated to respond to two types of failure: those that can be predicted (e.g., systems renovations that are already far behind schedule) and those that are unforeseen (e.g., systems that fail despite having been certified Year 2000 compliant, or those that cannot be corrected by January 1, 2000, despite appearing to be on schedule today). Moreover, contingency plans that focus only on agency systems are inadequate. Federal agencies depend on data provided by their business partners as well as on services provided by the public infrastructure. Thus, one weak link anywhere in the chain of critical dependencies can cause major disruption. Given these interdependencies, it is imperative that contingency plans be developed for all critical core business processes and supporting systems, regardless of whether these systems are owned by the agency. Our guide on ensuring business continuity and contingency planning, issued last month, provides further detail on this. This guide describes four phases supported by agency Year 2000 program management: initiation, business impact analysis, contingency planning, and testing. Each phase represents a major Year 2000 business continuity planning project activity or segment. Education initiated contingency planning activities in February 1998. According to department officials, Education is committed to developing business continuity and contingency plans for each mission-critical business process and supporting systems. As part of this commitment, Education recently appointed a senior executive to manage the development and testing of continuity and contingency plans for student financial aid operations. The department expects to complete these plans by March 31, 1999. In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education’s endeavor to make its programs and supporting systems Year 2000 compliant is of urgent priority. Should critical student financial aid systems not be Year 2000 compliant in time, Education’s ability to control the award process could be compromised, with cascading effects reaching schools, students, guaranty agencies, and lenders. While the department has made progress in preparing its systems for the year 2000, initial delays have left it with significant risks—risks that must be effectively managed. This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at this time. Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Severity of Problem Calls for Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships (GAO/T-AIMD-98-278, September 3, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships Needed to Reduce Likelihood of Adverse Impact (GAO/T-AIMD-98-277, September 2, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships Needed to Mitigate Risks (GAO/T-AIMD-98-276, September 1, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: State Department Needs To Make Fundamental Improvements To Its Year 2000 Program (GAO/AIMD-98-162, August 28, 1998). Year 2000 Computing: EFT 99 Is Not Expected to Affect Year 2000 Remediation Efforts (GAO/AIMD-98-272R, August 28, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Avoiding Major Disruptions Will Require Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships (GAO/T-AIMD-98-267, August 19, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Partnerships Needed to Address Risk of Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-266, August 17, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Partnerships Needed to Mitigate Risk of Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-262, August 13, 1998). FAA Systems: Serious Challenges Remain in Resolving Year 2000 and Computer Security Problems (GAO/T-AIMD-98-251, August 6, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency Planning (GAO/AIMD-10.1.19, August 1998). Internal Revenue Service: Impact of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act on Year 2000 Efforts (GAO/GGD-98-158R, August 4, 1998). Social Security Administration: Subcommittee Questions Concerning Information Technology Challenges Facing the Commissioner (GAO/AIMD-98-235R, July 10, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Needed on Electronic Data Exchanges (GAO/AIMD-98-124, July 1, 1998). Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Put Navy Operations at Risk (GAO/AIMD-98-150, June 30, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: A Testing Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.21, Exposure Draft, June 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Testing and Other Challenges Confronting Federal Agencies (GAO/T-AIMD-98-218, June 22, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Telecommunications Readiness Critical, Yet Overall Status Largely Unknown (GAO/T-AIMD-98-212, June 16, 1998). GAO Views on Year 2000 Testing Metrics (GAO/AIMD-98-217R, June 16, 1998). IRS’ Year 2000 Efforts: Business Continuity Planning Needed for Potential Year 2000 System Failures (GAO/GGD-98-138, June 15, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Must Be Taken Now to Address Slow Pace of Federal Progress (GAO/T-AIMD-98-205, June 10, 1998). Defense Computers: Army Needs to Greatly Strengthen Its Year 2000 Program (GAO/AIMD-98-53, May 29, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: USDA Faces Tremendous Challenges in Ensuring That Vital Public Services Are Not Disrupted (GAO/T-AIMD-98-167, May 14, 1998). Securities Pricing: Actions Needed for Conversion to Decimals (GAO/T-GGD-98-121, May 8, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Continuing Risks of Disruption to Social Security, Medicare, and Treasury Programs (GAO/T-AIMD-98-161, May 7, 1998). IRS’ Year 2000 Efforts: Status and Risks (GAO/T-GGD-98-123, May 7, 1998). Air Traffic Control: FAA Plans to Replace Its Host Computer System Because Future Availability Cannot Be Assured (GAO/AIMD-98-138R, May 1, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Potential for Widespread Disruption Calls for Strong Leadership and Partnerships (GAO/AIMD-98-85, April 30, 1998). Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Threaten DOD Operations (GAO/AIMD-98-72, April 30, 1998). Department of the Interior: Year 2000 Computing Crisis Presents Risk of Disruption to Key Operations (GAO/T-AIMD-98-149, April 22, 1998). Tax Administration: IRS’ Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request and Fiscal Year 1998 Filing Season (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-98-114, March 31, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership Needed to Avoid Disruption of Essential Services (GAO/T-AIMD-98-117, March 24, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Regulatory Efforts to Ensure Financial Institution Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-116, March 24, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Office of Thrift Supervision’s Efforts to Ensure Thrift Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-102, March 18, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective Public/Private Cooperation Needed to Avoid Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-101, March 18, 1998). Post-Hearing Questions on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Year 2000 (Y2K) Preparedness (AIMD-98-108R, March 18, 1998). SEC Year 2000 Report: Future Reports Could Provide More Detailed Information (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-51, March 6, 1998). Year 2000 Readiness: NRC’s Proposed Approach Regarding Nuclear Powerplants (GAO/AIMD-98-90R, March 6, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Efforts to Ensure Bank Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-73, February 10, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: FAA Must Act Quickly to Prevent Systems Failures (GAO/T-AIMD-98-63, February 4, 1998). FAA Computer Systems: Limited Progress on Year 2000 Issue Increases Risk Dramatically (GAO/AIMD-98-45, January 30, 1998). Defense Computers: Air Force Needs to Strengthen Year 2000 Oversight (GAO/AIMD-98-35, January 16, 1998). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Needed to Address Credit Union Systems’ Year 2000 Problem (GAO/AIMD-98-48, January 7, 1998). Veterans Health Administration Facility Systems: Some Progress Made In Ensuring Year 2000 Compliance, But Challenges Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-31R, November 7, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: National Credit Union Administration’s Efforts to Ensure Credit Union Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-20, October 22, 1997). Social Security Administration: Significant Progress Made in Year 2000 Effort, But Key Risks Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-6, October 22, 1997). Defense Computers: Technical Support Is Key to Naval Supply Year 2000 Success (GAO/AIMD-98-7R, October 21, 1997). Defense Computers: LSSC Needs to Confront Significant Year 2000 Issues (GAO/AIMD-97-149, September 26, 1997). Veterans Affairs Computer Systems: Action Underway Yet Much Work Remains To Resolve Year 2000 Crisis (GAO/T-AIMD-97-174, September 25, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Success Depends Upon Strong Management and Structured Approach (GAO/T-AIMD-97-173, September 25, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, September 1997). Defense Computers: SSG Needs to Sustain Year 2000 Progress (GAO/AIMD-97-120R, August 19, 1997). Defense Computers: Improvements to DOD Systems Inventory Needed for Year 2000 Effort (GAO/AIMD-97-112, August 13, 1997). Defense Computers: Issues Confronting DLA in Addressing Year 2000 Problems (GAO/AIMD-97-106, August 12, 1997). Defense Computers: DFAS Faces Challenges in Solving the Year 2000 Problem (GAO/AIMD-97-117, August 11, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Time Is Running Out for Federal Agencies to Prepare for the New Millennium (GAO/T-AIMD-97-129, July 10, 1997). Veterans Benefits Computer Systems: Uninterrupted Delivery of Benefits Depends on Timely Correction of Year-2000 Problems (GAO/T-AIMD-97-114, June 26, 1997). Veterans Benefits Computer Systems: Risks of VBA’s Year-2000 Efforts (GAO/AIMD-97-79, May 30, 1997). Medicare Transaction System: Success Depends Upon Correcting Critical Managerial and Technical Weaknesses (GAO/AIMD-97-78, May 16, 1997). Medicare Transaction System: Serious Managerial and Technical Weaknesses Threaten Modernization (GAO/T-AIMD-97-91, May 16, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Risk of Serious Disruption to Essential Government Functions Calls for Agency Action Now (GAO/T-AIMD-97-52, February 27, 1997). Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership Today Needed To Prevent Future Disruption of Government Services (GAO/T-AIMD-97-51, February 24, 1997). High-Risk Series: Information Management and Technology (GAO/HR-97-9, February 1997). The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed year 2000 (Y2K) computing crisis risks to the Department of Education, focusing on: (1) student financial aid systems; (2) actions the department has taken in recent months to address these risks; and (3) key issues the department must deal with if its systems are to be ready for the century change: testing of systems, exchanging data with internal and external partners, and developing business continuity and contingency plans. GAO noted that: (1) Education faces major risks that Y2K failures could severely disrupt the student financial aid delivery process, including delaying disbursements and application processing; (2) further, because of systems interdependencies, repercussions from Y2K-related problems could be felt throughout the student financial aid community--a network including students, institutions of higher educations, financial organizations, and other government agencies; (3) the department was very slow in implementing a comprehensive Y2K program to address these risks--basic awareness and assessment tasks were not completed until recently; (4) Education is now accelerating its program, but with the slow start, it remains in a position of playing catch up; (5) accordingly, the department has major challenges ahead but limited time remaining to adequately deal with them; and (6) therefore, it must also focus on developing appropriate contingency plans to ensure business continuity in the event of key systems failures.

Amphibians are disappearing in the United States at an unexpectedly brisk pace. More disturbing, according to a report this week from the U.S. Geological Survey, the more rare the species of toad, frog or salamander, the higher the risk of decline. The author's sobering conclusion: “This analysis suggests that amphibian declines may be more widespread and severe than previously realized.” The study found that on average, populations of amphibians vanished at a rate of 3.7 percent each year. At that rate, those species would disappear from half their current habitats in about 20 years. Some amphibians already listed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature — including the boreal toad and the yellow-legged frog — are vanishing from their habitats at 11.6 percent a year. At that pace the threatened species would disappear from half their current habitats in six years. More bad news: The report finds that declines are occurring on lands managed by federal agencies and came to the surprising conclusion the greatest observed rate of decline was found on lands with the greatest protections — those under the National Park Service. One-third of amphibian species worldwide are thought to be imperiled. ||||| CORVALLIS, Ore. — The first-ever estimate of how fast frogs, toads and salamanders in the United States are disappearing from their habitats reveals they are vanishing at an alarming and rapid rate. According to the study released today in the scientific journal PLOS ONE, even the species of amphibians presumed to be relatively stable and widespread are declining. And these declines are occurring in amphibian populations everywhere, from the swamps in Louisiana and Florida to the high mountains of the Sierras and the Rockies. The study by USGS scientists and collaborators concluded that U.S. amphibian declines may be more widespread and severe than previously realized, and that significant declines are notably occurring even in protected national parks and wildlife refuges. "Amphibians have been a constant presence in our planet's ponds, streams, lakes and rivers for 350 million years or so, surviving countless changes that caused many other groups of animals to go extinct," said USGS Director Suzette Kimball. "This is why the findings of this study are so noteworthy; they demonstrate that the pressures amphibians now face exceed the ability of many of these survivors to cope." On average, populations of all amphibians examined vanished from habitats at a rate of 3.7 percent each year. If the rate observed is representative and remains unchanged, these species would disappear from half of the habitats they currently occupy in about 20 years. The more threatened species, considered "Red-Listed" in an assessment by the global organization International Union for Conservation of Nature, disappeared from their studied habitats at a rate of 11.6 percent each year. If the rate observed is representative and remains unchanged, these Red-Listed species would disappear from half of the habitats they currently occupy in about six years. "Even though these declines seem small on the surface, they are not," said USGS ecologist Michael Adams, the lead author of the study. "Small numbers build up to dramatic declines with time. We knew there was a big problem with amphibians, but these numbers are both surprising and of significant concern." For nine years, researchers looked at the rate of change in the number of ponds, lakes and other habitat features that amphibians occupied. In lay terms, this means that scientists documented how fast clusters of amphibians are disappearing across the landscape. In all, scientists analyzed nine years of data from 34 sites spanning 48 species. The analysis did not evaluate causes of declines. The research was done under the auspices of the USGS Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative, which studies amphibian trends and causes of decline. This unique program, known as ARMI, conducts research to address local information needs in a way that can be compared across studies to provide analyses of regional and national trends. Brian Gratwicke, amphibian conservation biologist with the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, said, "This is the culmination of an incredible sampling effort and cutting-edge analysis pioneered by the USGS, but it is very bad news for amphibians. Now, more than ever, we need to confront amphibian declines in the U.S. and take actions to conserve our incredible frog and salamander biodiversity." The study offered other surprising insights. For example, declines occurred even in lands managed for conservation of natural resources, such as national parks and national wildlife refuges. "The declines of amphibians in these protected areas are particularly worrisome because they suggest that some stressors – such as diseases, contaminants and drought – transcend landscapes," Adams said. "The fact that amphibian declines are occurring in our most protected areas adds weight to the hypothesis that this is a global phenomenon with implications for managers of all kinds of landscapes, even protected ones." Amphibians seem to be experiencing the worst declines documented among vertebrates, but all major groups of animals associated with freshwater are having problems, according to Adams. While habitat loss is a factor in some areas, other research suggests that things like disease, invasive species, contaminants and perhaps other unknown factors are related to declines in protected areas. "This study," said Adams, "gives us a point of reference that will enable us to track what's happening in a way that wasn’t possible before." Read FAQs about this research The publication, Trends in amphibian occupancy in the United States, is authored by Adams, M.J., Miller, D.A., Muths, E., Corn, P.S., Campbell Grant, E.H., Bailey, L., Fellers, G.M., Fisher, R.N., Sadinski, W.J., Waddle, H., and Walls, S.C., and is available to the public. Read a USGS blog, Front-row seats to climate change, about 3 other recent USGS amphibian studies. For more information about USGS amphibian research, visit http://armi.usgs.gov/ ||||| Abstract Though a third of amphibian species worldwide are thought to be imperiled, existing assessments simply categorize extinction risk, providing little information on the rate of population losses. We conducted the first analysis of the rate of change in the probability that amphibians occupy ponds and other comparable habitat features across the United States. We found that overall occupancy by amphibians declined 3.7% annually from 2002 to 2011. Species that are Red-listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) declined an average of 11.6% annually. All subsets of data examined had a declining trend including species in the IUCN Least Concern category. This analysis suggests that amphibian declines may be more widespread and severe than previously realized. Citation: Adams MJ, Miller DAW, Muths E, Corn PS, Grant EHC, et al. (2013) Trends in Amphibian Occupancy in the United States. PLoS ONE 8(5): e64347. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064347 Editor: Han Y. H. Chen, Lakehead University, Canada Received: February 19, 2013; Accepted: April 12, 2013; Published: May 22, 2013 This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. Funding: The authors have no funding or support to report. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Introduction Amphibians have received increasing attention since a crisis of declining populations was first recognized in the late 1980s [1]–[3]. In 2004, a comprehensive global assessment of amphibian status suggested that 32.5% of the world's species and 31.7% of the United States' species were declining [4]. The current extinction rate for amphibians has been estimated to be 211 times the background rate [5]. These numbers indicate that many species have conservation problems but they do not reveal the rate of population loss. Here, we use data from the U.S. Geological Survey's Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI) to estimate the rate of change in the probability that amphibians occupy ponds and other comparable habitat features across the United States. Documenting the rate of change in population parameters requires intensive studies that separate true changes in populations from changes in the probability of capture or detection when amphibians are present [6]. Such studies are relatively rare and it is unusual to have sufficient trend data to assess patterns at a national scale. The occupancy estimates produced by ARMI are statistically unbiased because they use repeated surveys to account statistically for the probability of detecting a species that is present [7]. Hence, our trend estimates based on these data are not influenced by changes in detection, though they rely on data points that each have associated error. Each occupancy estimate that we analyze applies to a species at a study area and each study area has a range of inference spanning tens to hundreds of sites. For heuristic purposes, the probability of site occupancy can be thought of as the expected proportion of sites occupied within the study area [7]. These occupancy estimates span a broad range of habitats, geographic areas (Figure 1A), and species including International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories ranging from Endangered to Least Concern (Figure 1B). PPT PowerPoint slide PowerPoint slide PNG larger image ( ) larger image ( ) TIFF original image ( ) Download: Figure 1. Characteristics of monitoring data. (A) Location of monitoring areas. (B) Distribution of species among IUCN categories. (C) Number of years monitored in each time series. (D) Mean annual estimates of probability of site occupancy and number of occupancy estimates (N). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064347.g001 Previous large analyses of amphibian time series relied on count data from individual populations [8]–[10]. We present the first broad assessment of amphibian trends to conform with a recommendation to document change in the number of populations rather than change in abundance [11]. Methods We analyzed estimates of occupancy available at armi.usgs.gov. Each study within ARMI that generated these estimates used some form of repeated observation to detect amphibians [12]–[16]. An observation was usually a visual encounter survey but trapping and calling surveys were sometimes used for logistical reasons or to increase detection probability. Repeated observations were then used to estimate the proportion of sites where a species was present while accounting for imperfect detection [17]. Because the probability of detecting a species that is present is estimated and accounted for in each occupancy estimate, methods need not be standardized across studies and any changes in detection probability over time will not bias trend estimates. A site was a pond, watershed, plot, or for calling surveys, was the area within hearing distance of a point-survey location. A study area was the range of inference for a set of sites. Each study encompassed a variable number of sites that were monitored for the presence of target species. Multiple species of amphibian were monitored at many of the study areas. Each study generated annual estimates of occupancy using either a single-season occupancy estimator [17] or a multi-season dynamic occupancy model [18]. In the latter case, a form of model was used that estimates occupancy each year without imposing trends. We analyzed all time-series with two or more consecutive annual occupancy estimates (Figure 1C). For our analysis of these occupancy estimates, we used generalized-linear mixed models to estimate mean occupancy each year and mean trends in occupancy for each time series of occupancy estimates. We fit models using the lme4 package [19] in the R programming language [20]. All models used a similar random effects structure with an among-time-series random effect to account for variation in mean occupancy (random intercept) and an among-time-series random effect for factors describing among year differences (random slope). Occupancy estimates were weighted by the inverse of their variance derived from their standard error. We replaced standard errors <0.04 with 0.04 so that no single occupancy estimate would be given disproportionate weight and to account for cases where standard errors were estimated poorly due to occupancy being close to 0 or 1. To estimate mean occupancy each year, we treated year as a factor. To estimate mean trends over years, we treated year as a continuous covariate where year was standardized to have a mean of 0 for each time series. To compare trends among subsets of the data, we included a fixed effect for one of several grouping variables (IUCN category, taxon, geography, management agency). We allowed differences among groups in both the mean occupancy and the mean trend in occupancy across years. Models were run using a log-link function to estimate relative rates of change in occupancy over years. We report the annual rate of change which is eβ-1 where β is the instantaneous rate of change from the log-linear models. We used the delta method to obtain the SE for the annual rate of change. For comparison, we also ran models using an identity link to estimate absolute instantaneous changes in occupancy. We used likelihood-ratio tests (LRT) to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in trend among subsets of the data indicated by the grouping variables. Results From 2002 to 2011, ARMI generated 612 estimates of the probability of site occupancy for 108 time series (range 2 to 9 years, Figure 1C), including 45 species and 3 species complexes at 34 study areas. Mean annual estimates of occupancy generally decreased (Figure 1D), changing at a rate of −3.7% (SE = 1.5) annually across all time series (N = 108). All subsets of data that we examined showed a declining trend (Figure 2). The time series for species categorized as Least Concern by the IUCN (N = 96) had a mean annual trend of −2.7% (SE = 1.6), while time series for species in the Endangered, Vulnerable, and Near Threatened categories (N = 12) had a mean annual trend of −11.6% (SE = 4.3). Although the number of imperiled species is highest in the western U.S. [4], [21], we did not find geographic differences in the rate of change in occupancy (LRT, , p = 0.906 for East vs. West; LRT, , p = 0.256 for North vs. South). We also did not find convincing differences between anurans and caudates (LRT, , p = 0.644) or on lands managed by different agencies (LRT, , p = 0.280). Conclusions did not differ when linear rather than log-linear models were fit (Table S1). We estimated trends for individual species using a separate model that treats species as a random effect (Table S2). However, data were sparse for most species and the strength of our analysis comes from examining mean trends across a large set of species and areas. PPT PowerPoint slide PowerPoint slide PNG larger image ( ) larger image ( ) TIFF original image ( ) Download: Figure 2. Rate of change in the probability of site occupancy for subsets data. “Red-listed” includes species that the IUCN categorizes as Near Threatened, Vulnerable, or Endangered. The geographic regions of the United States are overlapping and are North or South of 39° latitude or East or West of −104° longitude. Major land managers include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Park Service (NPS). Plotted values are means and standard errors. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064347.g002 Discussion Statistically unbiased estimates of the rate of change in amphibian patch occupancy are necessary to understand the scale and severity of amphibian losses [8], . They are particularly useful for species considered to be of Least Concern whose trends may be more subtle than for species determined to be imperiled at some level by the IUCN. An average loss of 2.7% of occupied sites each year for the species of Least Concern monitored by ARMI is alarming given that these species are thought to be relatively unaffected by global amphibian declines. This finding suggests that the IUCN threat status has been underestimated for some of these species. This is not a criticism of the IUCN effort, but illustrates the added value of statistically robust monitoring data to inform managers and policy makers. Sites sampled by ARMI were designed to be roughly equivalent to populations but the relationship between sites and populations is variable and not precisely known. We characterize our rate estimates as addressing change in the occupancy of habitat patches but in one study area the scale was small watersheds with an average of 8.6 ponds in each. Trends in occupancy should not be equated with trends in density [22]. Occupancy studies necessarily include occupied and unoccupied patches. Therefore, trends in occupancy reflect a process involving both local extinctions at occupied patches and colonization of unoccupied patches [18]. Primary hypotheses to explain global amphibian declines are land use change, disease, global climate change, and interactions of these factors with each other or with other stressors like contaminants or habitat degradation [23]. Anthropogenic habitat loss is rare at ARMI study areas. The fungal pathogen associated with chytridiomycosis is found throughout the US and is common in most [24], [25] but not all [26] ARMI study areas where tested. Presence of the fungus resulted in reduced survival of adult amphibians in one study [27], but it is difficult to establish a direct link to declines in occupancy. Major die offs of amphibians were not observed in any of the studies analyzed here. The role of climate in changes in occupancy is difficult to evaluate for relatively short time series and we expect that patterns in occupancy caused by climate change will take years to become evident. The decade during which ARMI collected data experienced severe, but not unprecedented, drought [28]. Because most of the amphibians monitored rely on the presence of water for reproduction and development, precipitation patterns are an obvious hypothesis to explain changes in occupancy [16]. The relationship between occupancy trends and any potential driver is likely to vary across regions, habitats, and species necessitating careful specification of mechanisms prior to analysis of drivers. Because the species and areas that ARMI monitors are not random, the declines we documented cannot be extrapolated directly to the rest of the U.S. or worldwide. This caveat also applies to all existing compilations of trends in amphibian abundance [8],[9]. However, it is useful to consider how our trend estimates may compare to the larger population of species and areas in the U.S, which in most cases have larger distributions than our monitoring areas (armi.usgs.gov/national_amphibian_atlas.​php).The species and areas monitored by ARMI were generally selected to evaluate the status and trends of amphibians on federally-managed lands at the scale of management units [29]. Such lands are sometimes perceived as better protected than private lands. In many cases, monitoring areas were selected to target a specific imperiled species but, by design, other local species were also monitored. Hence, our analysis includes a broad range of species that span most IUCN categories of endangerment (Figure 1B), but Least Concern species are overrepresented (86% compared to 63% nationally). Also, the first year of occupancy estimates was 2002, long after many severe declines are thought to have begun [9], [30]–[32]. These factors are evidence that our analysis may underestimate the actual rate of amphibian losses in the United States. However, we emphasize that the true direction and magnitude of sampling bias is unknown and the relatively short time period monitored may not be representative of longer trends. We also note that our estimates of trends are based on estimates of occupancy that each have associated error (see armi.usgs.gov for SEs). Nonetheless, the trends we found represent the only broad assessment of population losses for amphibians in the U.S. There is more than one way to estimate trends in occupancy estimates. We used log-linear models to estimate occupancy in a given year as a proportion of the previous year's occupancy. A change from 0.5 to 0.25 and a change from 0.1 to 0.05 both represent a 50% decline though the latter might involve a change in the occupancy status of a small number of sites relative to the former. As a result, similar absolute changes in occupancy influence estimates of trend more for areas where occupancy is low than for areas where occupancy is high. An alternative approach is to use linear models that estimate absolute changes in occupancy. Both methods are valid, but their sensitivity to extreme occupancy estimates and the interpretation of their estimates differ. For example, both methods suggest declines in all subsets of data examined (Table S1), but the distribution of trend estimates produced by log-linear models has a greater number of extreme negative estimates (Figure 3). PPT PowerPoint slide PowerPoint slide PNG larger image ( ) larger image ( ) TIFF original image ( ) Download: Figure 3. The distribution of trend estimates. Data are trends in the probability of site occupancy based on (A) log-linear and (B) linear models. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064347.g003 Conclusions We provide a synthesis of a monitoring program that is unique in its national scope and use of statistically unbiased occupancy estimates. Our trend estimates are consistent with other analyses showing that amphibians are declining [4], [8], [9], and go further by suggesting that species for which there has been little conservation concern or assessment focus (e.g., common species) may also be declining. While there was some variation across the U.S., the trend was consistently negative. Furthermore, declines are occurring on lands managed by federal agencies with the greatest observed rate of decline on National Park Service lands where management policy prescribes protection of natural ecosystem processes. Overall, the trends we documented suggest that amphibian declines may be more widespread and severe than previously thought. Supporting Information Table S1. Comparison of instantaneous trend estimates derived from linear and log-linear models of change in amphibian occupancy at ARMI monitoring areas, 2002–2011. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064347.s001 (DOC) Table S2. Trends in the probability of site occupancy by species for ARMI monitoring areas, 2002–2011. The estimated trend effects are annual proportional changes in occupancy and are conditional on a random effect for a variable coding species that was included in the statistical model. Caution should be taken in interpreting results for individual species as data are generally sparse. The strength of our study comes from making inferences across a broad set of species and areas. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064347.s002 (DOCX) Acknowledgments Much of the ARMI data were collected in collaboration with one or more natural resource management agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Defense, or other entities. We thank L. Ball, R. Bury, K. Dodd, D. James, R. Kearney, J. Nichols, and C. Schwalbe for their role in the formation and direction of ARMI. We thank hundreds of people involved in collecting and maintaining ARMI data. In particular, A. Brand, B. Glorioso, B. Hossack, P. Kleeman, S. Mattfeldt, C. Pearl, M. Roth, W. Barichivich, D. Holmes, C. Rochester, C. Brown, A. Backlin, C. Brehme, S. Hathaway, E. Gallegos made major contributions. This manuscript benefited from suggestions by C. Eagle-Smith, J. Erickson, and W. Palen. This paper is contribution number 443 of the U. S. Geological Survey's Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Scientists have been worried about the decline in amphibians for years now, and the most comprehensive federal survey of its kind has some bad news: Things are worse than they thought. Researchers from the US Geological Survey found that frogs, salamanders, and amphibians of all kinds are disappearing at an annual average clip of 3.7%, reports Red Orbit. "If the rate observed is representative and remains unchanged, these species would disappear from half of the habitats they currently occupy in about 20 years," says the USGS. The full report is in Plos One. For species already designated as threatened, the situation is even more dire—they're disappearing at a rate of 11.6%, meaning they could be wiped out in half of their current locales in six years. The findings held true no matter the location in the US, even in national parks and refuges, reports the LA Times. "Amphibians have been a constant presence in our planet's ponds, streams, lakes and rivers for 350 million years or so, surviving countless changes that caused many other groups of animals to go extinct," says the USGS. "This is why the findings of this study are so noteworthy; they demonstrate that the pressures amphibians now face exceed the ability of many of these survivors to cope."

“I’ve been asking God, Why?” Nafissatou Diallo said at the end of two minutes of halting, nerve-racked, soft-spoken-to-the-brink-of-inaudibility speech. “Why me?” She paused. “I just want to thank everybody,” she said, and slipped offstage to vanish into the folds of a sprawling Brooklyn megachurch. Ten weeks ago, working as a housekeeper at the Sofitel New York hotel, Ms. Diallo, 32, an immigrant from West Africa, had a fleeting encounter with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then the head of the International Monetary Fund and a contender for the presidency of France. On Thursday, more than 200 members of the news media signed into the Christian Cultural Center in East New York, Brooklyn, to see and hear her. With satellite trucks beaming the event around the world, the church parking lot looked very much like the one outside the Los Angeles courthouse during the O. J. Simpson trial. This was, after all, Ms. Diallo’s first public appearance, capping a week in which she allowed her identity to be revealed, first in a magazine and in a television interview, then in a walk into the prosecutor’s office on Wednesday that was captured by photographers who had been told she was coming. Her appearance on Thursday amounted to more than a few minutes for Ms. Diallo to express her anguish. It was also a moment of high-stakes political theater, set in one of New York City’s largest black churches, summoning echoes of racially charged cases in recent city history. It also suggested a delicate public recasting of Ms. Diallo by her lawyers. She was not just the anonymous accuser exposed as a frequent liar by prosecutors. She was also the trembling, hard-working single mother who had been violently assaulted by Mr. Strauss-Kahn — and, in the telling on Thursday, wronged by the Manhattan district attorney. From the stage, her supporters demanded that the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., move ahead with the prosecution of Mr. Strauss-Kahn or give way to a special prosecutor. Among those standing next to Ms. Diallo were politicians, academics and clergy members, including the pastor, the Rev. A. R. Bernard. He was asked if the gathering had been a way to send a message from a powerful church to a powerful prosecutor, Mr. Vance. Mr. Bernard, known for reticence, not public belligerence, smiled slightly before answering. “I think, and hope, that he’s intelligent enough to understand what has been implied here,” Mr. Bernard said. Of the two central characters in the Strauss-Kahn case, only one — Ms. Diallo — has spoken in public. Mr. Strauss-Kahn has maintained his constitutionally protected silence. While Ms. Diallo has been called to account for lies on her asylum application and questionable financial transactions, Mr. Strauss-Kahn has not had to explain how his semen ended up on Ms. Diallo’s clothing. His lawyers have suggested that any sexual encounter was consensual, a claim that Ms. Diallo’s lawyer, Kenneth P. Thompson, scoffed at on Thursday. People involved in criminal cases are usually advised to avoid discussing them unless they are in court or in their lawyers’ offices. That is regarded as such sound advice that the legal community is aghast when it is conspicuously not followed. For the accused, the risk is that they could implicate themselves in casual conversation. For witnesses, like Ms. Diallo, any variation in how they describe events can be highlighted by the defense as an inconsistency to gnaw at their credibility. Asked on Thursday why he had embarked on a public campaign with Ms. Diallo, Mr. Thompson said there appeared to be nothing to lose. “Every day, we’ve been told the case is going to be dismissed,” he said. “She doesn’t have to wait to tell the truth at trial; she is telling the truth today.” A former federal prosecutor, Mr. Thompson said he planned to file a civil lawsuit seeking monetary damages against Mr. Strauss-Kahn on Ms. Diallo’s behalf, saying Mr. Strauss-Kahn had to be held “accountable.” A successful criminal prosecution of Mr. Strauss-Kahn would be of immense help to Ms. Diallo in a civil case. The use of political pressure against prosecutors has been a tactic in high-profile cases for decades. But it has not been used as frequently — or as openly — since the 1980s and ’90s, when the Rev. Al Sharpton and others regularly questioned the vigor of investigations and called for the appointment of special prosecutors in cases involving police shootings or those that might have had racial underpinnings. Mr. Thompson requested a special prosecutor on July 5, but he has not repeated that demand. Questioning the prosecutors’ motives is not productive, he said. In recent days, Mr. Vance has maintained his silence. Some of his advisers have noted that if a decision to pursue criminal charges could be warped by political pressure, then an influential person like Mr. Strauss-Kahn might never be indicted. ||||| article In search of a better life, she found herself embroiled in a case of alleged sexual assault by one of the world’s most powerful men. As Nafissatou Diallo goes public, friends reveal new details. Nafissatou Diallo stood before the microphones, the television cameras and a small crowd on a sweltering Brooklyn afternoon Thursday and spoke so softly that most of the people there couldn’t hear her. She said she’d told her 15-year-old daughter, “I will be strong for you and every other woman in the world.” But she and her family, she said, “cry every day.” Diallo, a 32-year-old African immigrant chambermaid at Manhattan’s Sofitel Hotel, is an unlikely crusader. She cannot read or write. The pinnacle of her ambition, as far as anyone knows, was to keep her steady job at the hotel. But when she claimed that French politician and managing director of the International Monetary Fund Dominique Strauss-Kahn forced her to perform oral sex and tried to rape her in his luxury suite on May 14, she found herself at the center of a sexual-political drama with global repercussions. Since she made her identity and her personal story public in an exclusive interview with Newsweek/The Daily Beast earlier this week, new information continues coming to light that tends to support her account. An audio recording that at first seemed to incriminate Diallo as a cynical opportunist in cahoots with a convicted drug buyer in Arizona actually appears to support Diallo’s original account of what happened to her. What’s not on it, in any case, is what “law enforcement officials” told The New York Times last month: Diallo saying “words to the effect of: ‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing.’” Meanwhile, Diallo’s friends and acquaintances in New York City’s African community have helped to fill in details of her personal life and cultural background. Taken together, these revelations may not be sufficient to persuade Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., that Nafissatou Diallo is credible enough to put on the stand and establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Strauss-Kahn is guilty of the crimes with which he’s been charged. Strauss-Kahn, apart from his plea of not guilty, has yet to give any account at all of what happened in that hotel suite. Since extensive DNA evidence substantiates the claim of sexual contact between Strauss-Kahn and Diallo, his entire defense has been focused on trashing Diallo’s version. In the savage Twittersphere and the pages of the New York Post, she has been described as a part-time hooker and a cynical manipulator. At one point near the end of June, even the prosecutors who’d indicted Strauss-Kahn in the first place backed away from Diallo, stating that she had lied on her immigration asylum petition, on her taxes, on her request for low-income housing, in her account of what she did after the alleged attack, and in other unspecified cases. A day later her current lawyers, Kenneth Thompson and Douglas Wigdor, launched a very public campaign to try to force Vance to continue the prosecution. Thompson’s truculent style and his ever-ready accusations of racism reminded many New Yorkers of other high-profile cases in the past, including Thompson’s own prosecution of policemen for torturing and sodomizing Haitian immigrant Abner Louima in 1997. So far, the strategy seems to have been effective. The next hearing in the case has been pushed back from August 1 to August 23. The accounts from her friends clear up some questions—while raising others—about her reasons for coming to the United States, and about her life since coming here. The reason Nafissatou Diallo cannot read or write, according to one of her closest friends, is that she was never sent to school. Her father was an aged Muslim imam and gave classes in the study of the Koran. But “she was the sister who stays home,” as the friend put it. Her role was to be like a domestic servant for her father and siblings. The Chandler Police Department in Arizona Amara Tarawally In 2003, according to the same family friend, one of Diallo’s relatives who already was established in the United States with a small business and a growing family, arranged for her to come to America to take care of her children. But when Diallo got to New York, she decided she didn’t want to do that. She wanted to build her own life, and she wanted to bring her own child from Africa to live with her. Diallo moved out of the family home and took any job she could find, first braiding hair, then working in a bodega in the Bronx where she became friendly with Amara Tarawally, the nephew of the owner. A small-time hustler who sold T-shirts and fake designer handbags, Tarawally eventually was busted last year after buying more than 100 pounds of marijuana in a police sting operation in Arizona. He is now in a detention center there awaiting a decision about his deportation. In 2004, Diallo managed to win political asylum in the United States. She probably would have qualified anyway because she had suffered female genital mutilation. But because she couldn’t read, she memorized an embellished account of persecution and rape on an audiotape supplied by one of the “consultants” who prey on unlettered immigrants by claiming to have legal expertise. Diallo then applied for assistance from the widely respected International Rescue Committee, which helped her to get her job at the Sofitel laundry. She soon moved up to the maid service. But that created new problems for her in her Muslim community, according to several elders who spoke with Newsweek/The Daily Beast. Working as a hotel maid was seen as demeaning, and also as the kind of job that puts a properly modest Muslim woman in too close proximity to unknown men. That she often declined to wear the Muslim headscarf known as the hijab also brought criticism. Among conservative Muslims, the fact of her employment as a maid alone could be enough for her to be branded a prostitute. Get The Beast In Your Inbox! Daily Digest Start and finish your day with the smartest, sharpest takes from The Daily Beast Cheat Sheet A speedy, smart summary of news and must-reads from The Daily Beast and across the Web By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Subscribe Thank You! You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason By her own standards, Diallo was achieving a level of independence and, indeed, liberation she could never have imagined in Guinea. But she was barely on speaking terms with some of her siblings, according to family friends. So her life fell into a very predictable and very limited routine, says Blake Diallo, the manager of the Café 2115 in Harlem, which serves West African food. Blake is not related to Nafissatou, he said, although he sometimes calls her “sister.” He’s Senegalese, not Guinean, and does not speak her Fulani language. But he became one of her few male friends, he said. “She don’t like men; she don’t trust them,” said Blake. “She don’t hang out with nobody. What she knows is work, pick up her daughter from school, pick up food”—often at Café 2115—“go home and watch Nigerian movies.” Blake said he did not know Amara Tarawally, who had won Nafissatou’s trust so thoroughly that she gave him access to her bank accounts, through which tens of thousands of dollars were moved quickly in and out from various locations around the country. When Newsweek/The Daily Beast interviewed Tarawally in the Arizona detention center, he described himself as her fiancé. But, judging from his record with other women, that’s a term he has used rather casually. Nafissatou described him in her interview as a man she “used to trust.” In a wide-ranging, three-hour interview, Nafissatou told Newsweek/The Daily Beast that she made two phone calls on May 14, the day of the alleged assault in the Sofitel. One was to her daughter; the other to Blake. Three days later, in an effort to defend her reputation, Blake spoke with several French journalists. He says they published distorted versions of his remarks, including a story that when Nafissatou called him, she told of dramatic injuries that in fact she did not have. In an interview on Tuesday at the café, Blake said that when she called him late on the day of the attack, she told him what had happened but “specifically we didn’t talk about her body.” As Blake remembers the conversation, she said “somebody tried to do something very bad to me,” then tried to explain in French, “somebody tried to rape me.” Blake told her to calm down and asked where she was. “I am at St. Luke Hospital with the police and the doctors,” he recalls her saying. “They are checking for evidence.” Blake says that when he saw breaking news reports on the big flat-screen televisions in the restaurant saying that Strauss-Kahn had been arrested at JFK for allegedly assaulting a maid he made the connection right away. “I tell her this is the most powerful guy in the world; this is Dominique Strauss-Kahn,” says Blake. “How did you be with him? I tell her, he is more powerful than Obama.” Blake told Nafissatou “they are going to blow you up with so many questions; you know they got so many questions.” Blake says he went straight away to his computer to look for a “high-profile lawyer” who would take Nafissatou’s case. The name he came up with was Jeffrey Shapiro, a personal injury lawyer specializing in lawsuits. “Just to protect her, that was my concern at that time,” says Blake. “Because I knew what she was dealing with, [was Strauss-Kahn’s] power.” In the interview, Nafissatou said she didn’t really understand how important Strauss-Kahn was until she saw a television report about the arrest the following morning on New York’s Channel 7. That afternoon, according to Blake, he and Shapiro went to visit Nafissatou at the Holiday Inn police had moved her to. While there, said Blake, “somebody calls her and they were speaking Fulani.” He said he presumed it was one of the several calls that Tarawally made to her from the detention center in Arizona. Not surprisingly, the tape played by the prosecutors on Wednesday this week includes talk about lawyers. But, according to Nafissatou’s current attorney, Kenneth Thompson, it is Tarawally who suggested that there might be money to be made, presumably through a lawsuit. “Nafi Diallo’s first reaction is ‘wait, wait, wait,’” Thompson said, “suggesting she wasn’t worried about that. She then makes a comment like ‘he can deal with it,’ which I took to mean her lawyer could deal with the issue.”

Nafissatou Diallo made her first public appearance last night, drawing more than 200 members of the media to Brooklyn's Christian Cultural Center to hear her speak. The New York Times calls her two-minute speech "halting, nerve-racked, soft-spoken-to-the-brink-of-inaudibility," and reports that she ended with a question: “I’ve been asking God, Why? Why me?” Her lawyer says he plans to file a civil lawsuit against Dominique Strauss-Kahn on Diallo's behalf. Diallo's appearance in one of the largest black megachurches in New York City was a chance for supporters to press district attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. to either continue prosecuting Strauss-Kahn for Diallo's alleged sexual assault, or let a special prosecutor take over. Diallo's lawyer says she made the appearance because there's nothing to lose: “Every day, we’ve been told the case is going to be dismissed. She doesn’t have to wait to tell the truth at trial; she is telling the truth today.” For more, the Daily Beast talks to Diallo's friends about her background.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the major federal statute for the education of children with disabilities. IDEA both authorizes federal funding for special education and related services and, for states that accept these funds, sets out principles under which special education and related services are to be provided. The requirements are detailed, especially when the regulatory interpretations are considered. The major principles include requirements that states and school districts make available a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children with disabilities, generally between the ages of 3 and 21. States and school districts identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities, regardless of the severity of their disability, to determine which children are eligible for special education and related services. each child receiving services has an individual education program (IEP) spelling out the specific special education and related services to be provided to meet his or her needs. The parent must be a partner in planning and overseeing the child's special education and related services as a member of the IEP team. "To the maximum extent appropriate," children with disabilities must be educated with children who are not disabled; and states and school districts provide procedural safeguards to children with disabilities and their parents, including a right to a due process hearing, the right to appeal to federal district court and, in some cases, the right to receive attorneys' fees. IDEA was originally enacted in 1975 in response to judicial decisions holding that when states provide an education for children without disabilities, they must also provide an education for children with disabilities. IDEA has been the subject of numerous reauthorizations; the most recent reauthorization was P.L. 108-446 in 2004. P.L. 108-446 included specific authorizations for appropriations through 2011. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5 , includes supplemental appropriations for IDEA. Congress is currently beginning the process of identifying potential issues for the next reauthorization. This report examines the major provisions of IDEA and the legal issues that have arisen. IDEA contains a number of definitions which are of critical importance in interpreting the requirements of the act. These include, among others, definitions of assistive technology devices and services, child with a disability, core academic subjects, educational service agency, excess costs, free appropriate public education, highly qualified, individualized education program, local educational agency, related services, special education, specific learning disability, supplementary aids and services, and transition services. Two definitions, the definition of a child with a disability and the definition of a highly qualified teacher, will be examined further. The definition of a child with a disability is a key component of IDEA. Unlike the definitions of disability in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the IDEA definition is categorical, not functional, and contains a requirement that the child need special education and related services. The IDEA definition states the following: CHILD WITH A DISABILITY.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The term 'child with a disability' means a child—(i) with mental retardation, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this title as 'emotional disturbance'), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and (ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. The regulations elaborate on the "other health impairments" category and include examples of chronic or acute health impairments, such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and Tourette syndrome. Judicial decisions involving IDEA's definition of a child with a disability have most often involved the requirement that the child must be in need of special education. For example, in L.I. v. Maine School Administrative District No. 55, the First Circuit Court of Appeals found that a child with Asperger's Syndrome and an adjustment disorder with depressed mood was a child with a disability under IDEA even though she had high grades, generally non-disruptive behavior, and "undisputed intellectual ability." The court rejected the argument that IDEA is limited to children whose disabilities "significantly impact educational performance," noting that neither the statute nor its regulations contain this limiting language. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, P.L. 108-446 , included a new definition of highly qualified teacher. The definition is linked to the definition of "highly qualified" in Section 9101(23) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) but modifies that definition as it applies to special education teachers. IDEA requires that every special education teacher, regardless of whether he or she is teaching a "core academic subject," be highly qualified. The statutory definition of highly qualified specifically provides that there is no private right of action for students if a teacher is not highly qualified. However, the regulations note that a complaint may be filed under state complaint procedures. IDEA requires that in order to receive funds under the statute, a state must submit a plan to the Secretary of Education indicating that a state has certain policies and procedures in effect. Among these is the requirement that all children with disabilities and who are in need of special education, are identified, located, and evaluated. This requirement is referred to as child find. Although this requirement has not been heavily litigated, the Ninth Circuit held in Compton Unified School District v. Addison that a school district who failed to evaluate a ninth grader who failed all her classes, colored with crayons and played with dolls in class failed to meet IDEA's child find requirement and that such a failure could be the subject of a due process complaint. Although the Supreme Court has not yet made a determination regarding whether the case will be heard, the Court did ask the Department of Justice for its views on the issue. The issue as presented to the Court is whether the parent of a child with a disability has a right to a due process hearing alleging negligence because of school officials' failure to arrange an educational program for the child, or if due process suits are only allowed when the school district makes an intentional decision. The core requirement of IDEA is that a state must provide children with disabilities a free appropriate public education in order to receive federal funding under the act. FAPE is defined in the statute as meaning "special education and related services that—(A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 614(d)." Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley , decided in 1982, was the first IDEA case to reach the Supreme Court and remains a seminal decision on the requirements of FAPE. The Supreme Court noted that there was no substantive language in IDEA regarding the level of education to be accorded to children with disabilities and observed that "(i)mplicit in the congressional purpose of providing access to a 'free appropriate public education' is the requirement that the education to which access is provided be sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicapped child." The Court concluded that "the 'basic floor of opportunity' provided by the Act consists of access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit to the handicapped child." The Court held that the requirement of FAPE is met when a child is provided with personalized instruction with sufficient support services to benefit educationally from that instruction. This instruction must be provided at public expense, meet the state's educational standards, must approximate the grade levels used in the state's regular education, and must comport with the child's IEP. The Court found that when a child with a disability is mainstreamed, "the system itself monitors the educational progress of the child.... The grading and advancement system thus constitutes an important factor in determining educational benefit." Therefore, the IEP "should be formulated in accordance with the requirements of the Act and, if the child is being educated in the regular classrooms of the public education system, should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade." However, the states are not required to "maximize" each child's potential. If the child is progressing from grade to grade and making measurable and adequate gains, the FAPE requirement is met. The Supreme Court also stated that in ensuring that the requirements of the statute have been met, courts must be careful to avoid imposing their view of preferable educational methods upon the states. The primary responsibility for formulating the education provided was left by IDEA to state and local educational agencies. As the Court noted, determining when children with disabilities are "receiving sufficient educational benefits to satisfy the requirements of the Act presents a more difficult problem" than complying with requirements for access to education. Because of the wide spectrum of disabilities, the Court did not attempt to establish any one test for determining the adequacy of educational benefits and confined its analysis to the facts of the case. Rowley remains a key decision under IDEA and is often cited by courts attempting to determine the parameters of a free appropriate public education. However, the lower courts have varied in how expansively they have interpreted Rowley , with some courts interpreting Rowley to support schools' IEPs if the procedural requirements have been met, even if the educational progress is minimal. Other courts have read Rowley more expansively. For example, in Polk v. Cent. Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16 , the Third Circuit Court of Appeals examined the "some educational benefit" language in Rowley and held that it required an IEP to provide more than de minimis educational benefit. After a child has been identified as a child with a disability under IDEA, an individualized education team is formed to write an individualized education program for the child. IDEA contains detailed requirements for the IEP. The IEP must include a statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, a statement of measurable annual goals, a description of how these goals are to be met, a statement of the special education and related services to be provided, and an explanation of the extent to which the child is to be educated with children without disabilities. Since the IEP is the way FAPE is implemented, it is a key component of IDEA and has been the subject of numerous judicial decisions. Generally, these cases have adopted a two-part inquiry: first, the court determines whether IDEA's procedures have been complied with; second, the court ascertains whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to provide the child with educational benefits. IDEA's requirement of a free appropriate public education is the cornerstone of the act, and one of the components of FAPE is the requirement for related services. FAPE is defined in part as requiring "special education and related services." Related services are defined as meaning transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, social work services, school nurse services designed to enable a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public education as described in the individualized education program of the child, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposed only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and assessment of disabling conditions in children. Two Supreme Court decisions under IDEA have involved the concept of related services, and both have involved the issue of what is a medical service. In Irving Independent School District v. Tatro , the Court examined the case of an eight-year-old girl with spina bifida who required clean intermittent catheterization (CIC), and held that the school must provide the service. The Court ruled that services affecting both the medical and educational needs of a child must be provided under IDEA if (1) the child has a disability so as to require special education, (2) the service is necessary to help a child with a disability benefit from special education, and (3) a nurse or other qualified person who is not a physician can provide the service. Services that could be provided outside the school day would not need to be provided. Tatro drew a bright line between services that had to be provided by a doctor and those that could be provided by a person who was not a physician. However, after Tatro , some courts of appeals did not apply this bright line but used other factors, such as the nature and extent of services. This set the stage for another Supreme Court decision in 1999, Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F . Garret F. involved a child who was paralyzed from the neck down as a result of a motorcycle accident when he was four years old. Since the child was ventilator dependent, he required substantial services including providing suction on his tracheotomy tube and manually pumping air through an air bag when suction is being provided. The school denied the parents' request for services and proposed a test for related services in which the outcome would depend on a series of factors, such as whether the care was continuous and the cost of the services. The Court rejected this proposed test and used the same reasoning it had used in Tatro, finding that the medical services exclusion from the definition was limited to the services of a physician or a hospital. This holding, the Court stated, was in keeping with the overarching purpose of IDEA "to open the door of public education to all qualified children." The 2004 reauthorization dealt with this issue by establishing risk pools for high-need children with disabilities. States are permitted to reserve 10% of the funds reserved for other state activities (or 1% to 1.05% of the overall state grant) to establish and maintain a risk pool to assist local educational agencies (LEAs) serving high-need children with disabilities. IDEA requires that children with disabilities, to the maximum extent appropriate, be educated with children who are not disabled and that separate schooling or special classes occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that "education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." Several recent courts of appeals decisions have followed a two-pronged approach, first enunciated in Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education , to determine whether an IEP places a student in the least restrictive environment. First, a court must consider whether education in the regular classroom with the use of supplementary services can be achieved satisfactorily. Second, if such placement cannot be achieved satisfactorily, the court must consider whether the school has mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent appropriate. The first prong includes several factors: whether the school district has made reasonable efforts to accommodate the child in the regular classroom, the educational benefits available to the child in the regular classroom as compared to those in a special education classroom, and the possible negative effects of the inclusion of the child on other students in the regular classroom. The possible negative effects of a child with a disability on other students were examined by the Third Circuit in A.G. v. Durta n. The court noted the student's frequent, loud vocalizations, combined with removal of shoes and socks, inappropriately clapping and grinding her teeth, having difficulty toileting, and inappropriately touching other students. Although these disruptions were not considered dispositive, the court considered them and upheld the district court decision that the student could not be satisfactorily educated full time in a regular classroom. Issues concerning what services are required for children with disabilities placed in private schools, and who is to pay for these services, have been a continuing source of controversy under IDEA. Under current law, a child with a disability may be placed in a private school by the local educational agency (LEA) or state educational agency (SEA) as a means of fulfilling the FAPE requirement for the child. In this situation, the full cost is paid for by the LEA or the SEA. A child with a disability may also be unilaterally placed in a private school by his or her parents. In this situation, the cost of the private school placement is not paid by the LEA unless a hearing officer or a court makes certain findings. IDEA, as amended, states in part, (ii) REIMBURSEMENT FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL PLACEMENT.—If the parents of a child with a disability, who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency, enroll the child in a private elementary school or secondary school without the consent of or referral by the public agency, a court or a hearing officer may require the agency to reimburse the parents for the cost of the enrollment if the court or hearing officer finds that the agency had not made a free appropriate public education available to the child in a timely manner prior to that enrollment. However, IDEA does require some services for children in private schools, even if they are unilaterally placed there by their parents, and there is no finding that FAPE was not made available to the child. In this situation, IDEA requires that a proportionate amount of the federal funds shall be made available. The current statutory provisions regarding private schools are the result of several major amendments, and most of the Supreme Court decisions on private schools are prior to the statutory changes. However, two recent Supreme Court cases, Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. Tom F. and Forest Grove School District v. T.A. , have addressed the question of whether IDEA allows for tuition reimbursement for parents who placed their child in a private school without ever having received special education from the public school under the current statutory provisions. In Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. Tom F. , the Court, dividing 4-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that parents of a child with a disability are entitled to private school reimbursement even though the student had never received special education services from the school district. The Court's per curiam decision did not set a precedent for lower courts; therefore, the issue about whether reimbursement for private school tuition may be made when the child has not received public special education services was not settled until the Court's most recent decision in Forest Grove . In Forest Grove School District v. T.A. , the Supreme Court held that IDEA authorizes reimbursement for private special education services when a public school fails to provide FAPE and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special education services through the public school. The Court emphasized that "[i]t would be particularly strange for the Act to provide a remedy ... when a school district offers a child inadequate ... [special education] services but to leave parents without relief in the more egregious situation in which the school district unreasonably denies a child access to such services altogether." IDEA was originally enacted to respond to situations where children with disabilities were being excluded from school without any statutory recourse. Section 615 of IDEA provides detailed procedural safeguards for children with disabilities and their parents. Generally, IDEA requires that if there is a dispute between the school and the parents of a child with a disability, the child "stays put" in his or her current educational placement until the dispute is resolved using the due process procedures set forth in the statute. Procedural safeguards are provisions protecting the rights of parents and children with disabilities regarding a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and include notice of rights, mediation, resolution sessions, and due process procedures. Section 615 has been a continual source of controversy, especially the provisions relating to the discipline of children with disabilities. Amendments to the section have been made during recent reauthorizations in an attempt to balance the rights of children with disabilities with the need to provide for the safety of all children and to attempt to make the process less adversarial. In addition, judicial decisions have addressed controversial issues such as which party has the burden of proof in a due process hearing and whether expert witness fees are recoverable for prevailing parents. Parents of a child with a disability or a school may file a due process complaint. This complaint may only be presented concerning violations that occurred not more than two years before the date the parent or public agency knew or should have known about the alleged action. There are several exceptions to this statute of limitations. First, if state law has an explicit time limitation for presenting a complaint, that provision shall control. In addition, the time requirement does not apply to a parent if the parent was prevented from presenting the complaint due to specific misrepresentations by the LEA that it had resolved the problem or the local educational agency withheld information from the parent that was required to be provided under Part B. In an attempt to resolve issues before the more confrontational due process proceedings, the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA added a requirement for a resolution session prior to a due process hearing. The resolution session is a preliminary meeting between the parents, the relevant members of the IEP team, and a representative of the local educational agency who has decision-making authority. The House report for P.L. 108-446 noted that the resolution session "is intended to improve the communication between parents and school officials, and to help foster greater efforts to resolve disputes in a timely manner so that the child's interests are best served." The LEA may not include its attorney unless the parent is accompanied by an attorney, and if an agreement is reached during the resolution session, the parties must execute a legally binding agreement signed by both parties and which is enforceable in court. Provisions allowing for the voluntary mediation of disputes under IDEA were added in the 1997 reauthorization and are retained in the current law. Mediation cannot be used to delay a parent's right to a due process hearing, and mediation discussions are confidential and cannot be used as evidence in any subsequent due process hearing. When challenged, courts have generally upheld mediation agreements. If the resolution session and/or the mediation session do not resolve the complaint, an impartial due process hearing may be conducted. Any party to the due process hearing has the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and by individuals with special knowledge or training regarding children with disabilities, the right to present evidence and confront and cross examine witnesses, the right to a written or electronic verbatim record, and the right to a written or electronic verbatim findings of fact and decisions. If a party is not satisfied with the result of this hearing, an appeal may be made. Generally, under IDEA, a child with a disability is not immune from disciplinary procedures; however, these procedures are not identical to those for children without disabilities. First, IDEA requires that all children, including children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school, must receive a free appropriate public education. In addition, with certain exceptions, during the pendency of due process proceedings, the child with a disability is to stay-put in his or her current educational placement. However, school personnel may suspend a child with a disability for up to 10 school days. There are a number of safeguards for children with disabilities if school personnel seek to change the placement of a child with a disability without the consent of the parents. Within 10 school days of a decision to change the placement of a child with a disability, school personnel must conduct a manifestation determination. Essentially, if the LEA, a parent, and relevant members of the IEP team determine that the conduct in question was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the child's disability, or if the conduct in question was the direct result of the LEA's failure to implement the IEP, the conduct is determined to be a manifestation of the child's disability. If the conduct is determined not to be a manifestation of the child's disability, the relevant disciplinary procedures applicable to children without disabilities may be applied to the child in the same manner, and for the same duration, as they would be applied to children without disabilities, except that educational services may not cease. If the behavior is found to be a manifestation of the child's disability, a functional behavioral assessment shall be implemented or reviewed. School personnel also may place the child in an interim alternative education setting for up to 45 school days for situations involving weapons or drugs, or where a child has inflicted serious bodily injury upon another person while at school. School personnel may also request a hearing officer to change the placement of a child with a disability to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting for 45 school days. There are specific appeals provisions for this situation in the statute. Although IDEA contains detailed due process requirements to ensure the provision of FAPE, including the opportunity for an impartial due process hearing, the statute contains no specific provision relating to which party has the burden of proof in a due process hearing. The courts of appeal, prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Schaffer v. Weast, were split in their interpretations of who bore the burden of proof. In Schaffer v. Weast , the Supreme Court held that the burden of proof regarding an allegedly inadequate IEP in an IDEA due process hearing rests with the party seeking the relief. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice O'Connor, first observed that "absent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise, ... we will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief." Justice O'Connor then examined, and rejected, various reasons advanced to support the argument that the burden of proof should be on the school system. The Supreme Court noted that the most plausible argument advanced by the parents was that, in the interest of fairness, the burden of proof should not be placed on a party when the facts are "peculiarly within the knowledge of his adversary." School districts were seen as having a "natural advantage" regarding the information, but Justice O'Connor did not find this to be determinative because "Congress addressed this when it obliged schools to safeguard the procedural rights of parents and to share information with them." The Court noted that IDEA provides parents with the right to review records, to have an independent educational evaluation, to have details about options considered by the school district as well as disclosure of evaluations and recommendations, and to receive attorneys' fees in the discretion of a court if they prevail. Justice O'Connor concluded that "[t]hese protections ensure that the school bears no unique informational advantage." IDEA states that one of its purposes is to "ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected." In Winkelman v. Parma City School District , the Supreme Court examined the issue of whether IDEA permits parents who are not attorneys to bring suit in court, either on their own behalf or as representatives of their child. The Court held that such pro se suits were permitted for parents suing with regard to their own rights. In an opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court concluded that IDEA grants parents independent, enforceable rights that encompass a child's entitlement to a free appropriate public education, and that these rights are not limited to procedural or reimbursement issues. In arriving at this holding, Justice Kennedy observed that "a proper interpretation of the Act requires a consideration of the entire statutory scheme." The Court examined IDEA's statutory language, noting that one of the purposes of IDEA is "to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected." This language was found to refer to rights for both parents and children with disabilities. Similarly, the Court found that the establishment of procedural rights was required "to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected." These provisions were found to support the finding that the parents of a child with a disability have "a particular and personal interest" in the goals of IDEA and that "IDEA includes provisions conveying rights to parents as well as to children." IDEA provides that when the behavior of a child with a disability impedes the child's learning or the learning of others, the IEP team must consider "the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior." Nothing in IDEA specifically addresses the use of seclusion and restraints, and the Department of Education has stated that "[w]hile IDEA emphasizes the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports to address behavior that impedes learning, IDEA does not flatly prohibit the use of mechanical restraints or other aversive behavioral techniques for children with disabilities." The department also noted that state law may address whether restraints may be used and, if restraints are allowed, the "critical inquiry is whether the use of such restraints or techniques can be implemented consistent with the child's IEP and the requirement that IEP Teams consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports when the child's behavior impedes the child's learning or that of others." The Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the use of seclusion or restraints under IDEA; however, in Honig v. Doe , the Court examined IDEA's requirements for children who exhibited violent or inappropriate behavior, and held that a suspension longer than 10 days violated IDEA's "stay-put" provision. In Honig, the Court observed that this decision "does not leave educators hamstrung" and that educators may utilize "normal procedures" which "may include the use of study carrels, timeouts, detention, or the restriction of privileges" as well as a 10-day suspension. Several lower courts have dealt more specifically with this issue. Representative Miller introduced legislation, H.R. 1381 , 112 th Congress, on April 6, 2011, to establish minimum safety standards in schools to prevent and reduce the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion. Similar legislation passed the House in the 111 th Congress and a bill was also introduced in the Senate. Although the original version of IDEA, P.L. 94-142 , contained no specific provision for attorneys' fees, prevailing parties used Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or Section 1988 of the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Award Act, to seek fees. However, the Supreme Court in Smith v. Robinson held that the only remedies for prevailing parties under IDEA were those contained in that statute. The statute was described as "a comprehensive scheme set up by Congress to aid the States in complying with their constitutional obligations to provide public education for handicapped children." The Court further noted that allowing the use of other statutes to provide for attorneys' fees would "be inconsistent with Congress' carefully tailored scheme." The Court's decision in Smith v. Robinson was controversial. In response, Congress in 1986 enacted the Handicapped Children's Protection Act, which provided for attorneys' fees under IDEA. These provisions were amended in 1997. The P.L. 105-17 amendments allowed the reduction of attorneys' fees if the attorney representing the parents did not provide the LEA with timely and specific information about the child and the basis of the dispute, and specifically excluded the payment of attorneys' fees for most individualized education plan (IEP) meetings. The 2004 IDEA reauthorization, P.L. 108-446 , kept many of the previous provisions on attorneys' fees but also made several additions. These include allowing attorneys' fees for the state educational agency (SEA) or the local educational agency (LEA) against the parent or the parent's attorney in certain situations. The Fifth Circuit found that the award of attorneys' fees for the LEA was permissible against a lawyer who refused to accept all offered relief and who used stonewalling tactics; however, the mere fact that the parents do not prevail in court does not make the parents' action frivolous. Although there is no specific provision allowing a court to award prevailing parents expert witness fees, the language regarding attorneys' fees had been interpreted by some lower courts to allow such an award. IDEA's statutory language states in relevant part, "in any action or proceeding brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs—(I) to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability." The parents in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy argued that the language on costs encompassed the payment of expert witness fees. To support this argument, they pointed to the legislative history of the Handicapped Children's Protection Act, which stated that "[t]he conferees intend that the term 'attorneys' fees as part of the costs' include reasonable expenses and fees of expert witnesses." The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Alito, held that IDEA does not authorize prevailing parents to recover fees they have paid to experts. The majority opinion first observed that the holding was "guided by the fact that Congress enacted the IDEA pursuant to the Spending Clause." This was seen as significant because if Congress attaches conditions to a state's acceptance of funds, the conditions must be unambiguous and provide clear notice. The majority concluded that IDEA's statutory language did not provide this clear notice and that the legislative history was unconvincing and "simply not enough" under these circumstances. H.R. 1208 and S. 613 were introduced in the 112 th Congress to amend IDEA to include the fees of expert witnesses. They specifically provided that "the term 'attorneys' fees' shall include the fees of expert witnesses, including the reasonable costs of any test or evaluation necessary for the preparation of the parent or guardian's case in the action or proceeding."

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the major federal statute for the education of children with disabilities. IDEA both authorizes federal funding for special education and related services and, for states that accept these funds, sets out principles under which special education and related services are to be provided. The requirements are detailed, especially when the regulatory interpretations are considered, and have been the subject of numerous judicial decisions. The key concept in IDEA is the requirement for the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for children with disabilities. In order to implement FAPE, IDEA requires that each child with a disability have an individualized education program. Children with disabilities may also receive related services and must receive their education in the least restrictive environment. IDEA was originally enacted to respond to situations where children with disabilities were being excluded from school without any statutory recourse. Section 615 of IDEA provides detailed procedural safeguards for children with disabilities and their parents. Procedural safeguards are provisions protecting the rights of parents and children with disabilities regarding a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and include notice of rights, mediation, resolution sessions, and due process procedures. Section 615 has been a continual source of controversy, especially the provisions relating to the discipline of children with disabilities. IDEA also provides for attorneys' fees in some situations, but the Supreme Court has found that parents are not entitled to expert witness fees.

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and prominent atheist, is used to criticism from those who do not share his views on religion or the origins of mankind. But he has expressed surprise at the latest attack, which claims the scientist faces awkward questions because some of his ancestors were slave owners. The Sunday Telegraph reported that Henry Dawkins had amassed more than 1,000 slaves in Jamaica by the time of his death in 1744, and quoted campaigners calling on Dawkins to pay reparations. But Dawkins hit back on his blog, describing the interview and subsequent article as "surreal". "At the end of a week of successfully rattling cages, I was ready for yet another smear or diversionary tactic of some kind," said Dawkins, who clashed on the BBC Today programme with Giles Fraser, formerly canon chancellor of St Paul's cathedral, on Tuesday. "But in my wildest dreams I couldn't have imagined the surreal form this one was to take." Dawkins said a reporter had called him and named a number of his ancestors who he said were slave owners. After the reporter quoted the biblical verse about the Lord "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" Dawkins said he ended the conversation. However, he said the reporter rang back and suggested Dawkins may have inherited a "slave supporting" gene from his distant relative. "'You obviously need a genetics lesson,' I replied," Dawkins wrote on his blog. "Henry Dawkins was my great great great great great grandfather, so approximately one in 128 of my genes are inherited from him (that's the correct figure; in the heat of the moment on the phone, I got it wrong by a couple of powers of two)." The article in the Sunday Telegraph went on to state that the "Dawkins family estate, consisting of 400 acres near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, was bought at least in part with wealth amassed through sugar plantation and slave ownership." However, Dawkins said the estate was now a small working farm struggling to survive and "worth peanuts". Dawkins added: "As it happens, my ancestry also boasts an unbroken line of six generations of Anglican clergymen, from the Rev William Smythies (born 1635) to his great great great grandson the Rev Edward Smythies (born 1818). I wonder if [the reporter] thinks I've inherited a gene for piety too. "I can't help wondering at the quality of journalism which sees a scoop in attacking a man for what his five-greats grandfather did. Is there really nothing more current going on?" The Sunday Telegraph declined to comment. ||||| He has railed against the evils of religion, and lectured the world on the virtues of atheism. Now Richard Dawkins, the secularist campaigner against "intolerance and suffering", must face an awkward revelation: he is descended from slave owners and his family estate was bought with a fortune partly created by forced labour. One of his direct ancestors, Henry Dawkins, amassed such wealth that his family owned 1,013 slaves in Jamaica by the time of his death in 1744. The Dawkins family estate, consisting of 400 acres near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, was bought at least in part with wealth amassed through sugar plantation and slave ownership. Over Norton Park, inherited by Richard Dawkins's father, remains in the family, with the campaigner as a shareholder and director of the associated business. One Dawkins family member was a member of the clergy. Many were MPs including two who became prominent opponents of the abolition of slavery, eventually achieved thanks to William Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian. Professor Dawkins, the atheist evolutionary biologist and author of The Selfish Gene, claimed associating him with his slave-owning ancestors was "a smear tactic". "One of the most disagreeable verses of the Bible – amid strong competition – says the sins of the father shall be visited on the children until the third or fourth generation," he said. The family's association with Jamaica began when William Dawkins, a direct ancestor of the former Oxford University professor, arrived on the island. He began relatively humbly, as an overseer, probably supervising slaves, before receiving 1,775 acres of land between 1669 and 1682. His son Richard became a leading member of Jamaican society, serving as a colonel in the local militia. One history records that when Richard died in 1701 he left "personal property valued at £6,659 in Jamaica currency, [including] 143 negroes 'young and old' valued at £2,784." Richard's son Henry Dawkins (1698-1744) – another direct ancestor of the campaigner - married Elizabeth Pennant, thus forming an alliance with another one of Jamaica's most powerful planter families. An inventory of his estate shortly after his death showed that he, his wife and children owned a total of 1,013 slaves valued at £40,736. By 1754 his three surviving sons owned 25,000 acres in Jamaica between them. Henry's brother James bought Over Norton in 1726. After his death in 1766, the estate passed to his nephew Henry Dawkins (1728-1814), another direct ancestor, who also owned thousands of acres in Jamaica. Three of that Henry's sons became MPs. The youngest, also called Henry, (1765-1852), was the campaigner's great-great-great grandfather. In 1796 the oldest son James Dawkins (1760-1843) voted against Wilberforce's proposal to abolish the slave trade, helping to defeat it by just four votes. In 1807 he was one of a small rump of die-hards opposing the provisions of Slave Trade Act, which abolished selling slaves in the British Empire. He is believed to have been among just 18 MPs who supported an amendment to postpone the act's implementation by five years. They were defeated by the votes of 174 MPs. On religious matters James Dawkins was throughout 1813 an opponent of 'Catholic relief', one of the acts which lifted restrictions on freedom of worship, property and electoral rights for Catholics. James and Henry's brother George Hay Dawkins Pennant (1764-1840) was another defiant slavery supporter. In 1831, two years before the act abolishing slave ownership in the Empire, he signed a circular which insisted: "the speedy annihilation of slavery would be attended with the devastation of the West India Colonies … with inevitable distress and misery to the black population.'" The Anti-Slavery Reporter of June 1831 was so outraged that it listed 41 signatories including Dawkins, "By way of securing a lasting record of them. They are names which ought not to be forgotten." In an unwitting anticipation of a later Dawkins's opposition to religion, the Anti-Slavery Reporter also castigated Jamaica's rulers for making slaves work on Sunday: they couldn't worship and were condemned to "toil and secularity". Prof Dawkins established the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science offering a "clear-thinking oasis" supporting secularism. The foundation's 'mission statement' says it is on a "quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering." In 2010 Richard Dawkins wrote an obituary for his father, describing how John Dawkins had inherited Over Norton Park from a distant cousin and how the estate, in the Cotswolds area of outstanding natural beauty, had been in the family since the 1720s. He omitted, however, to mention how previous generations made their money. He quoted Scripture – disparagingly - to insist: "I condemn slavery with the utmost vehemence, but the fact that my remote ancestors may have been involved in it is nothing to do with me. "One of the most disagreeable verses of the Bible – amid strong competition – says the sins of the father shall be visited on the children until the third or fourth generation." Audibly irritated, he added: "You need a genetics lecture. Do you realise that probably only about 1 in 512 of my genes come from Henry Dawkins? "For goodness sake, William Wilberforce may have been a devout Christian, but slavery is sanctioned throughout the Bible." Richard Dawkins' sister Sarah Kettlewell, 67, is thought still to live on the estate, which has a farm shop and pedigree cattle. According to Companies House records which list Professor Dawkins as a director, Over Norton Park Limited made a £12,000 profit last year. He insisted: "The estate is now a very small farm, struggling to make its way, and worth peanuts. The family fortune was frittered away in the 19th Century. Such money as I have is scarcely inherited at all." He is now facing calls to apologise and make reparations for his family's past. Esther Stanford-Xosei, of Lewisham, south London, the co-vice chairman of the Pan-African Reparations Coalition in Europe, said: "There is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. "The words of the apology need to be backed by action. The most appropriate course would be for the family to fund an educational initiative telling the history of slavery and how it impacts on communities today, in terms of racism and fractured relationships." The revelations come after a difficult few days for the campaigner. On Tuesday 14 February, some critics branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God." ||||| Research carried out by for a secularist foundation has suggested that most of those who describe themselves as Christian in Britain have only a low level of belief and practice of the religion. A poll carried out by Ipsos-Mori for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science indicated that half of those in Britain who say they are Christian rarely go to church while nearly 60% do not read the Bible. Prof Richard Dawkins, founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, told the Today programme's Justin Webb that most people who call themselves Christian merely "tick the Christian box". When asked whether the figures told us anything of use, Professor Dawkins insisted it "told us an awful lot" because it puts into doubt the place of Christian practices in society such as bishops in House of Lords and the presence of faith schools. However Reverend Giles Fraser, former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's, called the findings "extraordinary" and maintained that it was not fair to trump people's "self identification" as Christians. He said that "there are all sorts of ways to express Christianity" and that we should not be "purging religion from the public square". Get in touch with Today via email , Twitter or Facebook or text us on 84844. ||||| By RICHARD DAWKINS - RICHARDDAWKINS.NET See bottom for the Polish translation Yesterday evening I was telephoned by a reporter who announced himself as Adam Lusher from the Sunday Telegraph. At the end of a week of successfully rattling cages, I was ready for yet another smear or diversionary tactic of some kind, but in my wildest dreams I couldn’t have imagined the surreal form this one was to take. I obviously can’t repeat what was said word-for-word (my poor recall of long strings of words has this week been highly advertised), and I may get the order of the points wrong, but this is approximately how the conversation went. “We’ve been researching the history of the Dawkins family, and have discovered that your ancestors owned slaves in Jamaica in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. What have you got to say about that?” I replied, “Your ancestors probably did too. It’s just that we happen to know who my ancestors were and perhaps we don’t know yours.” He persisted by reeling off several of my forebears including, I think, Henry Dawkins (b 1698) and his father Colonel Richard Dawkins (d.o.b. unknown to me), giving gruesome (and indeed deplorable) figures about the numbers of slaves they owned, asking me whether I felt any guilt about it. I replied by quoting Numbers 14:18 (from memory so – oh, calamity – I may not have been quite word-perfect), that charming little verse about the Lord “visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation”: a nice example, incidentally, of biblical morality. When he persisted with his insinuations I made my somewhat peremptory excuses and left (I was in a hurry because I was about to go on stage in London to give a lecture and wanted to prepare for it). I’d scarcely had time to re-open my lecture notes when he rang back: “Darwinian natural selection has a lot to do with genes, do you agree?” Of course I agreed. “Well, some people might suggest that you could have inherited a gene for supporting slavery from Henry Dawkins.” “You obviously need a genetics lesson,” I replied. Henry Dawkins was my great great great great great grandfather, so approximately one in 128 of my genes are inherited from him (that’s the correct figure; in the heat of the moment on the phone, I got it wrong by a couple of powers of two). Setting aside his scientific illiteracy and his frankly defamatory insinuation that I might condone slavery, the point about powers of two is interesting enough to warrant a digression. Following a line of reasoning spelled out in The Ancestor’s Tale, we can calculate that Adam Lusher and I (and you and I and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all) share most of our ancestors and literally all our more distant ancestors. What is a little less obvious is that the ancestor we most recently share probably lived only a few centuries ago. Almost certainly we are all descended from slave owners (and indeed from slaves), if you go back far enough, and you probably don’t have to go back very far. It’s just that only a few of us are saddled with, to quote J B S Haldane, a historically labelled Y-chromosome. As it happens, my ancestry also boasts an unbroken line of six generations of Anglican clergymen, from the Rev William Smythies (b 1635) to his great great great grandson the Rev Edward Smythies (b 1818). I wonder if Adam thinks I’ve inherited a gene for piety too. Our piercing investigative journalist then challenged me to deny that William Wilberforce, the great anti-slavery campaigner, was a Christian. (So, presumably, were the slave-owners. Just about everyone in England was Christian at the time and Henry and Colonel Richard surely were.) This provoked me to give him yet another lecture, this time expounding Steven Pinker’s brilliant book, The Better Angels of our Nature, about how we are getting steadily gentler and more civilised as the generations go by, whether or not we are religious. Our changing moral values carry a strong statistical signal of the century and even the decade in which we live, but virtually no signal at all of whether we are religious. His next volley was the suggestion that I should make financial reparation for the sins of my ancestors. Reparation to whom? Should I make a pilgrimage to Jamaica and seek out the descendants of the slaves whom my ancestors wronged? But why the descendants of people who were oppressed by my ancestors 300 years ago rather than to people who are oppressed today? It’s that “sins of the fathers” fallacy all over again, taken a good couple of generations further than even Yahweh had in mind. His parting shot (actually it was I who did the parting) was to suggest that Henry’s ill-gotten gains might have been used to purchase the English “estate”, a small fraction of which my family still owns. I told him that far from being an estate, it is a small working farm, struggling to make ends meet in a bad time for farming. I added that such wealth and land as the Dawkins family once owned was squandered in the nineteenth century by Colonel William Gregory Dawkins (not my direct ancestor, I’m happy to say) on futile lawsuits. Whatever I possess is hardly at all inherited from past centuries but earned by me in my own lifetime. I am happy to give to charity, and I do so in quite large quantities, but my choice of charity would not be influenced by whatever sins my seventeenth and eighteenth century ancestors committed. It was when he asked me exactly how many acres the modern small farm possesses that I told him to mind his own business and put the phone down on him for the second time. I can’t help wondering at the quality of journalism which sees a scoop in attacking a man for what his five-greats grandfather did. Is there really nothing more current going on? Ah yes, of course, there is the little matter of our Ipsos MORI poll, published this week. Rather than grapple with that, far better to take no chances and distract readers with a story that’s a mere 300 years old. Don’t buy the Telegraph on Sunday, but do look it up on the web and marvel at the depths to which a once-proud newspaper is willing to sink. That is unless – which I would like to think is quite probable – the Editor spikes the whole thing as a story that's three centuries past its Use By date. Grzechy ojców Autor tekstu: Richard Dawkins Tłumaczenie: Małgorzata Koraszewska Wczoraj wieczorem zadzwonił do mnie reporter, który przedstawił się jako Adam Lusher z „Sunday Telegraph". Pod koniec tygodnia, w którym z powodzeniem wsadziłem kij w kilka mrowisk, byłem przygotowany na kolejne oczernianie lub jakiegoś rodzaju pozorowaną taktykę, ale w najdzikszych snach nie mógłbym wyobrazić sobie surrealistycznej formy, jaką to przyjmie. Oczywiście nie mogę powtórzyć słowo w słowo tego, co zostało powiedziane (moja marna pamięć do długich ciągów słów była w tym tygodniu szeroko rozreklamowana), i mogę mylić się co do kolejności, ale oto jak mniej więcej brzmiała ta rozmowa: „Badaliśmy historię rodziny Dawkinsów i odkryliśmy, że pana przodkowie byli właścicielami niewolników na Jamajce w siedemnastym i osiemnastym wieku. Co ma pan w związku z tym do powiedzenia?" Odpowiedziałem: „Prawdopodobnie to samo było z pana przodkami. Po prostu tak się złożyło, że wiemy, kim byli moi przodkowie i być może nie wiemy, kim byli pańscy". Read more

Renowned atheist Richard Dawkins fired back at the Telegraph today after the paper accused him of profiting—albeit indirectly—from slavery, the Guardian reports. The Telegraph's article notes that Dawkins' great great great great great grandfather, Henry Dawkins, owned 1,013 Jamaican slaves before he died in 1744. Dawkins called the article "a smear tactic" and says the family slave fortune dwindled long before he was born. According to Dawkins, the Telegraph reporter called him and quoted a Biblical line about the Lord "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." The reporter also suggested that Dawkins—an evolutionary biologist—has a "slave supporting" gene. Dawkins writes in his blog that he expected a "smear" after clashing with a former chancellor of St. Paul's cathedral on a BBC program this week. "But in my wildest dreams I couldn't have imagined the surreal form this one was to take."

To obtain a full funding grant agreement, a project must first progress through a local or regional review of alternatives, develop preliminary engineering plans, and obtain FTA’s approval for final design. TEA-21 requires that FTA evaluate projects against “project justification” and “local financial commitment” criteria contained in the act (see fig. 1). FTA assesses the project justification and technical merits of a project proposal by reviewing the project’s mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost-effectiveness, and operating efficiencies. In assessing a project’s local financial commitment, FTA assesses the project’s finance plan for evidence of stable and dependable financing sources to construct, maintain, and operate the proposed system or extension. Although FTA’s evaluation requirements existed prior to TEA-21, the act requires FTA to (1) develop a rating for each criterion as well as an overall rating of “highly recommended,” “recommended,” or “not recommended” and use these evaluations and ratings in approving projects’ advancement toward obtaining grant agreements; and (2) issue regulations on the evaluation and rating process. TEA-21 also directs FTA to use these evaluations and ratings to decide which projects to recommend to the Congress for funding in a report due each February. These funding recommendations are also reflected in DOT’s annual budget proposal. In the annual appropriations act for DOT, the Congress specifies the amounts of funding for individual New Starts projects. Historically, federal capital funding for transit systems, including the New Starts program, has largely supported rail systems. Under TEA-21 the FTA Capital Program has been split 40 percent/40 percent/20 percent among New Starts, Rail Modernization, and Bus Capital grants. Although fixed- guideway bus projects are eligible under the New Starts program, relatively few bus-related projects are now being funded under this program. Although FTA has been faced with an impending transit budget crunch for several years, the agency is likely to end the TEA-21 authorization period with about $310 million in unused commitment authority if its proposed fiscal year 2003 budget is enacted. This will occur for several reasons. First, in fiscal year 2001, the Congress substantially increased FTA’s authority to commit future federal funding (referred to as contingent commitment authority). This allowed FTA to make an additional $500 million in future funding commitments. Without this action, FTA would have had insufficient commitment authority to fund all of the projects ready for a grant agreement. Second, to preserve commitment authority for future projects, FTA did not request any funding for preliminary engineering activities in the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 budget proposals. According to FTA, it had provided an average of $150 million a year for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 for projects’ preliminary engineering activities. Third, FTA took the following actions that had the effect of slowing the commitment of funds or making funds available for reallocation: FTA tightened its review of projects’ readiness and technical capacity. As a result, FTA recommended fewer projects for funding than expected for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. For example, only 2 of the 14 projects that FTA officials estimated last year would be ready for grant agreements are being proposed for funding commitments in fiscal year 2003. FTA increased its available commitment authority by $157 million by releasing amounts associated with a project in Los Angeles for which the federal funding commitment had been withdrawn. Although the New Starts program will likely have unused commitment authority through fiscal year 2003, the carry-over commitments from existing grant agreements that will need to be funded during the next authorization period are substantial. FTA expects to enter the period likely covered by the next authorization (fiscal years 2004 through 2009) with over $3 billion in outstanding New Starts grant commitments. In addition, FTA has identified five projects estimated to cost $2.8 billion that will likely be ready for grant agreements in the next 2 years. If these projects receive grant agreements and the total authorization for the next program is $6.1 billion—-the level authorized under TEA-21—most of those funds will be committed early in the authorization period, leaving numerous New Starts projects in the pipeline facing bleak federal funding possibilities. Some of the projects anticipated for the next authorization are so large they could have considerable impact on the overall New Starts program. For example, the New York Long Island Railroad East Side Access project may extend through multiple authorization periods. The current cost estimate for the East Side Access project is $4.4 billion, including a requested $2.2 billion in New Starts funds. By way of comparison, the East Side Access project would require about three times the total and three times the federal funding of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District Airport Extension project, which at about $1.5 billion was one of the largest projects under TEA-21. In order to manage the increasing demand for New Starts funding, several proposals have been made to limit the amount of New Starts funds that could be applied to a project, allowing more projects to receive funding. For instance, the President’s fiscal year 2002 budget recommended that federal New Starts funding be limited to 50 percent of project costs starting in fiscal year 2004. (Currently, New Starts funding—and all federal funding—is capped at 80 percent.) A 50 percent New Starts cap would, in part, reflect a pattern that has emerged in the program. Currently, few projects are asking for the maximum 80 percent federal New Starts share, and many have already significantly increased the local share in order to be competitive under the New Starts program. In the last 10 years, the New Starts share for projects with grant agreements has been averaging about 50 percent. In April 2002, we estimated that a 50 percent cap on the New Starts share for projects with signed full funding grant agreements would have reduced the federal commitments to these projects by $650 million. Federal highway funds such as Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds can still be used to bring the total federal funding up to 80 percent. However, because federal highway funds are controlled by the states, using these funds for transit projects necessarily requires state- transit district cooperation. The potential effect of changing the federal share is not known. Whether a larger local match for transit projects could discourage local planners from supporting transit is unknown, but local planners have expressed this concern. According to transit officials, some projects could accommodate a higher local match, but others would have to be modified, or even terminated. Another possibility is that transit agencies may look more aggressively for ways to contain project costs or search for lower cost transit options. With demand high for New Starts funds, a greater emphasis on lower cost options may help expand the benefits of federal funding for mass transit; Bus Rapid Transit shows promise in this area. Bus Rapid Transit involves coordinated improvements in a transit system’s infrastructure, equipment, operations, and technology that give preferential treatment to buses on urban roadways. Bus Rapid Transit is not a single type of transit system; rather, it encompasses a variety of approaches, including 1) using buses on exclusive busways; or 2) buses sharing HOV lanes with other vehicles; and 3) improving bus service on city arterial streets. Busways—special roadways designed for the exclusive use of buses—can be totally separate roadways or operate within highway rights-of-way separated from other traffic by barriers. Buses on HOV-lanes operate on limited-access highways designed for long-distance commuters. Bus Rapid Transit on Busways or HOV lanes is sometimes characterized by the addition of extensive park and ride facilities along with entrance and exit access for these lanes. Bus Rapid Transit systems using arterial streets may include lanes reserved for the exclusive use of buses and street enhancements that speed buses and improve service. During the review of Bus Rapid Transit systems that we completed last year, we found at least 17 cities in the United States were planning to incorporate aspects of Bus Rapid Transit into their operations. FTA has begun to support the Bus Rapid Transit concept and expand awareness of new ways to design and operate high capacity Bus Rapid Transit systems as an alternative to building Light Rail systems. Because Light Rail systems operate in both exclusive and shared right-of-way environments, the limits on their length and the frequency of service are stricter than heavy rail systems. Light Rail systems have gained popularity as a lower-cost option to heavy rail systems, and since 1980, Light Rail systems have opened in 13 cities. Our September 2001 report showed that all three types of Bus Rapid Transit systems generally had lower capital costs than Light Rail systems. On a per mile basis, the Bus Rapid Transit projects that we reviewed cost less on average to build than the Light Rail projects, on a per mile basis. We examined 20 Bus Rapid Transit lines and 18 Light Rail lines and found Bus Rapid Transit capital costs averaged $13.5 million per mile for busways, $9.0 million per mile for buses on HOV lanes, and $680,000 per mile for buses on city streets, when adjusted to 2000 dollars. For the 18 Light Rail lines, capital costs averaged about $34.8 million per mile, ranging from $12.4 million to $118.8 million per mile, when adjusted to 2000 dollars. On a capital cost per mile basis, the three different types of Bus Rapid Transit systems have average capital costs that are 39 percent, 26 percent, and 2 percent of the average cost of the Light Rail systems we reviewed. The higher capital costs per mile for Light Rail systems are attributable to several factors. First, the Light Rail systems contain elements not required in the Bus Rapid Transit systems, such as train signal, communications, and electrical power systems with overhead wires to deliver power to trains. Light Rail also requires additional materials needed for the guideway—rail, ties, and track ballast. In addition, if a Light Rail maintenance facility does not exist, one must be built and equipped. Finally, Light Rail vehicles, while having higher carrying capacity than most buses, also cost more—about $2.5 million each. In contrast, according to transit industry consultants, a typical 40-foot transit bus costs about $283,000, and a higher-capacity bus costs about $420,000. However, buses that incorporate newer technologies for low emissions or that run on more than one fuel can cost more than $1 million each. We also analyzed operating costs for six cities that operated both Light Rail and some form of Bus Rapid Transit service. Whether Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail had lower operating costs varied considerably from city to city and depended on what cost measure was used. In general, we did not find a systematic advantage for one mode over the other on operating costs. The performance of the Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems can be comparable. For example, in the six cities we reviewed that had both types of service, Bus Rapid Transit generally operated at higher speeds. In addition, the capacity of Bus Rapid Transit systems can be substantial; we did not see Light Rail having a significant capacity advantage over Bus Rapid Transit. For example, the highest ridership we found on a Light Rail line was on the Los Angeles Blue Line, with 57,000 riders per day. The highest Bus Rapid Transit ridership was also in Los Angeles on the Wilshire-Whittier line, with 56,000 riders per day. Most Light Rail lines in the United States carry about half the Los Angeles Blue Line ridership. Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail each have a variety of other advantages and disadvantages. Bus Rapid Transit generally has the advantages of (1) being more flexible than Light Rail, (2) being able to phase-in service rather than having to wait for an entire system to be built, and (3) being used as an interim system until Light Rail is built. Light Rail has advantages, according to transit officials, associated with increased economic development and improved community image, which they believe justify higher capital costs. However, building a Light Rail system can have a tendency to provide a bias toward building additional rail lines in the future. Transit operators with experience in Bus Rapid Transit systems told us that one of the challenges faced by Bus Rapid Transit is the negative stigma potential riders attach to buses. Officials from FTA, academia, and private consulting firms also stated that bus service has a negative image, particularly when compared with rail service. Communities may prefer Light Rail systems in part because the public sees rail as faster, quieter, and less polluting than bus service, even though Bus Rapid Transit is designed to overcome those problems. FTA officials said that the poor image of buses was probably the result of a history of slow bus service due to congested streets, slow boarding and fare collection, and traffic lights. FTA believes that this negative image can be improved over time through bus service that incorporates Bus Rapid Transit features. A number of barriers exist to funding improved bus systems such as Bus Rapid Transit. First, an extensive pipeline of projects already exists for the New Starts Program. Bus Rapid Transit is a relatively new concept, and many potential projects have not reached the point of being ready for funding consideration because many other rail projects are further along in development. As of March 2002, only 1 of the 29 New Starts projects with existing, pending or proposed grant agreements uses Bus Rapid Transit, and 1 of the 5 other projects near approval plans to use Bus Rapid Transit. Some Bus Rapid Transit projects do not fit the exclusive right-of- way requirements of the New Starts Program and thus would not be eligible for funding consideration. FTA also administers a Bus Capital Program with half the funding level of the New Starts Program; however, the existing Bus Capital Program is made up of small grants to a large number of recipients, which limits the program’s usefulness for funding major projects. Although FTA is encouraging Bus Rapid Transit through a Demonstration Program, this program does not provide funding for construction but rather focuses on obtaining and sharing information on projects being pursued by local transit agencies. Eleven Bus Rapid Transit projects are associated with this demonstration program.

The Federal Transportation Administration's (FTA) New Starts Program helps pay for designing and constructing rail, bus, and trolley projects through full funding grant agreements. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), authorized $6.1 billion in "guaranteed" funding for the New Starts program through fiscal year 2003. Although the level of New Starts funding is higher than ever, the demand for these resources is also extremely high. Given this high demand for new and expanded transit facilities across the nation, communities need to examine approaches that stretch the federal and local dollar yet still provide high quality transit services. Although FTA has been faced with an impending transit budget crunch for several years, it is likely to end the TEA-21 authorization period with $310 million in unused New Starts commitment authority if its proposed fiscal year 2003 budget is enacted. Bus Rapid Transit is designed to provide major improvements in the speed and reliability of bus service through barrier-separated busways, buses on High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, or improved service on arterial streets. GAO found that Bus Rapid Transit was a less expensive and more flexible approach than Light Rail service because buses can be rerouted more easily to accommodate changing travel patterns. However, transit officials also noted that buses have a poor public image. As a result, many transit planners are designing Bus Rapid Transit systems that offer service that will be an improvement over standard bus service (see GAO-02-603).

To answer the three questions, we analyzed information provided by the District of Columbia on past, current, and projected borrowing and met with District officials to discuss the District’s debt. We also analyzed applicable laws that authorize borrowing and impose limitations on that borrowing. We obtained information on other jurisdictions debt limitations, debt ratios, and bond ratings from Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s Corporation, and Fitch Investors Service, Inc. and discussed this information with officials of those organizations. We did not independently verify the information provided by the investor service organizations on other jurisdictions. We conducted our work from August 1994 to October 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The District of Columbia provided comments on a draft of this report. These comments are discussed in the “Agency Comments and Our Evaluation” section. We have incorporated agency views where appropriate. The Home Rule Act authorizes and sets limits on various types of short- and long-term debt that is backed by the full faith and credit of the District. The limits have not been revised since enactment of the provisions in the Home Rule Act that authorized the various types of debt. The District also is authorized to issue revenue bonds that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the District. Finally, the District is authorized to borrow from the U.S. Treasury to meet the District’s general expenses. The District can issue Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS) to compensate for expected cash shortfalls related to delays in receipt of projected tax revenue. Although TRANS are renewable, they must be repaid no later than the last day of the fiscal year in which the notes were issued. The total amount of outstanding TRANS at any time is limited to 20 percent of the District’s total anticipated revenue for the fiscal year. The amount of TRANS borrowing is discussed later in this letter. The District can also issue short-term general obligation notes to meet appropriation requirements when budgeted grants and private contributions are not realized. Similar to TRANS, these notes are renewable. However, they must be repaid no later than the last day of the fiscal year following the year in which they were issued. The amount of general obligation notes issued during a fiscal year is limited to 2 percent of the District’s total appropriations or approximately $70 million for fiscal year 1994. District officials said they have never issued this type of note. In lieu of these short-term borrowing vehicles, the District has borrowed moneys from its capital projects fund. The District’s annual appropriation specifically states that “the Mayor shall not expend any moneys borrowed for capital projects for operating expenses of the District of Columbia government.” The District’s Corporation Counsel has concluded that the District does not violate the appropriation act restriction as long as borrowings from the Capital Projects Fund are repaid before the end of the fiscal year in which the borrowing is made. The District borrowed $140 million from the Capital Projects Fund in fiscal year 1993 to finance seasonal cash flow needs. These funds were repaid before the end of the fiscal year. In fiscal year 1994, the District again borrowed from the Capital Projects Fund to compensate for cash flow shortages due to a delay in the receipt of the Federal Payment. The District borrowed $40 million in October 1993 and repaid it shortly thereafter; and, the District borrowed $40 million from the Capital Projects Fund in early September 1994 and repaid it before the end of the month. The District also has the authority to issue long-term debt. Long-term debt generally takes the form of general obligation bonds. The District can issue general obligation bonds to refund (that is, refinance) existing debt or to finance capital projects. In fiscal year 1991, the District also received authority to eliminate the general fund’s existing accumulated deficit by issuing general obligation bonds. The Home Rule Act restricts the District from issuing long-term general obligation bonds if total debt service in a fiscal year will exceed 14 percent of the District’s estimated revenues for the year the bonds are issued. This debt limitation is calculated by the Treasurer’s Office when the District requests new general obligation borrowing. At that time, the highest projected cost of debt service (including debt service from both general obligation bonds as well as long-term U.S. Treasury debt) for any fiscal year including debt service on the projected borrowing cannot exceed 14 percent of the District’s estimated revenues for the fiscal year the bonds will be issued. Revenues for this calculation do not include court fees and any fees or revenues directed to servicing revenue bonds, retirement contributions, revenues from retirement systems, revenues from Treasury loans, and the sale of general obligation or revenue bonds. This debt service calculation does not include refinancing costs of previous bonds and any obligations associated with the Redevelopment Land Agency, the National Capital Housing Authority, or obligations pursuant to the authority contained in the District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957. The specific amount of long-term borrowing is discussed later in this letter. The District may also borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury to finance its general expenses. Between 1939 and 1983, the District routinely borrowed from the U.S. Treasury under this provision. It has not borrowed from the U.S. Treasury since then. Under this provision, which originated before the enactment of the Home Rule Act, the Mayor of the District of Columbia may requisition the Secretary of the Treasury for “such sums as may be necessary, from time to time, to meet the general expenses of said District, as authorized by Congress, and such amounts so advanced shall be reimbursed by the said Mayor to the Treasury out of taxes and revenue collected for the support of the government of the said District of Columbia.” The interest rate to be applied, if any, and the term of these borrowings are not specified. These borrowings are not subject to the 14-percent limitation on long-term debt. All general obligation and TRANS offering documents refer to this section of the D.C. Code and specify that the Mayor shall request funds from the U.S. Treasury as may be necessary to pay the principal and interest on the bonds when due. In addition, the District previously had authority to borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury to finance capital projects. While the authority for new U.S. Treasury borrowing for capital projects was terminated by 1983, the District had $71.8 million and the District’s Water and Sewer Authority had $15.1 million outstanding debt issued under this authority at September 30, 1994. The District’s $71.8 million U.S. Treasury debt is scheduled to be repaid by 2003, and the Water and Sewer Authority’s U.S. Treasury debt is scheduled to be repaid by 2014. As previously noted, the debt service on U.S. Treasury long-term capital projects debt is included in the 14-percent limitation calculation described in the previous section of this report under long-term borrowing. The District of Columbia also is authorized to issue revenue bonds, notes, or other obligations to finance or refinance undertakings in the areas of (1) housing, (2) facilities for health, transit, utility, recreation, college, university, or pollution control, (3) college or university student loan programs, and (4) industrial and commercial development. Such revenue obligations are not general obligations or debt of the District backed by the full faith and credit or the taxing power of the District. Instead, they are payable from earnings of the respective projects and may be secured by mortgages on real property or creation of a security interest in other assets. In addition to the current types of financing allowed, the District is proposing to partly finance the construction of a new convention center and sports arena by authorizing District enterprises to issue revenue bonds that would include as security a pledge of dedicated taxes. This proposed method of financing requires amending the Home Rule Act. Specifically, the Home Rule Act would need to be revised to authorize the District (1) to issue such revenue bonds and (2) to delegate authority to District enterprises to issue the bonds and to receive and expend the dedicated revenues. Under this proposal these bonds would not be subject to the 14-percent long-term debt service ceiling. The District’s primary borrowing involves short-term tax revenue anticipation notes and long-term general obligation bonds. In May 1994 the District borrowed $200 million in short-term Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes which were paid in September by the end of fiscal year 1994. The District anticipates that in fiscal year 1995 it will need $250 million in short-term Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes ($125 million in February 1995 and $125 million in June 1995). These notes will be due in September 1995. The fiscal year 1994 short-term debt represented 6.0 percent of total anticipated revenues, and the fiscal year 1995 short-term debt represented 7.2 percent of total anticipated revenues—considerably below the 20-percent limitation on TRANS borrowing discussed earlier in this report. The District does not make short-term borrowing projections beyond the year for which a budget has been submitted to the District of Columbia Council. Also on September 30, 1994, the District had $3.65 billion in long-term debt (both general obligation and U.S. Treasury debt). As calculated by the District Treasurer’s Office, total debt service for these long-term obligations is expected to be $409 million in fiscal year 1998, the highest projected year, or 11.42 percent of total expected fiscal year 1994 revenues. This debt service percent is projected to grow in the future. The Budget Office estimates that capital borrowing will be $250 million annually from fiscal years 1995 through 1998 and $190 million in each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. Based on these estimates of future general obligation borrowing and Budget Office projections of revenues, we estimate that the debt service percent will rise to 13.84 percent by 2000. Figure 1 shows the debt service percents for fiscal years 1989 through 2000. More details of the assumptions and calculations for the data contained in figure 1 are provided in appendix I. When analyzing the projected debt service percents, two additional factors need to be considered. First, the projections in the chart are based on revenue estimates. As we noted in our June 1994 report, the District has overestimated some revenues in the past. Lower than expected revenues would increase the debt service percent. And, as discussed in our June 1994 report, the District plans to limit general obligation bond borrowing below what is needed for capital projects. Capital funds requirements are particularly significant for the D.C. Public Schools and the Water and Sewer Authority. Various debt indicators are available to compare debt characteristics of jurisdictions. For example, investment services provide ratings of bonds which assess the amount of risk associated with borrowing. Moody’s Investors Service ratings range from Aaa (best quality) to C (lowest quality). Tables 1 and 2 show the long-term bond ratings of the 20 largest cities and all 50 states. As can be seen from tables 1 and 2, the District’s bond rating of Baa is lower than any state and all but two of the cities listed. According to Moody’s Investors Service analysts, this rating reflects the District’s long history of financial pressures and budget-balancing difficulties. This rating has been the same since the District first issued general obligation bonds in 1984. Other comparisons of the District’s debt with other jurisdictions are more problematic. For example, comparing the District’s 14-percent debt service limitation with other jurisdictions is difficult because the type of limits vary. In fact, a Moody’s Investors Service official told us that no state imposes a limit on cities and counties based on a percentage of total revenues like the District’s limitation. A May 1994 Moody’s Investors Service report that outlined debt restrictions imposed on cities and counties by their states notes that almost all states imposed general obligation debt volume limits on cities and counties. In most states the limit is based on a percentage of the local jurisdictions’s taxable real property. Although the limits imposed by states on cities and counties most often are related to property values, the way these limits are calculated varies widely. For example, some limits are based on the full property value and others on an adjusted value. In other states, limits exclude some types of borrowing; for example, enterprise fund borrowing or public school borrowing. Because the limits of other jurisdictions vary widely, we did not specifically determine how close other jurisdictions are to their legal limits. Other indices are routinely used by investment services to compare the extent of borrowing among jurisdictions. Two of these indices are per capita debt and the amount of debt compared with the value of real property subject to tax. Table 3 shows the median, high, and low values for these indices for various population categories of cities, counties, and states. The District of Columbia’s overall net debt per capita was $6,315, and the ratio of net debt to taxable real property was 8.1 percent. Although both ratios are high when compared with other cities, counties, or states, comparing the District’s debt limitations and amount of debt with other jurisdictions is problematic because of the unique nature of the District. For example, debt limits for state, counties, and cities would only affect the debts incurred to finance the functions carried out by the specific jurisdiction. In contrast, the District has a single debt limit applicable to carry out all its governmental functions, whether these functions are representative of those carried out by states, counties, or cities. Thus, comparing the District’s ratios to state, county, or city debt ratios may not be a meaningful comparison to the extent the District’s debt is used to finance functions that may overlap functions financed by state, county, and city debt. For example, the District’s debt would include debt related to typical city functions (for example, police and fire protection) as well as debt associated with typical state and county functions (for example, motor vehicle and driver licensing). District officials also pointed out that other unique factors make comparing the District to other jurisdictions difficult. They noted that unlike most cities and counties, sales and income tax provide a substantial portion of the District’s tax revenue. Therefore, the debt/taxable real property ratio is not meaningful to compare the District to other jurisdictions. As discussed earlier in this letter, the general obligation debt limitation calculations are made by the Treasurer’s Office at the time the District issues new general obligation bonds and are included in the bond prospectus. These debt service percent calculations are done in accordance with the methodology outlined in the Home Rule Act as described earlier in this letter. Information on the debt service percent is also included in the District’s multi-year plans and annual financial reports, but this information is not consistent with the Home Rule Act methodology. The estimates in the multi-year plans do not use the methodology required by the Home Rule Act, which is the same methodology that is used to determine whether the District may issue new general obligation bonds.Instead of calculating the debt service percent by using the highest fiscal year debt service divided by the estimated revenue for the fiscal year the bonds will be issued—as is done in the bond prospectus—the debt service percent information in the multi-year plan is calculated by dividing the current year debt service by the current year revenue. The result is that the debt service percent information contained in the multi-year plans is less than what the percent would be if the Home Rule Act methodology were used. For example, for fiscal year 1994, information in the bond offering documents indicated that the debt service percent was 11.42 percent, while the debt service percent included in the multi-year plan for fiscal year 1994 was 10.14 percent. Although the fiscal year 1994 revenue estimates for each calculation were slightly different, the primary reason for the difference was the amount of debt service. The bond offering documents used the highest debt service for any fiscal year ($409.1 million which will occur in fiscal year 1998) and the multi-year plan used the fiscal year 1994 debt service of $362.2 million. The Home Rule Act not only specifies the methodology to be used in the multi-year plan, but the information in the current multi-year plans understates the debt service percentage in relation to the District’s debt limit. District managers need accurate information as they outline the various options needed to deal with the financial crisis. Table 4 outlines the differences between the debt service percents contained in the multi-year plan and our calculations using the Home Rule Act methodology. Information on the debt service percent contained in the annual financial reports also is not consistent with information in the bond offering documents. The methodology for calculating the debt service percentage in the financial statements is not specified in law. Like the debt service percent information contained in the multi-year plan, the debt service percent included in the financial statements is calculated by dividing fiscal year debt service by fiscal year revenues rather than the highest debt service for any fiscal year. The financial statements include the debt service information in an exhibit entitled “Computation of Legal Debt Limitation”. Even though portrayed as the legal calculation, the information is not consistent with the methodology stipulated in the Home Rule Act. Table 5 outlines the differences in the debt service percentage that are currently contained in the annual financial statements and the debt service percentage using the Home Rule Act methodology. Specifically, our calculations use the highest projected annual debt service divided by the actual annual revenues. As we noted in our June report, the District is faced with both unresolved long-term financial issues and continual short-term financial crises. The District’s high level of general obligation debt is approaching the 14-percent debt service ceiling. Although information on the debt service percent in the bond offering documents is calculated using the methodology required in the Home Rule Act, information on the debt service percent included in the District’s financial statements and multi-year plan does not use that methodology. As a result, the debt service percent amounts shown in the financial statements and multi-year plan are less than if the Home Rule Act methodology were used. As such, the current financial statements representation of the debt service percentage and the multi-year plan debt service information could mislead users of such information. Because the District’s long-term debt is approaching the legal limit, it is critical that District managers and other District stakeholders have accurate information as they make decisions about how meet the District’s financing needs. We recommend that the Mayor of the District of Columbia direct that (1) the multi-year plans contain debt service percentage information in the manner required by the Home Rule Act, and (2) the financial statements contain information on the debt service percentage that is calculated using the Home Rule Act methodology by dividing the maximum estimated annual debt service by the actual revenues. We provided a draft of this report to officials of the District of Columbia for their comment. In general, District officials agreed with the information contained in the report and supported the recommendations. They emphasized that comparing the District to other jurisdictions is difficult because of a variety of unique factors, including the high percentage of District property that is not subject to property tax. We believe the report sufficiently outlines the unique factors that make the comparison of the District to other jurisdictions problematic. District officials provided two additional reasons for the relatively low bond rating: the District’s unfunded pension liability and lack of state sovereignty. They also noted that part of the reason the District is approaching the debt limit was the issuance of $331 million in 12-year bonds in 1991 to eliminate a deficit in the General Fund. They explained that these bonds were of shorter duration than typical general obligation bonds that are used to finance capital projects and that this increased the amount of debt service. We agree that these bonds contributed to the debt service, but regardless of the term or the purpose of the bonds the fact remains that the amount of District debt is nearing the legal limit. District officials also said they are considering reducing the amount of future borrowing for capital needs. Although reduced future borrowing would lower the debt service percentage, such reductions need to be weighed against the District’s major capital needs. District officials also made some technical comments which have been incorporated in the report where appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Mayor of the District of Columbia; the Chairman of the City Council; the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Appropriations, and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; interested congressional committees; and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-8549 if you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. The year of maximum debt service for borrowing year is in bold print. Amount(millions) Rate(percent) Richard T. Cambosos, Senior Attorney The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the District of Columbia's debt, focusing on: (1) the types of debt that are available to the District and the limitations on that debt; (2) the total District debt and its estimated future borrowings; and (3) how the District's debt compares with other jurisdictions' debt. GAO found that: (1) the Home Rule Act authorizes and limits the District's short- and long-term debt; (2) the District's debt limits have not been revised since enactment of the Home Rule Act; (3) the District is authorized to issue revenue bonds to finance capital projects that are not backed by the full faith and credit of the District and to borrow from the U.S. Treasury to meet its general expenses; (4) as of September 30, 1994, the District's long-term general obligation debt totalled $3.65 billion; (5) total debt service for these long-term obligations is expected to be $409 million in fiscal year 1998; (6) by 2000, the District's projected debt service percentage is expected to be close to the statutory limitation of 14 percent; (7) as of September 30, 1994, the District's general obligation bond rating was at its lowest and was below that of most states and large cities; (8) the District's bond rating has not changed since it began issuing general obligation bonds in 1984; (9) the District's debt level is higher than other jurisdictions, in terms of debt per capita and debt as a percentage of real property; (10) the District's debt cannot be adequately compared with other jurisdictions because its service responsibilities include both city and state governments; and (11) debt service calculations in the District's multiyear plans and annual financial statements are not consistent with the methodology required by the Home Rule Act.

IRS relies on data from SSA to determine the accuracy of SSNs and names recorded on tax documents submitted by individual taxpayers. IRS uses this information to establish the identity of each taxpayer and to ensure that each transaction is posted to the correct account on the IMF. When processing paper tax returns with missing or incorrect SSNs, IRS service centers first try to make corrections by researching IRS files or other documents (for example, Form W-2 wage and tax statements) that accompany a tax return. Returns that can be corrected, along with those that match SSA records, are posted to the “valid” segment of the IMF. Returns that cannot be corrected are posted to the “invalid” segment of the IMF, using either the incorrect SSN on the tax return or a temporary number assigned by IRS. As of January 1, 1995, 4.3 million accounts were posted on the invalid segment of the IMF, and 153.3 million accounts were posted on the valid segment. IRS created the invalid segment of the IMF to store the accounts of taxpayers who had changed their names, because of marriage or divorce for example, and had not yet informed SSA of the name change. However, IRS has posted returns to the invalid segment of the IMF to cover other situations, such as when a taxpayer (1) uses the SSN of another individual, (2) uses an SSN that is not issued by SSA, or (3) is assigned a temporary number. IRS tries to resolve invalid accounts and move them to the valid segment of the IMF by corresponding with taxpayers to verify their identities, periodically matching invalid accounts against updated SSA records, and reviewing tax documents subsequently filed by taxpayers. Our objectives were to (1) measure the growth of accounts on the invalid segment of the IMF, (2) assess IRS’ procedures to verify the identities of tax return filers whose returns were posted to the IMF invalid segment, and (3) identify any effects the procedures may have on IRS’ TSM goals and its income-matching program. To measure the growth of accounts on the IMF invalid segment, we reviewed IRS management and internal audit reports about the growth and composition of accounts on the IMF. We also interviewed officials at IRS’ National Office on the makeup of the IMF invalid segment and the reasons for the growth in these accounts. To assess IRS’ procedures for verifying taxpayer identities, we reviewed (1) IRS procedures (1995 and pre-1995) for processing returns with missing or incorrect SSNs, (2) the notice IRS uses to verify taxpayer identities, and (3) other pertinent documents. We also interviewed officials at IRS’ National Office and at IRS’ Austin, TX; Cincinnati, OH; Fresno, CA; Ogden, UT; and Philadelphia, PA service centers on the process for posting returns to the IMF invalid segment and changes implemented in 1995 to verify taxpayer identities. We chose Cincinnati because of its proximity to the audit team conducting the work. We chose the other 4 centers because, out of IRS’ 10 service centers, they processed and posted more than 60 percent of the accounts on the IMF invalid segment in 1994. To identify the potential effects of IRS’ posting procedures, we did the following: We selected a random sample of 400 tax year 1993 returns from accounts that were posted to the IMF invalid segment before IRS implemented its new procedures. Our sample results are not projectable to the universe of accounts on the IMF invalid segment. Our objective was to determine whether the filers accurately reported their wages and withheld taxes. The sample consisted of returns with refunds of more than $1,000 that were posted to the IMF invalid segment by the Austin, Fresno, Ogden, and Philadelphia service centers between January 1, 1994, and June 30, 1994. The 400 returns included 50 from each center that had been posted with IRS temporary numbers and 50 from each center that had been posted with incorrect SSNs. The Cincinnati service center’s Criminal Investigation Branch contacted employers of the 400 filers to verify employment and wage information. The branch obtained responses on 357 returns. For the 43 returns with no response, we verified the wage information using information return transcripts. We analyzed 100 of the 400 returns to determine why they posted to the IMF invalid segment and to profile some of the filers’ characteristics. The 100 returns included 25 returns (12 that had been posted with temporary numbers and 13 that had been posted with incorrect numbers) randomly selected from each of the 4 service centers. Among the 100 returns were 58 that were posted to accounts containing a computer code that automatically released refunds. We also interviewed cognizant officials from IRS’ National Office and the previously mentioned service centers regarding any effects that returns with missing or incorrect SSNs may have on IRS’ income-matching programs and its TSM plans. We reviewed IRS reports on TSM plans and analyzed documents relating to IRS’ processing costs. We did our audit work from December 1993 through May 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from you or your designee. On June 21, 1995, the Assistant Commissioner for Taxpayer Services, the Staff Chief for the National Director of Submission Processing, and other IRS staff, including representatives from the Office of Chief Counsel, provided us with oral comments. Their comments are summarized and evaluated on pages 13 and 14 incorporated in this report where appropriate. From 1986 through 1994, according to IRS data, the average annual growth rate of accounts on the invalid segment of the IMF was more than twice the growth rate of accounts on the valid segment—5 percent versus 2 percent, respectively. Figure 1 shows year-to-year growth rates since 1986. During this period, the number of accounts on the invalid segment of the IMF grew from 2.8 million on January 1, 1986, to 4.3 million on January 1, 1995, while the number of valid accounts grew from 130.2 million to 153.3 million. From 1990 through 1994, the size of the IMF invalid segment grew by about 821,000 accounts. Most of that growth (52 percent) resulted from IRS’ increased use of temporary numbers to process and post returns. Accounts with incorrect numbers made up the other 48 percent. The IRS National Office official responsible for monitoring accounts on the master file explained that the increase in accounts with temporary numbers stemmed from IRS’ decision in 1990 to not send verification notices to taxpayers whose returns were processed with temporary numbers. Many of these filers, he said, cannot obtain SSNs because they are not legal residents of the United States but are entitled to refunds of withheld taxes or earned income credits. He said that most of these taxpayers were using temporary numbers verified in previous years and that requiring reverification each year would have unduly increased taxpayer burden. He speculated that when IRS’ decision not to require verification became more widely known, more taxpayers who could not obtain SSNs began filing tax returns. Another factor affecting the number of accounts on the invalid segment of the master file was IRS’ willingness to release refunds and allow the accounts to remain on the invalid segment, even though taxpayers’ responses to the verification notice did not resolve the invalid condition. Before 1995, IRS accepted a taxpayer’s response that a return was “correct as filed,” and taxpayers were not required to provide documentation (marriage certificate, birth certificate, etc.) to verify their identities. In 1994, IRS paid out $1.4 billion in refunds on returns posted to the IMF invalid segment. As part of its efforts to combat refund fraud, IRS revised its procedures in January 1995 to require that taxpayers provide documentation to verify their identities. In announcing that IRS would delay refund claims for individuals lacking proper identification numbers, you stated that, consistent with the way financial institutions manage withdrawals of funds, IRS should not permit refunds from the federal treasury without a valid taxpayer identification number. Under the revised procedures, when a taxpayer’s return with a refund request is posted to the IMF invalid segment for the first time, IRS is to freeze the refund and correspond with the taxpayer in an attempt to verify the taxpayer’s identity. Filers with missing or incorrect SSNs who request a refund are to be required to provide a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and proof of their identity (such as a marriage certificate, birth certificate, earnings statement, or passport) before the refund will be released. The requirement applies to filers whose returns are posted with temporary numbers as well as filers whose returns are posted with incorrect numbers. Once a taxpayer responds satisfactorily to IRS’ verification notice, IRS is to release the refund. Previously, IRS automatically issued refunds to filers with temporary numbers and did not require proof of identity from filers with incorrect numbers before releasing their refunds. IRS uses the CP54B notice to verify taxpayers’ identities before issuing a refund. The current version of the CP54B notice does not reflect IRS’ revised procedures. It does not clearly convey that persons who file with missing or incorrect numbers, including filers who were issued temporary numbers, are required to provide documentation verifying their identities. (Appendix I contains a copy of the CP54B notice annotated to show misleading or potentially confusing sections.) A revised version of the CP54B notice has been developed that reflects IRS’ revised procedures but, as of July 1995, had not been finalized. Until the revised notice is available, IRS National Office officials told us that they plan to use the current version of the notice, followed by additional correspondence if the taxpayer does not respond in accordance with the revised procedures. This practice will increase IRS’ processing costs, create additional taxpayer burden, and delay the issuance of some refunds. IRS expects to send out about 616,000 CP54B notices in 1995. IRS officials said that review and approval of the revised notice was taking longer than expected. As of June 21, 1995, the revision had been approved by the National Office Notice Clarity Unit and was being reviewed by the National Automation Advisory Group. That group is to assign a priority for making the computer programming changes necessary to finalize the notice. If the notice is not assigned the highest priority, we are concerned, on the basis of past work, that it will not be revised in time for use during the 1996 tax-filing season, beginning in January 1996. In December 1994, we reported on the lengthy notice-review process and noted that many recommended notice revisions were delayed or never made because of IRS’ limited computer-programming resources. As one way of avoiding computer-programming delays, we recommended that IRS test the feasibility of transferring notices to its Correspondex System—a more modern computer system that produces other types of IRS correspondence. IRS National Office officials told us that they do not plan to apply the revised procedures to filers with prior accounts on the IMF invalid segment who file again using the same name and number combination. Thus, these filers would not need to verify their identities before receiving future refunds, although the mismatch with SSA records may continue to exist. According to IRS data, at least 3.2 million of the 4.3 million accounts on the IMF invalid segment, as of January 1, 1995, will not be subject to the new procedures. Instead, IRS placed a permanent computer code on the accounts so that the system will automatically release future refunds. IRS’ rationale for exempting these accounts from the revised verification procedures is that most of these filers had already responded to a previous CP54B and requiring them to respond again would increase taxpayer burden. But responses to the previous CP54B were done under IRS’ old verification procedures, which, as we noted previously, did not require proof of identity. Thus, IRS has no assurance that the earlier responses were satisfactory. Our analysis of the reasons 58 tax year 1993 returns were posted to the IMF invalid segment with automatic refund release codes raised questions about IRS’ plans. We noted, for example, that 27 of the returns were filed by persons who either used SSNs not issued by SSA or used another individual’s SSN, including 11 filers who used SSNs belonging to children and 5 filers who used SSNs belonging to deceased taxpayers. Under these circumstances, IRS was less certain of filers’ identities than if taxpayers had filed using names and numbers that matched SSA files. Table 1 shows the circumstances under which those 58 returns were posted to the invalid segment of the IMF. Another reason for IRS to reconsider its decision to exclude some filers from the revised procedures is the fraud risk associated with accounts on the IMF invalid segment. Our analysis of 400 refunds of $1,000 or more that were issued to taxpayers whose returns were posted on the IMF invalid segment surfaced only one instance in which a taxpayer appeared to have misstated his wages and withheld taxes. In that instance, a return was filed with a wage and tax statement that had been issued to another person. However, there are other ways to get fraudulent refunds besides claiming improper wages and/or withholdings. IRS has developed a profile of high-risk filers that it uses to help identify potentially fraudulent returns. According to that profile, many filers whose returns are posted to the invalid segment of the IMF pose a higher risk of fraud than filers whose returns are posted to the valid segment. For example, IRS has determined that filers claiming the Earned Income Credit (EIC) are more likely to claim fraudulent refunds than those who do not. In April 1995, IRS’ Internal Audit Office reported that returns on the IMF invalid segment are four times more likely than returns on the valid segment (54 percent versus 12 percent, respectively) to include an EIC claim. Internal Audit also noted that 41 percent of the cases identified through September 1994 by IRS’ EIC Unallowable Program were filed with invalid SSNs. In contrast, according to Internal Audit, returns with invalid SSNs represented only 1 percent of the total individual Form 1040 population. Of the unallowable cases closed by IRS, 84 percent with invalid SSNs had EIC amounts reversed, compared with 69 percent with valid SSNs. Of the 100 returns posted to the IMF invalid segment in our sample, 90 claimed the EIC. Also, the filing status claimed on 40 of the returns in our sample matched another characteristic in IRS’ profile of high-risk filers. IRS’ new verification procedures, if applied to filers with pre-1995 accounts on the IMF invalid segment, could help to limit these risks because they would enable IRS to more easily identify filers who attempt to claim duplicate refunds. Under TSM, IRS plans to access account information on taxpayers, using either the primary or secondary SSN. IRS also plans to consolidate existing, separate taxpayer databases into a single database. With a single database and the ability to access account information on every taxpayer, IRS would be in a much better position to maintain accurate, up-to-date accounts and respond to taxpayer inquiries. Before IRS can effectively implement its plans, it will have to identify and merge multiple taxpayer accounts on its current files. For example, the current master file structure with its valid and invalid segments allows two or more taxpayers to have accounts under the same SSN, or one taxpayer to have several accounts under different numbers. To begin the clean-up process, IRS mailed out 189,000 letters in December 1994 to taxpayers whose returns were posted to the IMF invalid segment because they used an SSN that had not been issued by SSA. The letter instructed taxpayers to contact SSA to obtain a correct SSN. This effort is only a first step, however, and IRS will need to do much more to clean up the rest of its IMF records. IRS’ clean-up task is further complicated because IRS plans to include secondary filers (generally the spouse on a joint return) in its database. According to IRS data, as of February 1995, IRS had at least 47 million IMF accounts with secondary filers. Presently, IRS does not require that secondary IMF filers verify their identities. One particular complication, according to an IRS official, will involve merging the accounts of taxpayers who are secondary filers on the IMF valid segment and primary filers on the invalid segment. Currently, IRS does not try to merge these accounts. Each year, IRS matches the income claimed by taxpayers with the income reported by third parties on information returns. IRS relies on a taxpayer’s name and SSN, as reported on a tax return and associated information returns, to perform the matches. Discrepancies in reported income are used by IRS to detect underreported income or nonfiling of tax returns. In most cases, returns posted to the IMF invalid segment with temporary numbers are not available for use in IRS’ matching program. This occurs because temporary numbers are unique to IRS and cannot be matched against taxpayer identifiers on information documents. Omitting these taxpayers from IRS’ matching program hampers efforts to detect underreported income and nonfiling. In addition, posting returns with incorrect SSNs may complicate IRS’ matching program if information returns report income for a different name and/or SSN. Unless IRS is able to make corrections through the additional research it does to check for erroneous mismatches, false leads could be generated that siphon IRS resources away from more productive cases. IRS has developed a proposal that could alleviate some of the problems associated with matching returns posted with temporary numbers. IRS officials told us that many of the returns assigned temporary numbers involved nonresident or illegal aliens who are not eligible to obtain SSNs. Under the proposal, IRS would assign permanent Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN) to these taxpayers, following a process similar to that used by SSA to verify identities and assign SSNs. Taxpayers with ITINs would then be required to use their ITINs when filing tax returns, and their returns could be posted to the valid segment of the IMF. Persons with ITINs would also be encouraged to use their ITINs when engaging in financial transactions that are subject to information reporting. Those who did so would be included in IRS’ matching program. IRS is currently obtaining public comments on a regulation, signed by the Department of the Treasury on March 9, 1995, to implement the ITIN proposal. Since 1986, the number of accounts on the IMF invalid segment has grown faster than the number of accounts on the valid segment. IRS risks errors when issuing refunds to filers on the IMF invalid segment because it cannot verify a filer’s identity against SSA records. Moreover, some accounts on the IMF invalid segment cannot be included in IRS’ income-matching program. IRS took steps in 1995 that, when fully implemented, could help reduce the number of accounts on the IMF invalid segment. For example, IRS is doing more to verify the identities of taxpayers who file returns with missing or incorrect SSNs, and it plans to issue permanent identification numbers to taxpayers that could be used in IRS’ matching program. We identified several areas where IRS could make additional improvements. IRS has not finished revising the notice used to verify taxpayer identities, and our past work indicates that the revision process has been lengthy. The current version of the notice does not adequately explain IRS’ revised documentation requirements and is causing additional taxpayer contacts. To reduce taxpayer burden and IRS costs, it is important that the revised notice be available for the 1996 filing season. IRS is not applying its revised documentation requirements to taxpayers whose returns were posted to the IMF invalid segment prior to 1995 and who have a permanent refund release code on their accounts. Our review of accounts posted on the IMF invalid segment that would be exempted under IRS’ plan and IRS’ profile of high-risk filers raises questions about whether IRS should exclude such filers from its revised documentation requirements. Verification of these filers’ accounts should also help complete the cleanup of taxpayer accounts that will be necessary as part of IRS’ modernization. To improve the processing of returns with missing or incorrect SSNs and help clean up accounts currently posted on the IMF invalid segment, we recommend that you finalize the CP54B notice in time for use during the 1996 tax-filing season, and apply the revised documentation requirements to taxpayers who filed tax returns that were posted to the IMF invalid segment before 1995 and whose accounts now have a permanent refund release code. We requested comments on a draft of this report from you or your designee. The draft included three proposed recommendations. IRS officials, including the Assistant Commissioner for Taxpayer Services and the Staff Chief for the Director of Submission Processing, provided oral comments in a meeting on June 21, 1995. On the basis of their comments, which are summarized in this section, we modified one of our proposed recommendations and withdrew another. IRS agreed with the other recommendation. Because of the delays inherent in IRS’ current notice-revision process, our draft report included a recommendation that IRS assess the feasibility of producing the CP54B verification notice on the Correspondex System, as discussed in our December 1994 report. The Assistant Commissioner for Taxpayer Services agreed that a revised notice was needed, but she said that the best way to accomplish this is to proceed with the revision process currently under way. She assured us that the revised notice would be available for use during the 1996 filing season. Given the Assistant Commissioner’s assurances, we have revised our recommendation to delete any reference to the use of the Correspondex System. IRS agreed with our recommendation that it apply the revised documentation requirements to the IMF invalid segment accounts with permanent refund release codes. The Staff Chief said that a task force, working in cooperation with internal auditors, is determining the best way to verify accounts placed on the IMF invalid segment before 1995. IRS plans to focus on verifying active accounts, which they estimate make up 38 percent of the accounts on the IMF invalid segment. (An account containing a recent tax return, for example, would be considered active.) IRS also plans to remove IMF invalid segment accounts that have been inactive for a certain period, similar to the treatment of accounts on the valid segment. The task force is also working to reverse the permanent refund release code on the IMF invalid segment accounts that were established before 1995. IRS’ actions, if properly implemented, would respond to our recommendation. We also included a proposed recommendation in our draft report that IRS send back to taxpayers returns that are filed with missing SSNs or SSNs that were not issued by SSA. IRS data indicated that it was less costly to send these returns back to taxpayers than it was to post the returns to the master file, send taxpayers a CP54B notice, and process their responses. IRS disagreed with our proposal on the basis that an individual income tax return with a missing SSN or an SSN that was not issued by SSA is considered a valid return under the Internal Revenue Code. Because the return is valid, they asserted that a court would hold that the statute of limitations on assessment and collection would begin when the return was first filed, even though it was returned to the taxpayer because of the invalid condition. Thus, IRS might limit its ability to recover the return from the taxpayer and take any necessary enforcement actions if the process of resolving the invalid condition became lengthy. We considered IRS’ argument persuasive and have withdrawn our proposed recommendation. This report contains recommendations to you. The head of a federal agency is required by 31 U.S.C. 720 to submit a written statement on actions taken on these recommendations to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight not later than 60 days after the date of this letter. A written statement also must be sent to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with the agency’s first request for appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of this letter. We are sending copies of this report to various congressional committees, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, you can reach me at (202) 512-9110. The following are GAO’s comments on IRS’ Notice CP54B (1994 Version). 1. The wording “REFUND DELAYED” is the only indication at the beginning of the notice that the taxpayer will not be receiving his/her refund and that the refund will be delayed until the taxpayer resolves the discrepancy to IRS’ satisfaction. 2. The notice does not accommodate filers who were issued temporary numbers. It gives instructions on what to do when there are differences in the last name or SSN, but it does not explain what filers with temporary numbers must do to have their refunds released. 3. A taxpayer might presume from the wording in this section that providing the information IRS requests will release the refund, when in fact, the refund would be released only if the new information matches SSA’s records. 4. This section of the notice does not require that a taxpayer send anything back to IRS and, again, does not make it clear that the taxpayer’s refund will not be released until the discrepancy is cleared up. All it says is “If you wish, you may provide IRS with . . . .” Service center staff told us that taxpayers are expected to provide this kind of information, and if it is not provided, IRS will correspond again with taxpayers to obtain it. 5. This section has problems similar to those described in comment 4. It does not require that taxpayers send anything to IRS and thus is not clear about how or on what basis IRS will decide to release the refund. Rachel DeMarcus, Assistant General Counsel Shirley A. Jones, Attorney Advisor The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

GAO reviewed the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) procedures for processing and posting tax returns with missing or incorrect social security numbers (SSN), focusing on: (1) the growth in IRS individual master file (IMF) accounts with missing or incorrect SSN; (2) IRS procedures for verifying the identities of tax return filers; and (3) the potential effect of these procedures on IRS plans to modernize the tax system and on the income-matching program. GAO found that: (1) the average annual growth rate for invalid IMF accounts was significant from 1986 through 1994; (2) IRS has revised its procedures to require taxpayers with missing or incorrect SSN or temporary numbers to provide documentation that verifies their identity; (3) these revised procedures could help reduce the number of invalid IMF accounts when fully implemented; (4) the IRS Tax Modernization System is in jeopardy because the master file structure allows two or more taxpayers to have accounts under the same number, or one taxpayer to have several accounts under different numbers; (5) the IRS income-matching program is hampered by posting returns to IMF invalid accounts; and (6) IRS plans to assign permanent taxpayer identification numbers to filers that are ineligible to obtain SSN and encourage the use of these numbers on information returns.

It’s 8:50 P.M. at the Kelly File studio. The crew dudes finish shining her glass desk, through which viewers can see her shapely legs. Two makeup women, armed with blow-dryer and hair spray, put the finishing touches on her glistening tresses. And Megyn Kelly, Fox News’s breakout prime-time star, girded in a snug black dress and four-inch strappy heels, is champing at the bit to make another presidential contender—this time Jeb Bush—squirm in his seat. “If it’s fair to question Mrs. Clinton for failures leading up to [Benghazi],” she says, looking into the camera at her 2.7 million viewers, “why is it unfair to question Jeb about his brother’s failures leading up to September 11, 2001,” as Donald Trump had just done. She turns the question to Jeb, speaking via satellite video hookup. “Is it a double standard?” “Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” replies Bush. She points out that Jeb’s in fifth place in the polls, and she wants to know, “What would it take to make you get out [of the race]?” Bush, looking as if he were wearing a scratchy, too tight suit, replies that he’s going nowhere. In the face of Donald Trump’s taunts, what’s his plan? “To me,” says Kelly, “it seems like you don’t know what to do. You’re like, ‘How am I supposed to respond to this?’ ” He smiles forcibly and tries for a joke. “We’re in the same boat, Megyn,” he says, referring to Trump’s recent attacks on Kelly. She beams appreciatively but refuses the bait. “Well, but I’m not running for president.” The moment the interview is over, Bush bolts from his chair, grim and grouchy. The control room, alight with numerous monitors, is buzzing with excitement. “He’s not happy. I didn’t even get to thank him,” says a young associate. “You can tell he’s on edge,” calls out another. “All through the interview, fake smile, fake smile. Soon as it’s done, no smile.” Unnerving would-be leaders, blowhards, and didacts from both parties has become Kelly’s specialty, as the world learned in August. The first television journalist to call Trump out face-to-face on his obnoxiousness, she kicked off the first Republican debate by calmly cataloguing Trump’s sexism in a single question. To recall: “You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.... You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton … that you are part of the war on women?” Trump tried to laugh it off mid-question, saying that those insults were directed only at Rosie O’Donnell, but Kelly wouldn’t let him off. He then complained, “Honestly, Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be based on the way you’ve treated me.” The following night, he suggested to Fox News’s rival network CNN that the reason she was so hostile was that she was probably menstruating: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” When that didn’t rattle her, Trump lashed out on Twitter, calling her a “lightweight,” re-tweeting that she was a “bimbo,” and stoking his supporters to boycott her show. Kelly took the high road and said on-air that she had no reason to apologize to Trump, and that she would “continue doing my job without fear or favor.” Kelly’s Trump episode was one in a string of satisfying male-ego deflations that have helped her surpass cable’s biggest news star, Bill O’Reilly, in the key demographic of 25–54 for three months in 2015. Her occasional, yet highly entertaining, bucking of the conservative party line has attracted more independent-minded viewers and has even earned praise from liberals such as Chris Matthews, Joy Behar, and Gayle King. As of late, passersby have been calling out versions of “It’s not too late to come to the other side!” Still, some media types warn against getting too excited over Kelly. As Bill Maher put it, “We think of Megyn Kelly as the sane one over there at Fox News. It’s just because she’s surrounded by Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. She’s like the blonde dragon girl on Game of Thrones. Everyone else is a zombie or a dwarf or fucking their sister, so she looks normal.” Whatever the case, Kelly has become a feminist icon of sorts—the sort who won’t actually call herself a feminist. Perhaps this is because Kelly works at Fox News, where “feminists” are in the same scary category as “liberals” who wage war on Christmas each year. Perhaps, as she claims, it’s because her accomplishments speak for themselves and have nothing to do with her gender. Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier. Styled by Jessica Diehl. Picture Perfect ‘Steve Martin said, ‘Be so good they can’t ignore you.’ I love that,” says Kelly, kicking back in her no-frills office at Fox headquarters in Midtown Manhattan. She’s in skinny jeans, hair pulled back, her wide eyes rimmed with dark eyeliner, looking more the take-charge hot New York mama than glossy Fox News anchor. Consider, she says, her own role model, Oprah Winfrey. “In all her years coming up … she never wallowed in any sort of victimhood.... She didn’t play the gender card and she didn’t play the race card. She was just so good we couldn’t ignore her. That’s my example…. Just get to the table and then do better than everybody else.” She adds with a laugh, “But every so often, as all [women] know, you have to stop and slap somebody around a little bit who doesn’t understand that we are actually equals and not second-class citizens.” By William Regan/Globe Photos. It’s tempting to dismiss her “Just do it” motto as simplistic. Easy for her to say—she has obvious genetic good fortune, plus a husband, Doug Brunt, who is straight out of central casting for the Perfect Guy: a handsome, successful novelist, who is on call with their three young children (sons Thatcher and Yates and daughter Yardley) when she’s working. (Her normal workday stretches from the mid-afternoon until about 11 P.M.) But, in fact, her ascent has been marked by taking risks and obsessive preparation—the kind she did when she was a successful trial lawyer, her first career, until age 33. Perhaps more relevant, at a network whose on-air women seem to fit a certain mold, Kelly hasn’t sacrificed much of who she really is; she’s even cut her hair and started occasionally wearing pants on-air. It helps that she’s a woman of preternatural charisma, with star power closer to that of Julia Roberts than to, say, Norah O’Donnell or Erin Burnett—two other beautiful TV newswomen who have made it big but have never exactly exploded. Now pulling down a reported annual pay package of $6-$9 million, she’s the alpha girl at the dinner party, the one telling the stories, cracking the jokes, the one who is nice to everyone but leaves people wanting more. Her ego is robust—in her mind it’s obvious why she’s a star—yet she enjoys taking the piss out of herself for a laugh. Witness just a few minutes of interaction with her husband, who has joined us for breakfast near their apartment on the Upper West Side: “I was just telling her that I was actually voted most popular in the eighth grade. It’s come to that.” When Brunt remarks that she excels in every area of her life, even cooking—“There’s three or four things she cooks that are awesome … that chicken thing you do?”—she shoots back, “I just want you to know that that was complete and total bullshit.” Gentle ribbing seems to be Kelly’s go-to mode. When Brunt apologizes to me for giving me his novels in a crumpled brown grocery bag, she doesn’t miss a beat: “It would have been a little much if you’d gift-wrapped them.” Brunt is hopelessly enamored. In his opinion, “she’s like a combination of Walter Cronkite, Barbara Walters, Oprah Winfrey, and then a Grisham character who’s a scrappy guy from the other side of the tracks who has a rare gift for the law, in a Grace Kelly package, with a little Larry the Cable Guy sprinkled on top.” Walter Cronkite might be a stretch. The Kelly File, which Kelly bills as a “news” show as opposed to an opinion show, like Hannity or The O’Reilly Factor, is made up largely of the kind of stories you’d find on many other Fox News shows at any other time. Some recurring themes are political correctness run amok, the left-wing slant of the mainstream media, and the question of Hillary Clinton’s trustworthiness. (Hint: “She’s lying! She’s absolutely lying!,” says the mother of one of the Benghazi victims in a teaser.) Not so infrequently, the right-of-center axis roams into Hannity territory, like a recurring bit on “Ahmed, the clock boy,” who was mistakenly arrested after school officials thought he might be building a bomb—and then got invited to the White House. Not only was the clock really lame, The Kelly File told us, “just wait until you see what we found on his father’s Facebook page.” (Supposedly it called 9/11 an American hoax to encourage a war against Islam.) A go-to guest on the subject of race and law enforcement is Mark Fuhrman, the disgraced race-baiting policeman from the O. J. Simpson trial. Courtesy of Fox News Channel. Fair Enough? And yet … it’s not uncommon for the casual left-of-center viewer to say, in spite of himself, I kind of like her. In Kelly’s hands, these right-wing red-meat stories are presented with a varying degree of balance and often treated with humanity and wit. She’ll muster outrage at political correctness, but it feels rooted in common sense, not just derived from talking points. When, for example, a Muslim activist takes issue with Somalian writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s being given a public forum for views that are critical of Islam, Kelly shoots him down: “When you undergo genital mutilation, you may have a thing or two to say about it!” On the other side of the political spectrum, she can demonstrate reason and sympathy when encountering vicious, right-wing small-mindedness. “There’s so much hate for gays and lesbians and transgendered people,” she tells a Fox News contributor who thinks the transgender Chaz Bono is a danger to America. “You seem to be adding to the hate.” She has no patience for talk that’s above the audience’s head. When a general talks about rebels “putting pressure on Assad, particularly Jabat al-Nusra, from Aleppo to Damascus,” she interrupts: “Hold on—nobody understood what you just said. Say that in plain English.” She won’t sell her soul for a ratings bonanza. When Trump made the shocking suggestion that Muslims should be banned from entering the U.S., Kelly rightfully blasted the television media for giving him 18 hours of airtime over the course of 24 hours. Trump had played them, she said, and they were “marching like lemmings.” And she owns her sexuality in a way that feels real and lighthearted. When Facebook C.O.O. Sheryl Sandberg recently came on the show to talk about how men who helped more with the housework had happier family lives and more sex, Kelly (who has talked about her breasts on the Howard Stern show and posed for racy shoots in men’s magazines) cheered. “We have been selling it all wrong in the past! More action, all right? That’s all you need to know, guys,” she said to the camera, giving a thumbs-up. “Do some laundry.” Prominent female journalists from rival networks can’t help but praise her uncanny charm. “She doesn’t talk down to her audience,” says Campbell Brown, who hosted her own prime-time show on CNN and now leads a nonprofit in education. “There is none of the sanctimonious, condescending attitude. And, frankly, none of the hate. I think people are sick of these prime-time chest thumpers characterizing the other side as evil.” Jessica Yellin, a former chief White House correspondent for CNN, says, “She defies all the pigeonholing that usually happens to women on TV. She’s smart, strong, sexy, fierce, sympathetic all at once.” Veteran newswoman Katie Couric praises her dogged interviewing skills, crucial when interrogating dodging politicians. “She takes no prisoners and takes no BS,” says Couric. “And I’ve noticed that she’s a really good listener. Sometimes the tendency is to go down a laundry list of questions and to not say, ‘Wait a minute.’ It requires you to think on your feet and to take the conversation in a totally different direction.” In the Zone Kelly, who was raised in Syracuse and a suburb of Albany, the third child of a nurse and an education professor, fairly arrived on this earth the Queen Bee. “I distinctly remember being very young,” she recalls, “sixth grade maybe, and being at a party and hearing the mothers discuss the children. And the mothers said, ‘Well, it’s very clear who’s the leader in the group.’ And they were talking about me!” In high school, she took public speaking and found she got a rush from presenting in public. She felt bound for a career in journalism, but when she applied to Syracuse University’s communications program, it turned her down, so she majored in political science there instead. “Now they tell people I went there,” says Kelly, who delights in recalling past instances when people stupidly underestimated her. “I’m like, ‘Oh, I did not!’ ” She then went on to Albany Law School, after which she was $100,000 in the hole with student loans. By age 33 she was married to a doctor (her first husband), was working at the prestigious law firm Jones Day, had paid back her loans, and was on her way to making partner (“And you can check me on that”) when she realized she wasn’t fulfilled. “I had this little voice in me saying, ‘I am more interesting than this. I am more interested than this.’ ” With the help of a friend, she cut a demo tape and started cold-calling local stations in the larger markets. She landed a freelance job at WJLA, the ABC affiliate in Washington. While WJLA was stalling in negotiating the full-time deal she wanted, she’d sent her tape to Fox News Washington-bureau chief Kim Hume, wife of Fox News anchorman Brit Hume. The couple became her champions. She told Brit that she believed in Fox News’s mission and that the mainstream media weren’t balanced. He passed her tape along to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, who scooped her up to be a reporter. “I could have kept doing [law], and I think I was in what my sister-in-law calls my ‘zone of excellence,’ ” Kelly says, with characteristic self-assurance. “But I chose a different path, and I made a big financial sacrifice when I first started, and wound up getting into what she calls my ‘zone of genius.’ ” “Genius,” admittedly, took some time. “This is me on day one,” she says, handing over her Fox identification card. In the photo, she looks like a nervous co-ed. “Picture that woman. I don’t want to say I was scared shitless, because I knew I could do it. But I also knew I wasn’t very good yet.” In her early reports, delivered from Washington to Hume, Kelly is stiff, as if doing an imitation of what a perfect news correspondent sounds like. (“Now watch the poise and confidence here,” she would joke on her show seven years later, airing her very first clip.) In 2006, thanks to her legal background, Hume put her on the Duke lacrosse-team rape case, sensing that the story wasn’t what it seemed. Her reporting got the attention of two men who would change her life, personally and professionally. Brunt, who’d gone to Duke, developed a crush on this whip-smart looker. Through a mutual friend, he concocted a fake business meeting as an excuse to go to Washington and meet her. They clicked immediately. While they were falling in love, he told her, “By the way, if you don’t want children, you should tell me soon.” As it happened, Kelly had long believed that she didn’t want kids, but she had recently experienced an epiphany: “I’ll never forget being in my own bed and thinking to myself, Oh my God! It’s not that I don’t want children. It’s that I didn’t want to have children with my first husband.” Thirty-seven when she married Brunt, Kelly got right to work on that front. Meanwhile, Ailes saw that he had a star on his hands—if only she weren’t so determined to be perfect. As she recalls, he called her into his office and said, “Go out there and make some mistakes.... And don’t be afraid of taking risks. You’re trying too hard. And I have news for you. You don’t need to be perfect. No one will like you if you are, by the way.” Kelly concluded that, for her, taking risks chiefly meant using humor at her own expense. “Or even humor at all,” she says, “telling a stupid joke and maybe they won’t find it funny. Which happens a lot, by the way.” An on-air colleague, whom she doesn’t name, told her that trying to be funny was too risky, and attempted to talk her out of it. Kelly listened to Ailes instead, and it unlocked her voice. It was their Up Close & Personal moment—without the romance and all the mushy liberal ideals. The star-in-the-making was groomed by appearing weekly on The O’Reilly Factor, during which she and O’Reilly developed a bit of shtick: sassy daughter takes on cranky old Dad. (He would, and still does, call her “Miss Megyn” and has sometimes referred to her as an “anchorette.”) Over the years, she has challenged him on everything from the number of opportunities given to African-Americans to how to talk to women more respectfully: “You have a penchant for that term ‘Calm down’ [to women]…. It’s patronizing.” Her ammo has been simply to have facts at the ready. “I’ve told him many times on the air, ‘You’re arguing with your heart and not with your head.’ ” She was given her own daytime show, America Live, in 2010. Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier. Styled by Jessica Diehl. Defeating the male blowhard by being fully prepared became a Kelly specialty. The rest of her career ascent would be littered with the bruised bodies of guys who had it coming—all while she continued to have babies. In 2011, when right-wing radio host Mike Gallagher remarked on his show, in reference to Kelly’s maternity leave for her second child, that maternity leave was a “racket,” Kelly, upon her return, invited him on her show. “Maternity leave? It’s a ‘racket’? … What a moronic thing to say! … What is it about getting pregnant and carrying a baby nine months that you don’t think deserves a few months off so bonding and recovery can take place?” Gallagher tried to double down. “Do men get maternity leave, Megyn?” “Guess what, honey—they do. It’s called Family Medical Leave Act.” Next up was Karl Rove, Republican strategist and Fox News’s chief political analyst. It was Election Night 2012, and the election desk at Fox News had reported that Ohio—and the presidency—had gone to Obama. But Rove, sitting at the desk with Kelly and co-anchor Bret Baier, knew better. He spat out a whole bunch of numbers about the Ohio vote he was hearing about—in this county and that—which he was confident would lead to a Romney victory. “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better or is this real?” Kelly asked. The clip of this humiliating moment made the rounds; even Jon Stewart celebrated her moxie. Less than a year—and another baby—later, she was given her own show in prime time. The hits kept coming. In May 2013, she gave the Megyn treatment to Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs and contributor Erick Erickson, head of RedState.com, after they’d bemoaned a report that in 40 percent of households a woman was the breadwinner. To Dobbs, it was a sign of the end of civilization; to Erickson, a perversion of the natural world’s order in which male animals are dominant and female animals are submissive. “I’ll start with you, Erick,” she said. “What makes you dominant and me submissive, and who died and made you scientist in chief?! … I’ve got a list of studies here that say your science is wrong.” Erickson scrambled, while Dobbs, getting rattled, tried the patronizing approach. “Excuse me. Let me just finish what I’m saying, O Dominant One.” Sheryl Sandberg, who didn’t know her, immediately saw a woman who leaned in hard, and promptly invited her to Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit. “Megyn speaks truth to power,” says Sandberg, who has become a friend. “She’s tough, fair, and relentlessly brave.” Today, Erickson admits, “She definitely got the better of me. It was a wake-up call. You’ve got to be more responsible about what you say. Particularly when you have a daughter and a wife.” Courtesy of Fox News Channel. The Donald Ducks Trump probably didn’t imagine he’d be next. After all, in his mind, what beautiful woman didn’t want to go to bed with him, right? When I remark to Kelly and her husband that Trump sounded like a jilted suitor after she asked her now famous sexism question, they share a knowing look, and Kelly proceeds cautiously. In the past, she says, “he would send me press clippings about me that he would just sign ‘Donald Trump.’ And he called from time to time to compliment a segment. I didn’t know why he was doing that. And then when he announced that he was running for president, it became more clear. But I can’t be wooed. I was never going to love him, and I was never going to hate him.” In preparation for moderating her first presidential debate, Fox News research assistants put together massive binders on the candidates, on everything they’d ever said on every topic. As she read Trump’s, a couple of themes began to emerge. The one that hadn’t been explored was his sexism. Knowing that if Hillary were to be the nominee she’d hit him with that issue, Kelly had her first question. “I wrote it. I researched each line item myself. It was interesting to me after the debate when people started fact-checking my question. My own reaction was ‘Bring it on.’ You think I’d go out there and ask a question like that at the first G.O.P. debate without making sure I was bulletproof on every single word?” She drafted and re-drafted it, and showed it to her fellow moderators, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, whose initial reaction, Baier recalls, was “Wow, let’s think about this … there clearly was going to be pushback.” Kelly almost didn’t get a chance to ask it. The morning of the debate, while doing debate prep, she got violently ill. But, she says, “I would have crawled over a pile of hot coals to make it to that debate. No one was going to be sitting in for me, reading my questions. And I can say with confidence that neither Bret nor Chris wanted to read my questions—for many reasons!” She did the debate with a blanket over her legs and a bucket to throw up in by her side. The Kelly-Trump exchange made headlines worldwide, and Kelly, much to her alarm, had become the news. “I felt like Alice Through the Looking Glass,” she says. To casual viewers, it seemed an obvious win for Kelly. But Trump supporters unloaded a truckload of venom, reportedly sending her death threats, tweeting that she was a “c--t” and a “hag.” The candidate was intent on taking her down, with his top deputy re-tweeting, “gut her.” For the folks at Fox News, it wasn’t immediately obvious how to respond. Trump’s supporters made up a good chunk of the Fox News viewership, and Trump was a “friend” to a number of on-air personalities, who seemed terrified to lose his favor. Hannity, Geraldo Rivera, and Brian Kilmeade tweeted rather limp pleas for him to stick to the issues. A few days after the debate, Steve Doocy began an interview with Trump with the hopeful and slightly tragic words “Glad we’re friends again.” According to a report in New York magazine by Gabriel Sherman (author of the recent book about Fox News, The Loudest Voice in the Room), Ailes wavered in his support for his anchor. Kelly says this is “complete nonsense.” “I talked to her on the phone every day,” says Ailes. “Whenever there is a crisis Megyn is a cool customer.” According to Kelly, “We were eye to eye on what we both wanted. Which was to move forward.” Immediately following the debate, her viewership climbed by 9 percent. ||||| Megyn Kelly and Salon have complicated relationship, certainly, but we do respect her for swimming against her network's various rising tides, even if we're disappointed that she doesn't do so more often. But it's difficult to read Vanity Fair's new profile of her and not wonder whether this is the sort of story someone like the person we believe Kelly to be would actually appreciate. Consider its second sentence: "The crew dudes finish shining her glass desk, through which viewers can see her shapely legs." While it may be true that her legs are "shapely" and that producers at Fox News emphasize that by seating her at a glass table and, presumably, suggesting that she dress in a certain fashion, it's not exactly an intellectually flattering way to begin a profile about a professional journalist. Nor is emphasizing the fact that she'll be interviewing Jeb Bush while "girded in a snug black dress and four-inch strappy heels." But Evgenia Peretz's interest in Kelly is supremely superficial -- the cumulative effect of all of Peretz's flattery is that Kelly's success is a product of how she looks and not, as she's repeatedly quoted in it as suggesting, despite it. For example, Kelly quotes Steve Martin saying "be so good they can't ignore you," which Peretz follows up by noting that Kelly's "skinny jeans, hair pulled back, her wide eyes rimmed with dark eyeliner, looking more the take-charge hot New York mama than glossy Fox News anchor." Peretz refuses to allow the reader to forget what Kelly looks like, and focuses on how she puts "all the male bullies...in their place," which while true, strongly suggests that her appearance is an integral part of why she's able to do so. This isn't to say that journalists don't take advantage of every edge they have -- Joan Didion famously used her bikini-clad persona to infiltrate pockets of American culture that would've been otherwise closed to her -- but Megyn Kelly isn't Joan Didion. She's not diagnosing American culture so much as documenting it, and that doesn't require the kind of subterfuge Peretz's dogged attention to her appearance suggests she uses to trip up the likes of Jeb Bush and Donald Trump. The simple fact is that Kelly's smarter than either -- she outwits them not because she possesses the "star power...of Julia Roberts," but because she's capable of "[u]nnerving would-be leaders, blowhards, and didacts from both parties" on the strength of her intelligence alone.

The new Vanity Fair has Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly on its cover, and the headline makes clear the tenor of the piece: "Blowhards Beware: Megyn Kelly Will Slay You Now." Evgenia Peretz writes that Kelly is a "feminine icon of sorts," unafraid to go after "windbags" on both the left and right. Among other things, it reveals that her role model is Oprah Winfrey ("she was just so good we couldn't ignore her"), that her next career goal is to have an in-depth interview show along the lines of Charlie Rose's, and that she moderated the August Republican debate—the one in which she called out Donald Trump for sexism—with a bucket nearby because she was sick and feared she'd need to throw up. Of that memorable question to Trump, when she reminded him of previous remarks about women: “I wrote it. I researched each line item myself. It was interesting to me after the debate when people started fact-checking my question. My own reaction was ‘Bring it on.’ You think I’d go out there and ask a question like that at the first GOP debate without making sure I was bulletproof on every single word?” Click for the full profile. Or click for a critique at Salon that considers the story "fawning" and even a little sexist.

IRS’ 10,000 customer service representatives are located at 25 call sites around the country. In 1999, IRS began operating this network as a single call center providing round-the-clock service. Managing the network in this way enabled IRS to route calls from three separate toll-free lines—one each for questions about tax law, account services, and refund status—to the sites with the shortest hold times among those customer service representatives assigned to answer questions concerning those issues. (Fig. 1 illustrates call routing within IRS’ toll-free network.) Before IRS began operating the network as a single call center, taxpayer calls were routed by area codes or by the percentage of staff the site had scheduled to work. Calls routed in this manner could not be easily rerouted when a site was experiencing frequent busy signals or lengthy hold times. Although individual call site operating hours and call handling responsibilities varied, IRS expanded its overall toll-free network coverage in January 1999—from 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. IRS’ call center network is controlled by the Operations Center. In general, the Operations Center is responsible for forecasting call demand—the numbers, types, and timing of calls IRS is expected to receive throughout the planning year on each of its three toll-free lines (tax law, accounts, and refunds); planning the routing of calls among call sites, based on each call site’s assigned toll-free line and subject coverage responsibilities; developing staffing requirements for each call site and monitoring site adherence to those requirements; and monitoring network call traffic status and, when necessary, rerouting calls among the sites to optimize service. The Operations Center develops call site staffing requirements weekly, with call site input and agreement. These requirements prescribe the numbers of trained customer service representatives that are to be available and ready each half-hour to take calls on each assigned subject category and toll-free line. The call sites, in turn, are expected to adhere to the staffing requirements prescribed by the Operations Center. They are generally responsible for recruiting, training, and assigning customer service representatives in sufficient numbers and skills to enable them to meet prescribed staffing requirements. Collectively, IRS call centers employed nearly 10,000 customer service representatives in October 2000. The top picture in figure 2 shows Operations Center officials monitoring network operations, while the picture on the right shows a representative handling a call at IRS’ call center in Atlanta. To address our objectives, we interviewed IRS officials involved in managing toll-free telephone operations, obtained supporting documentation, and reviewed related reports by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). Although we did not independently verify IRS officials’ responses to our questions, we reviewed them and related documentation for consistency. IRS’ use of other resources will be discussed in a forthcoming report on toll-free performance during the 2000 filing season. We used our human capital self-assessment checklist to obtain an understanding of human capital management, its importance in achieving federal agency operational goals, and the framework that we developed to assist agency leaders in evaluating their human capital management practices. Because people are a key resource for carrying out agencies’ missions, we also reviewed the Government Performance and Results Act’s requirements for agency strategic planning, goal-setting, and performance measurement. To identify human capital management practices used by other organizations in telephone customer service, we obtained information from several sources, including our August 2000 report on human capital management practices of public and private organizations;the 1995 National Performance Review report on best practices in telephone service; and literature on call center management, including Incoming Calls Management Institute information and reports. We did our work at IRS’ National Office in Washington, D.C.; the Office of the Chief Customer Service Field Operations in Atlanta; the Customer Service Operations Center in Atlanta; and six of IRS’ 25 call sites. As agreed with your office, we judgmentally selected the six sites to ensure geographic coverage and other characteristics and, therefore, cannot project our results to all 25 call sites. Because IRS began providing 24-hour coverage in 1999, we included the two call sites that operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and four sites operating fewer than 24 hours a day. Because some call sites were colocated with IRS service centers that had large labor pools from which the sites might recruit staff, the six sites included three that were colocated with service centers and three that were not. To understand human capital management practices within the context of IRS’ new organizational and operational structure, our sample includes three sites that were designated to serve taxpayers with incomes from wages and investments and three sites that were designated to serve small business and self-employed taxpayers. Since differences in site staffing levels could lead to differences in their human capital management practices, we selected two sites each from the low, middle, and high ranges of staffing levels among the 25 call sites—less than 200 staff, between 200 and 400, and more than 400, respectively. The characteristics of the six sites are shown in table 1. We performed our work between May 1999 and October 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The comments are discussed near the end of this report and are reprinted in appendix II. IRS faces an annual challenge in determining the staffing level for its toll- free telephone customer service operations. IRS has not established a long-term, desired level-of-telephone-service goal based on the needs of taxpayers and the costs and benefits of meeting them, and then determined what staffing level is needed to achieve that service level. Rather, IRS annually determines the level of funding it will seek for its customer service workforce, based on its judgment of how to best balance its efforts to assist taxpayers and to ensure their compliance with tax laws, and then calculates the expected level of service that funding level will provide. IRS’ approach to setting this goal is inconsistent with federal guidance on strategic planning, which calls for agencies to develop strategic goals covering at least a 5-year period and to determine the staffing and other resources needed to achieve the goals. IRS’ approach is also inconsistent with industry practices, which base their goals and staffing on customer needs. Without a long-term level-of-service goal, as well as annual goals aimed at achieving the long-term goal over time, IRS lacks meaningful targets for strategically planning and managing call center performance and measuring improvement. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Commissioner stated that IRS planned to set strategic goals and staff to meet those goals. IInn the absence of a long-term goal, and multiyear plans for reaching it, IRS has estimated the service it could provide based on different staffing levels. For example, when formulating its fiscal year 2000 budget, IRS estimated that it would receive over 100 million calls on its three toll-free lines throughout the fiscal year and that its customer service representatives could handle an average of 5.6 calls per hour that they were available to take calls. These workload and productivity assumptions were the basis for calculating the expected levels of service IRS could provide with different staffing levels. Specifically, with customer service representative levels ranging from 8,291 to 10,800 full-time- equivalent staff, IRS estimated that it could achieve levels of service ranging from 58 to 80 percent, respectively. Because of the need to balance service and compliance activities within overall staffing budget limitations, IRS decided to request funding at the lower level, establishing a 58-percent level-of-service goal for fiscal year 2000 and a 60-percent level for fiscal year 2001. A long-term, results-oriented goal is important because its provides a meaningful sense of direction as well as a yardstick for measuring the results of operations and evaluating the extent of improvements resulting from changes in resources, new technology, or management of human capital. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 required executive branch agencies to develop multiyear, strategic plans covering at least a 5-year period; describe the human and other resources needed to achieve goals; update these plans at least every 3 years; prepare annual performance plans with annual performance goals; and measure and report annually on its progress toward meeting those set long-term, output- or results-oriented goals in these strategic plans; goals. Under the act, strategic plans are the starting point for agencies to set annual performance goals aimed at achieving their strategic goals over time. As part of the strategic planning process, agencies are required to consult with Congress and to solicit the views of other stakeholders who might be affected by the agencies’ activities. Unlike IRS, officials at all seven public and private call center operations we visited as part of our August 2000 report said that they determined staffing requirements based on their customers’ needs and clearly articulated service-level goals—that is, the percentage of calls to be answered within a given time frame. For example, the Social Security Administration (SSA)—an agency that is also subject to federal budget constraints, had a goal of 95 percent of its callers getting through on its toll-free line within 5 minutes of their first attempt. This goal was established with input and support from Congress and top SSA leadership as part of a government wide effort to improve customer service. According to an SSA associate deputy commissioner, the focus on improving telephone customer service followed a period of very poor service in the early and mid-1990s, when as many as 49 percent of callers got busy signals when they called the toll-free number. The associate deputy said that congressional stakeholders continue to monitor SSA’s toll-free telephone operations, resulting in continued support by SSA management to allocate the resources needed to meet established goals. Other studies have also documented the importance of setting service- level goals based on customers’ needs. One guide to call center management for practitioners that we reviewed underscored the importance of service-level goals. It described service level as “the core value” at the heart of effective call center management, without which, answers to many important questions, including “How many staff do you need?” would be left to chance. It said service-level goals should be realistic, understood by everyone in the organization, taken seriously, and funded adequately. While the guide also recommended benchmarking, formally or informally, with competitors or similar organizations, it stated each organization should determine an appropriate service level for its call centers, considering its unique circumstances. These considerations should include the labor and telephone equipment costs of answering the call, the value of the call to the organization, and how long callers are willing to hold for service. IRS recognizes the need to establish long-term goals and is considering adopting some of the measures used by other organizations and establishing goals for those measures. For fiscal year 2001, for example, IRS plans to measure the percentage of callers who reach IRS within 30 seconds. While IRS has not established a long-term goal for this measure, it has set an interim goal of 49 percent for fiscal year 2001. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Commissioner stated that IRS had instituted an agencywide strategic planning process in March 2000 that links the budget and available resources to its strategies and improvement projects. According to the Commissioner, IRS’ fiscal year 2002 Strategic Plan and Budget will include a 74 percent level-of-service goal, with a goal of reaching 85 to 90 percent by fiscal year 2003. Also, IRS had an initiative under way to improve workload planning to ensure that customer needs are considered during the planning and budgeting process. The six call sites we visited faced challenges in successfully recruiting, training, retaining, and scheduling customer service representatives. According to site officials, these challenges included difficulties recruiting representatives due to job characteristics, training representatives and keeping them proficient, retaining skilled representatives, and scheduling representatives to meet forecasted staffing requirements. Officials at five sites said they experienced some degree of difficulty in recruiting representatives because of job characteristics such as the seasonal nature of the positions, undesirable work hours, or the stressfulness of the work. Nevertheless, five of the sites were able to fill their vacant positions. One site was unable to fill its needs and had concerns about the suitability of the persons hired. According to officials at this latter site, due to the limited time between the date they were provided the number of positions to fill and the time that the new employees had to report for work, the officials did not have sufficient time to interview all applicants before hiring them. Officials at each IRS call site were responsible for hiring representatives for their location, including deciding what recruiting methods and applicant screening tools to use. All six sites used some combination of conventional recruiting methods, such as newspaper advertisements and college campus recruiting. To determine the suitability of applicants, beyond the basic qualifications for the position, officials at four sites interviewed applicants before hiring them, and most used interview techniques to determine how applicants might behave in typical work situations. Two of these four sites also administered a five-question, tax- related math test to assess a candidate’s basic math and analytical skills. In an effort to improve its recruiting for customer service representatives, IRS is in the early stages of developing a national recruiting strategy. As part of this plan, IRS is determining where it should target its recruiting efforts. IRS is identifying sites where IRS’ salary and benefits make it a competitive employer in the local job market and sites that have trouble recruiting and retaining suitable applicants. Officials believe this will help IRS determine which sites should be growth sites for hiring telephone customer service representatives. According to officials at the call sites we visited, the many obstacles that affected their ability to train customer service representatives and keep them proficient included the broad range of complex topics representatives must address, inadequate resources, the cyclical nature of taxpayer demand, reassignment of tax topics among representatives, and the lack of a formal mechanism to identify individual refresher training needs. Each year, IRS must train thousands of customer service representatives in a broad range of topics, and according to officials at the six sites we visited, they sometimes had to do so without adequate resources. Topics range from the status of refunds to more complicated issues such as capital gains or losses. In fiscal year 1999, the standard training curriculum provided by all sites generally included periods of classroom instruction, followed by periods of on-the-job training that were roughly half the length of the classroom instruction. This training was delivered incrementally over a 3-year period, between the busy filing seasons, during which IRS receives the bulk of its toll-free calls. The training program also included annual tax law/procedural update training. However, after customer service representatives received their initial training, they generally did not receive subsequent refresher training despite the cyclical nature of the work. Officials also cited a shortage of instructors, limited training time, and outdated training materials as other factors that affected their ability to effectively train customer service representatives. For example, officials at the one site that did not hire the number of representatives authorized said they did not have enough instructors to provide the necessary training. Officials at three sites said that they did not have sufficient time to fully train representatives before their peak season because they did not receive timely notice of when, and how many, they could hire. Officials at four sites also said that training materials provided by the National Office were frequently outdated. Keeping customer service representatives proficient was also a challenge for the sites due to the cyclical nature of taxpayer demand and changes to the topics representatives were expected to know. The frequency of the calls and the topics covered varied throughout the year. The bulk of the calls are generally received during the busy filing season. For example, more than 57.6 of the 79.6 million toll-free calls made to IRS in fiscal year 2000, or 72 percent were made from January through June. In addition, calls received from January through April predominantly involved tax law topics, while calls received after April mainly involved account- and refund-related topics. Consequently, customer service representatives could go long periods, such as months between filing seasons or even years since topic training was completed, without receiving calls to reinforce their experience on some of the topics for which they were trained. Moreover, this situation was compounded when IRS implemented centralized call routing in 1999. In conjunction with this change, IRS consolidated the number of subject categories, which ranged from 40 to 125 depending on the site, and reassigned representatives to a broader group of 31 categories. This was done without ensuring that they had adequate training or experience. According to a site official, inadequate training is one factor reducing the accuracy of IRS responses to tax law and account calls. From 1998 to 1999, for example, network accuracy for account calls decreased from 87.9 to 81.7 percent, according to IRS’ weekly customer service snapshot report dated September 30, 1999. Officials at the sites we visited also said that the lack of a formal mechanism to identify which representatives needed refresher training hindered their ability to keep their representatives proficient. Officials have records of specific training each representative has received, but they do not have a method for assessing individual competency gaps—i.e., between knowledge and skills needed to respond to calls and current proficiency—to quantify each representative’s refresher training needs. Although IRS had developed such a system and began using it in December 1998, a customer service training official said testing was not done consistently among the call sites, and refresher training was not provided to meet identified needs. The official also said a lack of funding and uncertainty of future organizational developments led IRS to discontinue the system in 1999. Because IRS does not have a system for assessing competency gaps to identify the specific refresher training needs of individual representatives, call sites waste scarce training resources trying to improve the performance of customer service representatives. For example, officials said they sometimes send groups of representatives to refresher training, knowing that some representatives will probably receive training they do not need. This happens because the course covers several subjects and each representative probably needs some of the training but most representatives probably do not need all of the training. Providing unnecessary training wastes resources that would otherwise be available for representatives who need additional training. “Fundamentally, we are attempting the impossible. We are expecting employees and our managers to be trained in areas that are far too broad to ever succeed, and our manuals and training courses are, therefore, unmanageable in scope and complexity…. The next step is to rethink what we should do at each site in order to achieve greater site specialization.” Because of the problems involved in attempting to provide the full range of training to all customer service representatives, in fiscal year 2000, IRS began refocusing its program to provide just-in-time training, targeted more to the specific types of questions taxpayers call about at different times throughout the year. In addition, as part of restructuring, IRS intends to further specialize training to serve specific taxpayer groups– those who receive income from wages and investments and those who receive income from small businesses or self-employment. IRS’ training related plans do not, however, address the need for identifying competency gaps to determine refresher training needs and target training accordingly. A National Office official informed us that IRS was working with the Office of Personnel Management to “develop competency models, document career paths, and develop assessment instruments for use in training, development, selection, etc., for all of the occupations within the IRS.” Due to the broad scope of this endeavor, however, the official could not say when IRS could expect to establish and implement a mechanism for assessing the refresher training needs of customer service representatives and ensuring that the training is provided. Despite its substantial investment in recruiting and training its network of 10,000 customer service representatives, and concern by National Office and some site officials that attrition was higher than it should be, IRS was not actively monitoring attrition and determining what steps, if any, were needed to address it. Officials do not track how many representatives leave, why they leave, or where they go—data that would be key to a strategy for decreasing attrition. A recent study of experiences at 186 call centers indicates that attrition is a major problem for the industry that is expected to worsen. Some of the organizations we contacted as part of our August 2000 report, however, were not as concerned about their attrition. They said most of their attrition was to other jobs within their organization and thus benefited the overall organization. None of the six sites we visited could provide attrition statistics for customer service representatives for 1998 or 1999. Officials at four sites provided estimates ranging from 13 to 19 percent per year; however, these estimates were just their opinions—they were not based on data collected by the site or the National Office. Although IRS did not monitor attrition, National Office officials and officials at three sites said that attrition was a problem. Only one of the six sites had collected data to determine the reasons why representatives left; officials at the remaining five sites and the National Office had opinions about why representatives left. In addition, IRS did not monitor whether the representatives who left obtained other jobs within or outside of IRS. Examples included the stressful nature of the work, seasonal employment, and better opportunities elsewhere. resources recruiting, hiring, and training representatives, only to lose them to other organizations. Some of the organizations included in our August 2000 report had high attrition, but officials said that attrition from their call centers was usually to other positions within their organizations. For example, at one company, officials noted that policies to promote from within and encourage employee mobility, allowed customer service representatives to move to more senior positions within the company. IRS faces challenges in effectively scheduling staff—that is, having the right number, with the right skills, at the right time, at each call site—due to inaccurate demand forecasting and a complicated staff scheduling process. During the first 6 months of fiscal year 2000, IRS data indicated that for 60 percent of the time call sites were overstaffed or understaffed compared to tolerances established by IRS. In addition, IRS’ method for measuring call sites’ adherence to their schedules was incomplete. Recognizing its problems with forecasting and scheduling, IRS was adapting an automated system similar to those used by other organizations. Inaccurate forecasting of the expected fiscal year 2000 toll-free call volume led to inefficient scheduling and use of staff at some sites. The Operations Center estimated that IRS would receive 100 million calls in fiscal year 2000, but IRS actually received about 80 million—20 percent less than forecasted. Because individual site staffing requirements were based on IRS’ forecasts of the expected numbers, types, and timing of calls, network and individual site work plans were also overstated, resulting in the underutilization of staff at some sites. For example, according to TIGTA’s March 2000 report, for the period December 5, 1998, through March 15, 1999, overstated call demand resulted in staff being scheduled and ready to take calls, but getting no calls, an average of 10 percent of their time at six sites for which data were available. Operations Center officials stated that IRS’ increased use of new routing technologies, combined with continuous organizational and procedural changes, made accurate forecasting difficult. Moreover, they believed the information that IRS had about historical demand was of limited value in predicting future demand for two reasons. First, the historical information was not based on operating 24 hours a day; and second, it was difficult to take into account the constantly changing environment (i.e., tax law changes and increased use of electronic filing and Web-based services). However, the Directors of Customer Account Services, whose staffs have responsibility for providing telephone customer service to wage and investment and small business and self-employed taxpayers, stated that demand forecasting should improve now that IRS has 2 years of information based on operating 24 hours a day. Managers at most of the sites we visited stated that the complicated scheduling process made it difficult to ensure that the appropriate staff were scheduled to work at the right times. They were also concerned about the amount of time they spent scheduling and rescheduling staff in attempting to ensure that they had scheduled the number of staff with the skills the Operations Center prescribed for each half-hour increment of service time. IRS management had not developed a standard system for the sites to use in helping them to develop their site schedules. As a result, each site we visited used its own system to track variables related to each customer service representative, such as the specific work schedule agreement, planned vacation and training, and skill level in answering certain types of calls. Site managers then used these variables to develop site schedules. Managers explained that the large number of variables to consider when doing so (e.g., more than 160 different work schedules at one site) complicated the scheduling process and made it difficult for them to optimize their day-to-day efforts to meet the staffing requirements prescribed by the Operations Center. IRS’ own statistics bear this out. At the times IRS measured, call centers were either understaffed or overstaffed, compared with the Operations Center’s prescribed staffing schedule, 60 percent of the time—24 percent and 36 percent, respectively, during the first 6 months of fiscal year 2000. In measuring site adherence to its prescribed staffing requirements, the Operations Center considers variances of more than 10 percent (of the total number required to be ready for each half-hour period) as overstaffing or understaffing. The Operations Center only partially measures each site’s ability to meet the prescribed staffing requirements. The current measurement system determines if each site had, on average, the required number of customer service representatives available to answer the telephone for each half- hour period. However, the Operations Center did not measure the extent to which sites provided representatives with the required skills. IRS is working with a contractor to refine a commercially available automated system to facilitate forecasting demand, scheduling staff, and tracking adherence to the schedule. The system is expected to use historical data to more accurately forecast call demand (volume, type, and timing of calls) and to centrally compare information on site staff resources (e.g., availability and skills) in relation to forecasted demand to help ensure that network staffing schedules make optimum use of available site staffing. This system is also expected to identify individual site staffing options for meeting network requirements, thus reducing the amount of time site managers spend on scheduling staff. According to Operations Center officials, the contractor was still refining the commercial version of the system because it was not designed to handle the size and complexity of IRS’ toll-free operations (e.g., the number of call sites and customer service representatives and the range of topics). According to the project leader responsible for this system, both system hardware and software were in place at all call centers prior to October 2000, but the software is not yet fully operational. Even though IRS now has 2 years of information based on operating 24 hours a day, it did not gather that data in a consistent format. The system’s forecasting and scheduling capability will not be usable until IRS has collected at least 1 year of call demand data in a consistent format. The project leader was not sure when IRS would have these data because data collection efforts were delayed in order to make changes that would allow IRS to capture more data than originally planned and in a reconfigured format. Also, the planned transfer of certain functions from the Philadelphia Service Center to the Operations Center was more than a year behind schedule in October 2000. Moreover, the project leader said IRS’ restructuring could cause further delays in achieving full system capability. Other organizations included in our August report used an automated system similar to the one IRS is implementing. For example, one company used an automated system to identify its short- and long-term staffing requirements. The system assisted call center managers in forecasting call demands and scheduling staff to meet the demands. Officials said the system also enabled the company to significantly reduce the time needed to perform these tasks. It forecasted call demand down to half-hour intervals, based on historical data trends. Considering various assumptions about call patterns and information such as the number of customer service representatives available to take calls, on leave, or in training, the system also generated a staffing schedule. The schedules were reviewed daily and adjusted as needed. IRS also faces challenges in evaluating its human capital management practices. According to our self-assessment checklist, all human capital policies should be designed, implemented, and assessed by the standard of how well they help the organization pursue its mission, goals, and objectives. While IRS evaluates its practices to make improvements in some areas, such as recruiting or training, the evaluations do not assess how individual or collective human capital policies and practices affect its ability to achieve level-of-service goals. Its evaluations also generally did not consider how improving practices in one area might affect other areas. Unlike IRS, some organizations consider how their human capital management practices affect their operational goals and how changing one practice may affect another. Without expanding its evaluations to include such analyses, IRS is unlikely to optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of its toll-free operations. Except for retention, IRS evaluated its human capital practices, to some extent, in most areas, including recruiting, training, and scheduling to improve those areas. These evaluations generally focused on how each practice could be improved for the next year. While these evaluations are useful for making short-term adjustments, they do not provide a basis for strategic planning because they do not assess how human capital management practices may need to be revised to support a long-term level-of-service goal. Additionally, IRS evaluations generally do not consider how making changes in one area affects other areas. For example, IRS evaluations of recruiting did not consider how improving retention practices might reduce attrition, decrease resources spent on recruiting and training new employees, or increase the resources available for improving the skills and productivity of existing employees. Unlike IRS, other organizations have evaluated the effects of changes in one human capital practice on other practices as well as on the overall results of their telephone assistance operations. For example, one company used training results to identify successful new hires. First, officials determined the characteristics that recruits who did well during training had in common. Then, the company changed its recruiting practices to identify and hire similar people. The Incoming Calls Management Institute recommended doing something similar—identify the personality traits and skills of top performing customer service representatives and use those traits to help assess persons applying for a representative position. IRS faces significant challenges in managing its human capital to provide telephone customer service to taxpayers. IRS has made or planned substantial improvements to help meet these challenges, but further improvements are needed. IRS will have difficulty improving its telephone service without setting a long-term, desired service-level goal that is based on the needs of taxpayers, as well as annual goals aimed at making progress toward reaching its long-term goal. As the Government Performance and Results Act and SSA experience suggest, IRS will also need support for its long- and short-term goals from congressional stakeholders. IRS’ telephone customer service workforce represents a substantial human capital investment in providing assistance to taxpayers. To get the most from this investment, IRS must be able to (1) target scarce training resources where they are most needed to optimize call center and network performance, (2) minimize turnover of trained and experienced customer service representatives to avoid unnecessary recruiting and training expenditures and enhance productivity, and (3) determine how its individual or collective human capital policies and practices affect its ability to achieve customer service goals and how changes in one or more human capital management practices will affect other practices. However, until IRS establishes a system for assessing competency gaps to identify the refresher training needs of individual customer service representatives, it cannot effectively target scarce training resources to meet individual training needs. Without a system for monitoring attrition, identifying its causes, and taking steps to address them, IRS cannot ensure that its recruiting and training resources are used efficiently. And, unless IRS considers its human capital management practices’ contribution to achieving overall service goals and considers the interrelationships among its toll-free service human capital practices, it lacks a good basis for assessing the soundness of those human capital practices. We are recommending that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue take several steps to improve IRS’ human capital management practices related to providing telephone customer service. Specifically, the Commissioner should establish a long-term, desired service-level goal based on taxpayers’ needs, together with annual goals designed to make progress toward reaching that long-term goal over time, and work with congressional and other stakeholders to obtain their support and the resources needed to reach those goals; establish a system for assessing customer service representatives’ competency gaps and meeting the refresher training needs identified by the assessments; develop a system for monitoring call center attrition and identifying its causes and use the information gathered from that system to develop, as appropriate, strategies for dealing with the attrition of customer service representatives; and ensure that IRS’ evaluations of human capital management practices consider the effects of those practices on its ability to achieve long- and short-term customer service goals and the interrelationships among human capital practices. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue provided written comments on a draft of this report in a January 12, 2001, letter, which is reprinted in appendix II. We also met with senior IRS officials on January 4, 2001, to discuss our draft report and to obtain updated information on IRS’ new toll-free measures and goals. The Commissioner agreed with our recommendations, which he said should improve performance in this critical area. In addition, he provided information summarizing IRS’ efforts relating to each recommendation and commented that IRS’ efforts reflected the constructive dialog between IRS and our staff. We incorporated the new information and modified the report, where appropriate, to reflect IRS efforts. The Commissioner’s letter stated that IRS had instituted an agencywide strategic planning process in March 2000 that links the budget and available resources to its strategies and improvement projects, but also recognized the need to strengthen that new process. Toward this end, the Commissioner stated that IRS’ fiscal year 2002 Strategic Plan and Budget reflects a 74-percent level-of-service goal, with a goal of reaching 85 to 90 percent by fiscal year 2003. This plan was not yet available as we were preparing this report. He also stated that an initiative was under way to improve workload planning to ensure that customer needs are considered during the planning and budgeting process. The Commissioner’s letter did not say how the cited workload planning initiative would identify and assess customer needs. Based on the Commissioner’s comments, significant efforts were under way or planned to help ensure that customer service representatives will have the competencies and training needed to respond to taxpayer calls. In addition to the targeted training and planned specialization discussed in this report, for example, IRS plans to establish competency-based recruiting and retention methods to help ensure that IRS recruits and retains individuals who are well-suited to telephone customer service work. The Commissioner’s comments also stated that IRS’ competency- based management plans include the use of “assessment instruments to identify training needs.” These initiatives seem to be promising and may form a basis for identifying individual refresher training needs and ensuring that these needs are met. The Commissioner’s comments also recognized the importance of retaining skilled representatives. His comments identified several efforts that focused on identifying employees that may be more likely to remain with IRS. He did not comment on monitoring why employees leave or on using this information to strengthen IRS’ efforts to retain skilled representatives. Regarding IRS’ evaluations of its human capital practices, the Commissioner’s comments did not respond directly to the primary point of our recommendation—that IRS evaluations should consider the effects of its practices on its ability to achieve its long- and short-term customer service goals. However, the Commissioner did say that IRS has embraced our Human Capital Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders. IRS had used it as a diagnostic tool in its recent review of its mid- and top-level management realignment process and planned to use it again in fiscal year 2001 to “conduct an overview of the status of human capital practices throughout the Service.” Our checklist provides a framework by which agency leaders can develop informed views of their agencies’ human capital policies and practices. The Commissioner also objected to our comparing IRS’ 1998 performance with performance in subsequent years, because of the many changes to IRS’ operating environment, such as enterprise call management and 24-hour operations. This report compared IRS’ reported tax law and account accuracy in 1998 and 1999. As stated in our evaluation of the Commissioner’s comments on our 2000 filing season report, we believe it is appropriate to compare IRS’ performance before and after the operational changes mentioned above. In reevaluating the examples we used, however, we decided to eliminate our reference to IRS’ reported tax law accuracy because we learned that the methods used to measure tax law accuracy changed in 1999, and thus, results may not be comparable. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Ways and Means; the Secretary of the Treasury; the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also send copies to others upon request. If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-9110 or Carl Harris at (404) 679-1900. Key contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix III. Table 2 describes the organization, mission, and telephone center operations of the private and public organizations that were included in the scope of our August 2000 report. Customer Service: Human Capital Management at Selected Public and Private Call Centers (GAO/GGD-00-161, Aug. 22, 2000). Telephone customer service operation A telephone hotline that provided consumers with product information and responded to questions about repairs. The answer center, located in Louisville, KY, handled about 2 million calls each year. About 200 telephone customer service representatives responded to inquiries 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Mission One of 11 core businesses of General Electric. Manufactures appliances, including refrigerators, ranges, dishwashers, microwave ovens, washing machines, dryers, water filtration systems, and heating systems. Also provides repair and maintenance services on appliances, operating a nationwide fleet of service vans. Designer, developer, and manufacturer of computer products, including personal computers, printers, computer workstations, and a range of hardware and software. The Hewlett-Packard Company Executive Customer Advocacy Group provided support for customers contacting Corporate Headquarters regarding issues or concerns with products and services. The hotline was located in Palo Alto, CA. It operated from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, with a staff of about 22 full-time- equivalent employees who were Hewlett-Packard Company retirees in part-time positions. One call center in Springfield, IL, was staffed by 34 full- time telephone customer service representatives, who were assisted during busy times by cross-trained employees from other areas within the taxpayer assistance division. Toll-free telephone lines were open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, with extended weekday hours and one Saturday opening during filing season. Automated service was available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The call center provided taxpayers with help in completing their returns and answered questions about taxes, returns, bills, and notices that had been filed. In the Product Sales and Service Division, about 6,900 telephone customer service employees provided information on product sales and service. Call centers operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Collects taxes for the state and its local governments, including income and business taxes on individuals and businesses, income and sales taxes, taxes on public utilities, tobacco and liquor, motor fuels and vehicles. The department also administers tax relief programs for the elderly and disabled and provides property assessments among the state’s counties. Designer, developer, and manufacturer of information technologies, including computer systems, software, networking systems, storage devices, and microelectronics. America’s largest not-for-profit health maintenance organization, serving over 8 million members in 17 states and the District of Columbia. An integrated health delivery system, Kaiser Permanente organizes and provides or coordinates members’ care, including preventive care, hospital and medical services, and pharmacy services. Kaiser Permanente had 17 call centers nationwide, with 12 centers located in California, the largest region. Regional call centers operated independently. The California region, where we visited, had 5.9 million members, while other regions had fewer than 1 million members each. The two largest call centers were located in Stockton and Corona, CA. Together, they employed about 475 telephone customer service representatives and about 80 management and support staff. Hours of operation were 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., 7 days a week. The member service call centers provided answers to questions on health plan- related topics, including benefits, copayments, claims, Medicare, eligibility, available services, and physician information. Mission Manages the nation’s social insurance program, consisting of retirement, survivors, and disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits for the aged, blind, and disabled. Also assigns Social Security Numbers to U.S. citizens and maintains earnings records for workers under these numbers. World’s largest package distribution company, it transports more than 3 billion parcels and documents annually. Telephone customer service operation Thirty-six call centers nationwide were staffed by 3,100 full-time, 700 part-time, and up to 60 percent of about 4,100 spike employees who were available to assist at busy times. Toll-free telephone lines were open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, to answer callers’ questions about Social Security benefits and programs. Coordinator of Utah taxes and fees, including taxes on income, sales, property, motor vehicles, fuel, beer, and cigarettes. Nine call centers nationwide were staffed by over 6,800 customer service representatives. Eight centers were open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday. One center in San Antonio, TX, operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Seven of the nine call centers were staffed by contract employees. The Newport News, VA, call center, which was a contract facility we visited, had 230 representatives who handled calls related to pick-up, tracking, and claims. Three call centers—a main call center, motor vehicle center, and collection center—operated weekdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with about 35 telephone customer service representatives. The call centers responded to about 15,000 to 20,000 inquiries a month dealing with a range of questions on programs administered by the Commission. For these organizations, we conducted a telephone interview in which we asked managers of telephone customer service operations several key semistructured interview questions. However, we did not have detailed discussions with officials and employees at various levels of the organizations. We judgmentally selected the organizations to visit and telephone by reviewing literature on innovations in human capital management and by obtaining opinions from experts on what organizations they thought provided noteworthy or innovative human capital management in their call center operations. We chose telephone customer service operations that dealt with tax questions or specific subjects, such as benefits, investments, and installation and operation of technical equipment, that were comparable in complexity to tax issues addressed by IRS customer service representatives. Specifically, the director for Workplace Quality at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management identified the SSA telephone customer service operation as a public sector organization that is known for effective human capital management. We visited the Illinois and California State tax agencies and telephoned the Utah State Tax Commission on the basis of recommendations of an official from the Federation of Tax Administrators. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency was cited in literature as having an internationally recognized reputation for high- quality taxpayer service and had participated—along with IRS and the tax agencies of Australia and Japan, members of the Pacific Association of Tax Administrators, in a benchmarking study of customer service best practices. Two private sector companies we visited—Kaiser Permanente and Allstate Insurance—were selected in consultation with the executive director of the Private Sector Council. The Council, with membership including about 50 major U.S. corporations, seeks to improve the productivity, management, and efficiency of government through cooperation with the private sector. Members volunteer expertise to government agencies by participating with them in projects that are coordinated through the Council. The other private organization we visited, the United Parcel Service, was selected in follow-up to our participation in a congressional delegation and IRS visit to its Atlanta, GA, headquarters to discuss human capital and telephone customer service issues. The private call centers we telephoned—General Electric (GE) Answer Center, Hewlett-Packard Company Executive Customer Advocacy Group, and International Business Machines (IBM) Business Product Division, and/or their parent corporations—were cited in best practices literature for their effective human capital management. In addition to those named above, Robert Arcenia, Ronald Heisterkamp, Mary Jo Lewnard, and Shellee Soliday made key contributions to this report.

Each year, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determines the staffing level for its toll-free telephone customer service operations. GAO found that IRS lacks a long-term telephone customer service goal that reflects the needs of taxpayers and the costs and benefits of meeting that goal. Rather, IRS annually determines the level of funding it will seek for its customer service workforce, using its judgment of how to best balance service and compliance activities. IRS then calculates the level of service that funding levels will provide. This approach is inconsistent with the Government Performance and Results Act and the practice of selected public and private call centers that field questions. IRS recognizes the shortcomings of its personnel management and will include performance measures and goals in its 2002 strategic plan. According to IRS officials, the agency also faces challenges in recruiting, training, retaining, and scheduling customer service representatives. IRS is developing a strategy to address each of these issues.

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized. Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives. Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking ­tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012. During that period, about 75 groups were selected for extra inquiry — including burdensome questionnaires and, in some cases, improper requests for the names of their donors — simply because of the words in their names, she said in a conference call with reporters. They constituted about one-quarter of the 300 groups who were flagged for additional analysis by employees of the IRS tax-exempt unit’s main office in Cincinnati. It was not clear whether the IRS had anticipated the firestorm that it would ignite with its disclosure. Indeed, it appeared to have happened by chance when Lerner, appearing Friday at a conference held by the American Bar Association, responded to a question about the allegations by conservative groups. The IRS’s subsequent conference call with reporters was clumsily handled. At one point, Lerner attempted to do arithmetic on the phone and blurted out: “I’m not good at math.” That admission was understandable, given that her training is as a lawyer, but it produced a quote that is likely to haunt the agency that handles the nation’s tax returns. Nor did IRS officials appear to have prepared much for the questions they would get. “The IRS did not acknowledge the use of names as part of the process earlier because the details were not initially known to senior leadership, and [the Treasury inspector general for tax administration] has been reviewing the situation,” IRS spokeswoman Michelle L. Eldridge said. “Their work is now far enough along that it was appropriate to address the issue when it came up during today’s tax conference.” Of the 300 groups affected, the IRS said, 130 have had their tax-exempt status approved and 25 have withdrawn their applications. The sensitivity arises in no small part because of the IRS’s history as an agency that presidents have used to intimidate, harass and punish their political enemies. Most infamous was Richard M. Nixon, but the practice went back at least as far as Franklin D. Roosevelt. ­Post-Watergate reforms made the IRS more independent and were designed to insulate it from politics. “I call on the White House to conduct a transparent, government-wide review aimed at assuring the American people that these thuggish practices are not underway at the IRS or elsewhere in the administration against anyone, regardless of their political views,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. “An apology won’t put this issue to rest.” One of the nation’s largest tea party groups, the Tea Party Patriots, said it rejected the IRS’s explanation and demanded the resignations of all officials involved. The group also called on President Obama to apologize for ignoring its concerns. “The IRS has demonstrated the most disturbing, illegal and outrageous abuse of government power,” said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots. “This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach.” Lerner said she has had no contact with Obama administration officials about the issue. When questioned by reporters, she said the problem came to the IRS’s attention only after officials read reports in the media of complaints by tea party groups that their applications for ­tax-exempt status were being unfairly scrutinized and delayed. Although the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, it “is an independent enforcement agency,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said. “What we know about this is of concern and we certainly find the actions taken, as reported, to be inappropriate. And we would fully expect the investigation to be thorough and for corrections to be made in a case like this.” Carney did not describe what contact, if any, administration officials have had with the IRS regarding the issue. The IRS admission comes amid a debate about when political groups on both sides deserve tax-exempt status — a complex question that turns on whether the group is working mainly to support a general philosophy or a specific party or candidate. That can be particularly difficult to determine in the case of groups that operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. The law grants them an exemption from income taxes on the contributions they receive if they are “social welfare” groups. It also allows them to engage in political activity and advocacy as long as it is not their primary mission. And while donors to those organizations are not allowed a tax deduction for what they give, they can remain anonymous. The number of organizations applying for tax-exempt status under that provision more than doubled after 2010, Lerner said. It was a scramble that began after the Supreme Court lifted the ban on corporate and union spending in political campaigns, a move that was seen as a green light for outside groups to become more involved, as well. Both Democratic- and Republican-allied interests have formed such organizations, but the conservative groups have raised vastly more money. The IRS disclosure comes after more than a year of tense debate about the tax status of conservative political groups. Tea party groups and other conservative organizations have said that they have been the subject of inappropriate screening by the IRS, prompting formal complaints by Republican lawmakers. The IRS inspector general has been reviewing the claims. Some Democrats and campaign finance groups, meanwhile, have argued that ­tax-exempt groups are stretching the boundaries of the law and should be required to disclose more about their operations. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, who has raised concerns about IRS oversight of conservative groups, said he was not satisfied by the apology. “This, frankly, isn’t enough,” he said. “We need to have ironclad guarantees from the IRS that it will adopt significant protocols to ensure this kind of harassment of groups that have a constitutional right to express their own views never happens again.” Lerner would not say whether any of the IRS employees involved have been disciplined. She said that policies have been put in place to prohibit this kind of screening and that so far, none of the 75 groups has been rejected for tax-exempt status. Jay Sekulow, a lawyer representing 16 tea party groups, said Friday that he was gratified by the IRS acknowledgment. “This admission by the IRS represents a significant victory for free speech and freedom of association,” he said. “There was never any doubt that these organizations complied with the law and applied for tax-exempt status for their activities as Americans have done for decades.” ||||| The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday. FILE - In this Aug. 2, 2012 file photo, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner Douglas Shulman testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, before the House Oversight Committee. The Internal Revenue... (Associated Press) Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said. "That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association. "The IRS would like to apologize for that," she added. Lerner said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. After her talk, she told The AP that no high level IRS officials knew about the practice. Agency officials found out about the practice last year and moved to correct it, the IRS said in a statement. The statement did not specify when officials found out. About 75 groups were inappropriately targeted. None had their tax-exempt status revoked, Lerner said. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called on the White House to investigate. "Today's acknowledgement by the Obama administration that the IRS did in fact target conservative groups in the heat of last year's national election is not enough," McConnell said. "I call on the White House to conduct a transparent, government-wide review aimed at assuring the American people that these thuggish practices are not under way at the IRS or elsewhere in the administration against anyone, regardless of their political views." Many conservative groups complained during the election that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires. The forms, which the groups made available at the time, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members. Certain tax-exempt charitable groups can conduct political activities but it cannot be their primary activity. IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told Congress in March 2012 that the IRS was not targeting groups based on their political views. "There's absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people" who apply for tax-exempt status, Shulman told a House Ways and Means subcommittee. Shulman was appointed by President George W. Bush. His 6-year term ended in November. President Barack Obama has yet to nominate a successor. The agency is now being run by acting Commissioner Steven Miller. "The Ways and Means Committee has persistently pushed the IRS to explain why it appeared to be unfairly targeting some political groups over others _ a charge they repeatedly denied," said Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., chairman of the Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. "The IRS's `too little too late' response is unacceptable, and I will continue to work to ensure there are protections in place so no American, regardless of political affiliation, has their right to free speech threatened by the IRS," Boustany said. Tea Party groups were livid on Friday. "I don't think there's any question we were unfairly targeted," said Tom Zawistowski, who until recently was president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, an alliance of tea party groups in the state. Zawistowski's group was among many conservative organizations that battled the IRS over what they saw as its discriminatory treatment of their effort to gain non-profit status. The group first applied for non-profit status in June 2009, and it was finally granted on Dec. 7, 2012, he said _ one month after Election Day. During the 2012 election, many tea party groups applied for tax-exempt status under section 501 (c) (4) of the federal tax code, which grants tax-exempt status to social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organizations are allowed to participate in political activities but their primary activity must be social welfare. That determination is up to the IRS. Lerner said the number of groups filing for this tax-exempt status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, to more than 3,400. To handle the influx, the IRS centralized its review of these applications in an office in Cincinnati. Lerner said this was done to develop expertise among staffers and consistency in their reviews. As part of the review, staffers look for signs that groups are participating in political activity. If so, IRS agents take a closer look to make sure that politics isn't the group's primary activity, Lerner said. As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words, "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said. "It's the line people that did it without talking to managers," Lerner. "They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents." In all, about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, Lerner said. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had "tea party" or "patriot" somewhere in their applications. The IRS statement said that once applications were chosen for review, they all "received the same, even-handed treatment." Lerner said 150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked, though some withdrew their applications. "Mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale," the IRS said in a statement. "We fixed the situation last year and have made significant progress in moving the centralized cases through our system." Marcus S. Owens, who spent a decade leading the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, said Friday that it made sense that the problem arose among workers in Cincinnati because the agency "really has delegated a lot of authority" to local offices to make decisions about handling their workload. But Tea Party groups weren't buying the idea that the decision to target them was solely the responsibility of low-level IRS workers. "It is suspicious that the activity of these `low-level workers' was unknown to IRS leadership at the time it occurred," said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, which describes itself as the nation's largest tea party organization. "President Obama must also apologize for his administration ignoring repeated complaints by these broad grassroots organizations of harassment by the IRS in 2012, and make concrete and transparent steps today to ensure this never happens again." ___ Associated Press reporters Alan Fram and Steve Peoples in Boston contributed to this report. ___ Follow Stephen Ohlemacher on Twitter: http://twitter.com/stephenatap ||||| The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday to conservative political groups for giving their tax documents extra scrutiny — validating the worst fears of Republican activists who have long accused the Obama administration of politicizing the process. Roughly 75 groups were singled out using words like “tea party” or “patriot” in tax documents, Lois Lerner, who is responsible for overseeing tax-exempt groups, said on a hastily arranged conference call Friday afternoon. Text Size - + reset Lerner answers questions at ABA Section of Taxation Conference PODCAST: Week in review The White House said Friday that the IRS inspector general is investigating the matter. “What we know about this is of concern,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said, emphasizing that the IRS is an independent agency with only two political appointees. The agency is technically a division of the Treasury Department. (Also on POLITICO: Where does IRS look for cheats?) “It certainly does seem to be based on what we’ve seen to be inappropriate action that we would want to see thoroughly investigated,” Carney said. Decisions to review the conservative groups were made by career employees in Cincinnati, Lerner said, but she declined to say if anyone has been disciplined. Lerner added that the IRS never denied tax exempt status to any conservative organization — it only asked for additional information. “Mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale,” the IRS said in a separate statement. The announcement is the latest black eye for an agency that has been criticized by members of Congress from both parties, reform groups and conservative activists for its handling of politically active tax-exempt nonprofits. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for President Barack Obama to order a “transparent, government-wide review” to see if similar practices are happening elsewhere in the administration. (Also on POLITICO: Immigration's new ally: Tea partiers) House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany told POLITICO he will launch an “aggressive” investigation. “We’re not going to let this rest,” the Louisiana Republican said. “The IRS cannot target or intimidate any individual or organization based on their political beliefs. The House will investigate this matter,” said Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Outside groups on both sides have increasingly chosen to organize as nonprofits — regulated and reviewed by the IRS instead of the Federal Election Commission. Their nonprofit status exempts those groups from paying federal taxes — and unlike super PACs, allows them to hide their donors. Major outside groups like the Karl Rove-affiliated Crossroads GPS, Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity and the pro-Barack Obama group Priorities USA are organized as 501(c)(4) nonprofits. (Also on POLITICO: The Tea Party Caucus returns) The IRS statement said the agency “should have done a better job” dealing with the dramatic influx in applications for 501(c)(4) status. “When we see an uptick in applications from a particular type of group…that we don’t ordinarily see, what we do is we centralize those applications into one group to work on them. We do this all the time,” Lerner told reporters. “The problem here was that in some cases they added actual case names to the list. They added ‘tea party’ and ‘patriot’ to the list of cases that should be centralized in this group.”

The IRS issued an embarrassing mea culpa today, acknowledging that employees singled out about 75 groups with "tea party" or "patriot" in their names for extra scrutiny last year, reports the AP. "That was wrong," says the IRS official in charge of tax-exempt groups. "That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. The IRS would like to apologize for that." She swears it wasn't politically motivated, but conservatives such as Mitch McConnell are demanding a fuller accounting, and various Tea Party groups want resignations to follow. Conservative groups have been complaining for more than a year of unfair treatment by the IRS, reports the Washington Post. The back story here is that scores of political groups filed for nonprofit status last year, a distinction that puts them under the authority of the IRS instead of the Federal Election Commission, reports Politico. (One of the advantages is that they can hide donors.) The IRS agents—described as "career employees" working out of Cincinnati who got assigned to look into the increase in applications—were investigating to see whether such groups were dabbling too much in politics to qualify as nonprofits. The agency issued another statement today saying it should have done a "better job of handling the influx of advocacy applications. Mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale.”

Fossils recovered from an old mine on a desolate mountain in Morocco have rocked one of the most enduring foundations of the human story: that Homo sapiens arose in a cradle of humankind in East Africa 200,000 years ago. Archaeologists unearthed the bones of at least five people at Jebel Irhoud, a former barite mine 100km west of Marrakesh, in excavations that lasted years. They knew the remains were old, but were stunned when dating tests revealed that a tooth and stone tools found with the bones were about 300,000 years old. Why we're closer than ever to a timeline for human evolution Read more “My reaction was a big ‘wow’,” said Jean-Jacques Hublin, a senior scientist on the team at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. “I was expecting them to be old, but not that old.” Hublin said the extreme age of the bones makes them the oldest known specimens of modern humans and poses a major challenge to the idea that the earliest members of our species evolved in a “Garden of Eden” in East Africa one hundred thousand years later. “This gives us a completely different picture of the evolution of our species. It goes much further back in time, but also the very process of evolution is different to what we thought,” Hublin told the Guardian. “It looks like our species was already present probably all over Africa by 300,000 years ago. If there was a Garden of Eden, it might have been the size of the continent.” Jebel Irhoud has thrown up puzzles for scientists since fossilised bones were first found at the site in the 1960s. Remains found in 1961 and 1962, and stone tools recovered with them, were attributed to Neanderthals and at first considered to be only 40,000 years old. At the time, a popular view held that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals. Today, the Neanderthals are considered a sister group that lived alongside, and even bred with, our modern human ancestors. In fresh excavations at the Jebel Irhoud site, Hublin and others found more remains, including a partial skull, a jawbone, teeth and limb bones belonging to three adults, a juvenile, and a child aged about eight years old. The remains, which resemble modern humans more than any other species, were recovered from the base of an old limestone cave that had its roof smashed in during mining operations at the site. Alongside the bones, researchers found sharpened flint tools, a good number of gazelle bones, and lumps of charcoal, perhaps left over from fires that warmed those who once lived there. “It’s rather a desolate landscape, but on the horizon you have the Atlas mountains with snow on top and it’s very beautiful,” said Hublin. “When we found the skull and mandible I was emotional. They are only fossils, but they have been human beings and very quickly you make a connection with these people who lived and died here 300,000 years ago.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest The first almost complete adult mandible discovered at the site of Jebel Irhoud. The bone morphology and the dentition display a combination of archaic and evolved features. Photograph: Credit: Jean-Jacques Hublin, MPI-EVA, Leipzig Scientists have long looked to East Africa as the birthplace of modern humans. Until the latest findings from Jebel Irhoud, the oldest known remnants of our species were found at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia and dated to 195,000 years old. Other fossils and genetic evidence all point to an African origin for modern humans. In the first of two papers published in Nature on Wednesday, the researchers describe how they compared the freshly-excavated fossils with those of modern humans, Neanderthals and ancient human relatives that lived up to 1.8m years ago. Facially, the closest match was with modern humans. The lower jaw was similar to modern Homo sapiens too, but much larger. The most striking difference was the shape of the braincase which was more elongated than that of humans today. It suggests, said Hublin, that the modern brain evolved in Homo sapiens and was not inherited from a predecessor. Apart from being more stout and muscular, the adults at Jebel Irhoud looked similar to people alive today. “The face of the specimen we found is the face of someone you could meet on the tube in London,” Hublin said. In a second paper, the scientists lay out how they dated the stone tools to between 280,000 and 350,000 years, and a lone tooth to 290,000 years old. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The tools found were based on a knapping technique called Levallois, adding to the realisation that the sophisticated way of shaping tools originated earlier than thought. Photograph: Credit: Mohammed Kamal, MPI EVA Leipzig The remains of more individuals may yet be found at the site. But precisely what they were doing there is unclear. Analysis of the flint tools shows that the stones came not from the local area, but from a region 50km south of Jebel Irhoud. “Why did they come here? They brought their toolkit with them and they exhausted it,” Hublin said. “The tools they brought with them have been resharpened, resharpened, and resharpened again. They did not produce new tools on the spot. It might be that they did not stay that long, or maybe it was an area they would come to do something specific. We think they were hunting gazelles, there are a lot of gazelle bones, and they were making a lot of fires.” Hublin concedes that scientists have too few fossils to know whether modern humans had spread to the four corners of Africa 300,000 years ago. The speculation is based on what the scientists see as similar features in a 260,000-year-old skull found in Florisbad in South Africa. But he finds the theory compelling. “The idea is that early Homo sapiens dispersed around the continent and elements of human modernity appeared in different places, and so different parts of Africa contributed to the emergence of what we call modern humans today,” he said. John McNabb, an archaeologist at the University of Southampton, said: “One of the big questions about the emergence of anatomically modern humans has been did our body plan evolve quickly or slowly. This find seems to suggest the latter. It seems our faces became modern long before our skulls took on the shape they have today.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Two views of a composite reconstruction of the earliest known Homo sapiens fossils from Jebel Irhoud The braincase (blue) indicates that brain shape, and possibly brain function, evolved within the Homo sapiens lineage. Photograph: Credit: Philipp Gunz, MPI EVA Leipzig “There are some intriguing possibilities here too. The tools the people at Jebel Irhoud were making were based on a knapping technique called Levallois, a sophisticated way of shaping stone tools. The date of 300,000 years ago adds to a growing realisation that Levallois originates a lot earlier than we thought. Is Jebel Irhoud telling us that this new technology is linked to the emergence of the hominin line that will lead to modern humans? Does the new find imply there was more than one hominin lineage in Africa at this time? It really stirs the pot.” Lee Berger, whose team recently discovered the 300,000 year-old Homo naledi, an archaic-looking human relative, near the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage site outside Johannesburg, said dating the Jebel Irhoud bones was thrilling, but is unconvinced that modern humans lived all over Africa so long ago. “They’ve taken two data points and not drawn a line between them, but a giant map of Africa,” he said. John Shea, an archaeologist at Stony Brook University in New York who was not involved in the study, said he was cautious whenever researchers claimed they had found the oldest of anything. “It’s best not to judge by the big splash they make when they are first announced, but rather to wait and see some years down the line whether the waves from that splash have altered the shoreline,” he said, adding that stone tools can move around in cave sediments and settle in layers of a different age. Homo naledi genome: Will we ever find this elusive key to human evolution? | Jennifer Raff Read more Shea was also uneasy with the scientists combining fossils from different individuals, and comparing reconstructions of complete skulls from fragmentary remains. “Such ‘chimeras’ can look very different from the individuals on which they are based,” he said. “For me, claiming these remains are Homo sapiens stretches the meaning of that term a bit,” Shea added. “These humans who lived between 50,000-300,000 years ago are a morphologically diverse bunch. Whenever we find more than a couple of them from the same deposits, such as at Omo Kibish and Herto in Ethiopia or Skhul and Qafzeh in Israel, their morphology is all over the place both within and between samples.” But Jessica Thompson, an anthropologist at Emory University in Atlanta, said the new results show just how incredible the Jebel Irhoud site is. “These fossils are the rarest of the rare because the human fossil record from this time period in Africa is so poorly represented. They give us a direct look at what early members of our species looked like, as well as their behaviour. “You might also look twice at the brow ridges if you saw them on a living person. It might not be a face you’d see every day, but you would definitely recognise it as human,” she said. “It really does look like in Africa especially, but also globally, our evolution was characterised by numerous different species all living at the same time and possibly even in the same places.” ||||| Anthropologists have long sought to pin down the exact location of the proverbial “Garden of Eden” — the region of our planet where the earliest Homo sapiens emerged. Over the last two decades, a combination of genetic evidence and data from the fossil record have led scientists to conclude that the first members of our species evolved in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. But a new discovery suggests a more complex narrative for the origin of humans. In a pair of papers published Wednesday in Nature, an international team of researchers describes 22 human fossils from western Morocco that are about 300,000 years old. According to the authors, it is the earliest evidence of Homo sapiens ever discovered — by a long shot. The unexpected location of the find, coupled with previous discoveries of early human remains dating back 260,000 years in South Africa and 195,000 years in Ethiopia, casts doubt on the story that the first members of our species evolved in a single region of the African continent, study authors said. “Our results challenge this picture in a number of ways,” said paleoanthropologist Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, who led the work. “There is no Garden of Eden in Africa, or if there is a Garden of Eden, it’s Africa. The Garden of Eden is the size of Africa.” This is the first, almost complete adult mandible discovered at the Jebel Irhoud site. The shape of the bone and the teeth clearly assign it to the root of our own lineage, the study authors say. (Jean-Jacques Hublin / Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) With virtual palaeoanthropology, researchers can reconstruct the mandible of a fossil known as Irhoud 11. It may have belonged to one of the earliest Homo sapiens yet discovered. (Jean-Jacques Hublin / Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) Not all of the fossils cataloged in the papers are new discoveries. Six of the 22 specimens were first unearthed in the 1960s as the result of barite mining operations at Jebel Irhoud, the archaeological site that is located between Marrakesh and Morocco’s Atlantic coast. At the time of the initial discovery, scientists concluded that the fossils were about 40,000 years old. However, that date didn’t seem right to many researchers. “The previous age estimate on the Jebel Irhoud hominin never made sense,” said Curtis Marean, an archaeologist at the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University in Tempe, who was not involved in the new work. The shape of the fossilized bones looked too primitive for their supposed relatively young age, Marean said. In addition, the plant and animal evidence found in the same location as the bones didn’t match the environmental conditions that would have been present in the area 40,000 years ago. There is no Garden of Eden in Africa, or if there is a Garden of Eden, it’s Africa. The Garden of Eden is the size of Africa. — Paleoanthropologist Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Hublin and his colleagues also felt that the fossils had been inaccurately dated and wanted to do something about it. They visited Jebel Irhoud several times throughout the 1980s and ’90s, and officially resumed excavations there in 2004. The researchers believe that the site was once a cave that probably provided shelter to small bands of early humans who came to the area to hunt gazelles and zebra. Their flint tools, sharpened into pointed forms that were probably spearheads, appear to be made from material collected at least 15 miles away. “This suggests they visited high-quality locations to collect flint and then carried it around to places like Jebel Irhoud where they could stop and retool their weaponry,” said Shannon McPherron, an archaeologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology who worked on the study. Over the course of its work, the team discovered 16 additional hominin bones, as well as stone artifacts consistent with the dawn of the Middle Stone Age. They also found gazelle and zebra bones that suggested the animals were deliberately butchered and cooked over a fire. ------------ FOR THE RECORD June 7, 2:20 p.m.: An earlier version of this article stated that over the course of its work, the team discovered 18 additional hominin bones, as well as stone artifacts consistent with the dawn of the Middle Stone Age. The team discovered 16 additional hominin bones. ------------ Some of the Middle Stone Age stone tools from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco. Pointed forms (a-i) are common, as are the Levallois prepared core flakes (j-k). (Mohammed Kamal / Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) The researchers’ biggest stroke of luck came when they found several burned pieces of flint artifacts buried alongside the fossils. The team was able to date the burned flint using a process called thermoluminescence. This allowed them to determine that the fossils were about 300,000 years old, making them the oldest Homo sapien remains ever found. “That was a big ‘Wow!’” Hublin said. “The new dates convinced us that this material represented the very root of our species.” Among the newly discovered fossils were an adult skull comprising a distorted braincase and fragments of a face, and a nearly complete adult lower jawbone. There was also one maxilla (which comprises the upper jawbone and the sinus cavity), as well as several teeth and other bits of skeleton. Further analysis revealed that the 22 specimens came from a total of five individuals — three fairly young adults, one teenager and a child between 7 1/2 and 8 years old. To be clear, these 300,000-year-old Homo sapiens were not our anatomical twins. Far from it. The authors write that these early humans had a strange mix of characteristics — some that would be very familiar to us, while others are extremely primitive. For example, their faces were similar enough to the faces of modern humans that if you saw these individuals walking down the street, you would probably not take notice, Hublin said. However, the shape of their braincase suggests they had a large but much more primitive brain than we have today. A composite reconstruction of the earliest known Homo sapien fossils, found at Jebel Irhoud in Morocco. (Philipp Gunz / Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) Two views of a composite reconstruction of the earliest known Homo sapien fossils from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco. The reconstruction is based on micro-CT scans of multiple original fossils. (Philipp Gunz / Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) This implies that different parts of the human anatomy evolved at different rates, the researchers said. “Some things were fixed early in a modern way and others took a lot longer to reach the modern condition,” Hublin said. “In short, the story of our evolution over the past 300,000 years is mostly the evolution of our brains.” The story of our evolution over the past 300,000 years is mostly the evolution of our brains. — Study leader Jean-Jacques Hublin of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Some experts have questioned whether a primitive human with a brain so distinct from our own can still be considered part of the same species. But Richard Potts, director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, said the team’s contention that it found early Homo sapiens holds water. “Given the fragmented preservation of the finds, the authors do a good job of analysis,” said Potts, who was not involved with the new work. He added that although both braincases discovered at the site fall outside the range of those of modern humans, so do several other fossils from Africa and Europe that are clearly Homo sapiens. “So that’s OK,” he said. Marean was less certain. “I think we need more data points before whether we can say it is Homo sapiens or not,” he said. Unfortunately, those data points will probably be hard to come by. Sites this old are extremely rare in Africa, and because of the warm climate, DNA is hardly ever preserved on fossilized specimens. In the meantime, Hublin and his team said their findings offer a new tale of how, when and where our species emerged. Jean-Jacques Hublin points to a crushed human skull whose orbits, or eye sockets, are visible just beyond his fingertip. (Shannon McPherron / Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) “We support the notion that around 300,000 years ago, very early forms of Homo sapiens were already dispersed all over the continent,” he said. According to this new version of the origin of our species, early humans evolved in relative isolation in different parts of Africa, with occasional periods of connection between different populations that were made possible by environmental conditions much different than those we see today. For example, between 330,000 and 300,000 years ago, summer monsoon rains fell farther north than usual, causing the Sahara to turn green. That made this large, usually inhospitable landscape a welcoming region of large lakes and grasslands, Hublin said. Perhaps different groups of early Homo sapiens encountered one another while hunting game, and exchanged technological innovations — as well as DNA. “Any favorable mutation would spread from one population to another boosted by positive selection,” Hublin said. Potts said it could be possible. “This view promoted by Hublin is by no means a slam dunk, but it is feasible,” he said. “It will doubtless be tested over and over by further African fossil discoveries in this important time period.” Support our journalism Please consider subscribing today to support stories like this one. Already a subscriber? Your support makes our work possible. Thank you. Get full access to our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks. [email protected] Do you love science? I do! Follow me @DeborahNetburn and "like" Los Angeles Times Science & Health on Facebook. MORE IN SCIENCE An ancient lake on Mars could have supported a variety of microbial life Oakland police tend to treat black drivers with less respect than white ones, linguistic analysis shows After LIGO detects a third black hole collision, gravitational wave astronomy is here to stay ||||| CLOSE Researchers just changed everything you once knew about Homo sapiens. After their latest discovery, it appears the human species have been on earth for a lot longer than previously thought. USA TODAY Two views of a composite reconstruction of the earliest known Homo sapiens fossils from Jebel Irhoud based on micro computed tomographic scans of multiple original fossils. (Photo: Philipp Gunz, MPI EVA Leipzig) Digging on a hilltop in the Sahara Desert, scientists have found the most ancient known members of our own species, undermining longstanding ideas about the origins of humanity. The newfound Homo sapiens fossils — three young adults, one adolescent and a child of 7 or 8 — date back roughly 300,000 years, says a study in this week’s Nature. The next-oldest fossils of Homo sapiens, the scientific name for humans, are about 200,000 years old. The 200,000-year-old fossils were found in eastern Africa, sometimes called the “Garden of Eden” for its supposedly pivotal role as the birthplace of humanity. But the new fossils are from Morocco in far northern Africa, supporting the theory that the evolution of modern humans was a piecemeal affair that played out across the continent. “There is no Garden of Eden in Africa,” said Jean-Jacques Hublin, co-author of two new studies describing the fossils and a paleontologist at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. “Or if there is a Garden of Eden, it’s … the size of Africa.” The new finds confirm “modern humans do not suddenly appear like the Big Bang, with all the bells and whistles that we associate with modern humans,” agrees paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who was not associated with the study. The fossils were excavated at a site called Jebel Irhoud, where similar fossils were unearthed in the 1960s and assigned an age of 40,000 years. Hublin’s team returned to the site in 2004 hoping to clarify that date — and instead stumbled upon more fossils. They also applied new dating methods, which pushed back the age of all the fossils to a stunning 300,000 years. Related coverage: The trove of fossils is a snapshot of a species in transition. The Irhoud people had more elongated, primitive-looking skulls than current humans. But these ancient people had small faces and small chins much like ours, and their teeth look like ours, too. The new date for the fossils suggests some elements of Homo sapiens anatomy developed a more modern appearance much earlier than thought, says Adam Van Arsdale of Wellesley College, who was not involved with the study. This mix of archaic and modern features supports the theory that Homo sapiens didn’t burst onto the African scene fully formed. Instead, the earliest people had a mix of advanced and primitive characteristics, and over time and across the continent, Homo sapiens evolved into the humans of today, Hublin said. Shannon McPherron, left, and Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer discuss the new fossils finds from Jebel Irhoud. (Photo: MPI EVA Leipzig) Though the new fossils have features that don’t seem entirely human, such as a low skull, “I think we have a good instance of early Homo sapiens from Irhoud,” says Rick Potts, head of the Smithsonian Institution’s Human Origins Program, who was also not part of the study team. But he says the idea that Homo sapiens “was assembled gradually” is “by no means a slam dunk” and needs to be shored up by more fossils from around Africa. Related coverage: Artifacts found with the fossils suggest that activities typical of modern humans also emerged by 300,000 years ago, says paleoanthropologist Alison Brooks of George Washington University. Alongside the Irhoud fossils, researchers found gazelle bones marked with stone tools, the remnants of ancient fires and sharpened pieces of flint probably used as spear points. The study’s authors say the site, which was once a cave, may have been used as a hunting camp. The new date for the Irhoud skeletons “changes a lot,” Brooks says. “It pushes (the fossils) into a fairly unknown time range, but one that is clearly very important for the evolution of our species.” Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2sTqjuA

“My reaction was a big ‘wow,'” archaeologist Jean-Jacques Hublin tells the Guardian. Hublin and his team recently discovered Homo sapien fossils in an old mine in Morocco that dating tests reveal are 300,000 years old. Prior to the discovery, the earliest known Homo sapien fossils were about 195,000 years old. The new fossils, obviously, change a lot of what we thought we knew about human history. It was believed that the earliest humans arose in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago, but this discovery in northern Africa changes the location of what we think of as humanity's "Garden of Eden," USA Today reports. "If there is a Garden of Eden, it’s ... the size of Africa," Hublin says. The discovery also shapes how we think of human evolution. The fossils discovered by Hublin had many features we associate with modern humans, including their facial structure. “The face of the specimen we found is the face of someone you could meet on the tube in London,” Hublin says. However, the brain case was more elongated than in modern humans. This is evidence the modern human brain evolved in Homo sapiens and wasn't inherited from an ancestor. However, there is disagreement between scientists not involved in the find whether Homo sapiens really were living all over Africa 300,000 years ago and if Hublin's fossils are even Homo sapiens in the first place and not some earlier species, the Los Angeles Times reports.

All six projects serve adults who are economically disadvantaged, with a range of reasons why they have been unable to get and keep a job that would allow them to become self-sufficient. Many participants lack a high school diploma or have limited basic skills or English proficiency; have few, if any, marketable job skills; have a history of substance abuse; or have been victims of domestic violence. The projects we visited had impressive results. Three of the sites had placement rates above 90 percent—two placed virtually all those who completed their training. The other three projects placed two-thirds or more of those who completed the program. The sites differ in their funding sources, skills training approaches, and client focus. For example: We visited two sites that are primarily federally funded and target clients eligible under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program. These sites are Arapahoe County Employment and Training in Aurora, Colorado, which is a suburb of Denver, and The Private Industry Council (TPIC) in Portland, Oregon. Both of these sites assess clients and then follow a case management approach, linking clients with vocational training available through community colleges or vocational-technical schools. The Encore! program in Port Charlotte, Florida, serves single parents, displaced homemakers, and single pregnant women. Encore!’s 6-week workshop and year-round support prepare participants for skill training. It is primarily funded by a federal grant under the Perkins Act and is strongly linked with the Charlotte Vocational Technical Center (Vo-Tech). The Center for Employment Training (CET) in Reno, Nevada, focuses on three specific service-related occupations and serves mainly Hispanic farmworkers. Participants may receive subsidized training from sources such as Pell grants, JTPA state funds, and the JTPA Farmworker Program, as well as grants from the city of Reno. Focus: HOPE, in Detroit, Michigan, also serves inner-city minorities but emphasizes development of manufacturing-related skills. Its primary funding source in 1994 was a state economic development grant. STRIVE (Support and Training Results in Valuable Employment), in New York City’s East Harlem, primarily serves inner-city minorities and focuses on developing in clients a proper work attitude needed for successful employment rather than on providing occupational skills training. STRIVE is privately funded through a grant from the Clark Foundation, which requires a two-for-one dollar match from other sources, such as local employers. Projects also differ in other ways, such as the way project staff interact with clients—customizing their approach to what they believe to be the needs of their participants. For example, STRIVE’s approach is strict, confrontational, and “no-nonsense” with the East Harlem men and women in their program. In contrast, Encore! takes a more nurturing approach, attempting to build the self-esteem of the women, many of them victims of mental or physical abuse, who participate in the program in rural Florida. One important feature of these projects’ common strategy is ensuring that clients are committed to participating in training and getting a job. Each project tries to secure client commitment before enrollment and continues to encourage that commitment throughout training. Project staff at several sites believed that the voluntary nature of their projects is an important factor in fostering strong client commitment. Just walking through the door, however, does not mean that a client is committed to the program. Further measures to encourage, develop, and require this commitment are essential. All the projects use some of these measures. Some of the things that projects do to ensure commitment are (1) making sure clients know what to expect, so they are making an informed choice when they enter; (2) creating opportunities for clients to screen themselves out if they are not fully committed; and (3) requiring clients to actively demonstrate the seriousness of their commitment. To give clients detailed information about project expectations, projects use orientation sessions, assessment workshops, and one-on-one interviews with project staff. Project officials say that they do this to minimize any misunderstandings that could lead to client attrition. Officials at both STRIVE and Arapahoe told us that they do not want to spend scarce dollars on individuals who are not committed to completing their program and moving toward full-time employment; they believe that it is important to target their efforts to those most willing to take full advantage of the project’s help. For example, at STRIVE’s preprogram orientation session, staff members give potential clients a realistic program preview. STRIVE staff explain their strict requirements for staying in the program: attending every day—on time, displaying an attitude open to change and criticism, and completing all homework assignments. At the end of the session, STRIVE staff tell potential clients to take the weekend to think about whether they are serious about obtaining employment and, if so, to return on Monday to begin training. STRIVE staff told us that typically 10 percent of those who attend the orientation do not return on Monday. Both CET and Focus: HOPE provide specific opportunities for clients to screen themselves out. They both allow potential clients to try out their training program at no charge to ensure the program is suitable for them. Focus: HOPE reserves the right not to accept potential clients on the basis of their attitude, but it does not routinely do this. Instead, staff will provisionally accept the client into one of the training programs, but put that client on notice that his or her attitude will be monitored. All six projects require clients to actively demonstrate the seriousness of their commitment to both training and employment. For example, all projects require clients to sign an agreement of commitment outlining the client’s responsibilities while in training and all projects monitor attendance throughout a client’s enrollment. In addition, some project officials believed that requiring clients to contribute to training is important to encouraging commitment. Focus: HOPE requires participants—even those receiving cash subsidies—to pay a small weekly fee for their training, typically $10 a week. A Focus: HOPE administrator explained that project officials believe that students are more committed when they are “paying customers,” and that this small payment discourages potential participants who are not seriously committed to training. All the projects emphasize removing employment barriers as a key to successful outcomes. They define a barrier as anything that precludes a client from participating in and completing training, as well as anything that could potentially limit a client’s ability to obtain and maintain a job. For example, if a client lacks appropriate basic skills, then providing basic skills training can allow him or her to build those skills and enter an occupational training program. Similarly, if a client does not have adequate transportation, she or he will not be able to get to the training program. Because all the projects have attendance requirements, a lack of adequate child care would likely affect the ability of a client who is a parent to successfully complete training. Moreover, if a client is living in a domestic abuse situation, it may be difficult for that client to focus on learning a new skill or search for a job. The projects use a comprehensive assessment process to identify the particular barriers each client faces. This assessment can take many forms, including orientation sessions, workshops, one-on-one interviews, interactions with project staff, or a combination of these. For example, at TPIC’s assessment workshop, clients complete a five-page barrier/needs checklist on a wide variety of issues, including food, housing, clothing, transportation, financial matters, health, and social/support issues. At the end of this workshop, clients must develop a personal statement and a self-sufficiency plan that the client and case manager use as a guide for addressing barriers and for helping the client throughout training. Encore! and Arapahoe have similar processes for identifying and addressing barriers that clients face. Rather than relying on a formal workshop or orientation process, CET identifies clients’ needs through one-on-one interviews with program staff when a client enters the program. Throughout the training period, instructors, the job developer, and other project staff work to provide support services and address the client’s ongoing needs. All the projects arrange for clients to get the services they need to address barriers, but—because of the wide range of individual client needs—none provides all possible services on-site. For example, although all six projects recognize the importance of basic skills training, they arrange for this training in different ways. Arapahoe contracts out for basic skills training for clients, while CET, Encore!, and Focus: HOPE provide this service on-site and TPIC and STRIVE refer clients out to community resources. Only Focus: HOPE provides on-site child care; however, all five other projects help clients obtain financial assistance to pay for child care services or refer clients to other resources. Because some of the projects attract many clients who have similar needs, these projects provide certain services on-site to better tailor their services to that specific population. For example, because it serves Hispanic migrant farmworkers with limited English proficiency, CET provides an on-site English-as-a-second-language program. Likewise, because a major barrier for many of Encore!’s clients is low self-esteem resulting from mental and/or physical abuse, Encore! designed its 6-week workshop to build self-esteem and address the barriers that these women face so that they are then ready to enter occupational training. Each project we visited emphasizes employability skills training. Because so many of their clients have not had successful work experiences, they often do not have the basic knowledge others might take for granted about how to function in the workplace. They need to learn what behaviors are important and how to demonstrate them successfully. These include getting to work regularly and on time; dressing appropriately; working well with others; accepting constructive feedback; resolving conflicts appropriately; and, in general, being a reliable, responsible, self-disciplined employee. Each project coaches students in employability skills through on-site workshops or one-on-one sessions. For example, CET provides a human development program that addresses such issues as life skills, communication strategies, and good work habits. Similarly, Arapahoe helps each client develop employment readiness competencies through a workshop or one-on-one with client case managers. Some of the projects also develop employability skills within the context of occupational skills training, with specific rules about punctuality, attendance, and, in some cases, appropriate clothing consistent with the occupation for which clients are training. STRIVE concentrates almost exclusively on employability skills and, in particular, attitudinal training. This project has a very low tolerance for behaviors such as being even a few minutes late for class, not completing homework assignments, not dressing appropriately for the business world, and not exhibiting the appropriate attitude. We observed staff dismissing clients from the program for a violation of any of these elements, telling them they may enroll in another offering of the program when they are ready to change their behavior. Program staff work hard to rid clients of their attitude problems and “victim mentality”—that is, believing that things are beyond their control—and instill in them a responsibility for themselves, as well as make them understand the consequences of their actions in the workplace. All the projects have strong links with the local labor market. Five of the six projects provide occupational skills training, using information from the local labor market to guide their selection of training options to offer clients. These projects focus on occupations that the local labor market will support. Project staff strive to ensure that the training they provide will lead to self-sufficiency—jobs with good earnings potential as well as benefits. In addition, all but one of the six projects use their links to local employers to assist clients with job placement. While their approaches to occupational training and job placement differ, the common thread among the projects is their ability to interpret the needs of local employers and provide them with workers who fit their requirements. All five projects that provide occupational training are selective in the training options that they offer clients, focusing on occupational areas that are in demand locally. For example, CET and Focus: HOPE have chosen to limit their training to one or a few very specific occupational areas that they know the local labor market can support. Focus: HOPE takes advantage of the strong automotive manufacturing base in the Detroit area by offering training in a single occupation serving the automotive industry—machining. With this single occupational focus, Focus: HOPE concentrates primarily on meeting the needs of the automotive industry and the local firms that supply automotive parts. Students are instructed by skilled craftspeople; many senior instructors at Focus: HOPE are retirees who are passing on the knowledge they acquired during their careers. The machines used in training are carefully chosen to represent those that are available in local machine shops—both state-of-the-art and older, less technically sophisticated equipment. Job developers sometimes visit potential work sites, paying close attention to the equipment in use. This information is then used to ensure a good match between client and employer. While offering a wide range of training options, Vo-Tech, which trains Encore! participants, is linked to the local labor market, in part by its craft advisory committees. These committees involve 160 businesses in determining course offerings and curricula. Vo-Tech recently discontinued its bank teller program shortly after a series of local bank mergers decreased demand for this skill. It began offering an electronics program when that industry started expansion in the Port Charlotte area. Vo-Tech also annually surveys local employers for feedback on its graduates’ skills and abilities, using the feedback to make changes to its programs. When feedback from local employers in one occupation indicated that Vo-Tech graduates were unable to pass state licensing exams, the school terminated the instructors and hired new staff. All the projects assist clients in their job search. Five of the six projects had job developers or placement personnel who work to understand the needs of local employers and provide them with workers who fit their requirements. For example, at Focus: HOPE the job developers sometimes visit local employers to discuss their required skill needs. Virtually all graduates of Focus: HOPE are hired into machinist jobs in local firms. The placement staff that works with Encore! graduates noted that there are more positions to fill than clients to fill them. They believe that because of their close ties with the community and the relevance of their training program they have established a reputation of producing well-trained graduates. This reputation leads employers to trust their referrals. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. At this time I will be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. For information on this testimony, please call Sigurd R. Nilsen, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7003; Sarah L. Glavin, Senior Economist, at (202) 512-7180; Denise D. Hunter, Senior Evaluator, at (617) 565-7536; or Betty S. Clark, Senior Evaluator, at (617) 565-7524. Other major contributors included Benjamin Jordan and Dianne Murphy Blank. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the merits of 6 highly successful employment training programs for economically disadvantaged adults. GAO found that the programs: (1) serve adults with little high school education, limited basic skills and English language proficiency, few marketable job skills, and past histories of substance abuse and domestic violence; (2) have a fairly successful placement rate, with three of the programs placing 90 percent of their clientele; (3) ensure that the clients are committed to training and getting a good job, and as a result, require them to sign an agreement of commitment outlining their responsibilities; (4) provide child care, transportation, and basic skills training to enable clients to complete program training and acquire employment; (5) improve their clients employability through on-site workshops and one-on-one sessions; (6) have strong links with the local labor market and use information from the local market to guide training options; and (7) aim to provide their clients with training that will lead to higher earnings, good benefits, and overall self-sufficiency.

Since its creation in 1977, DOE has been responsible for developing, producing, and maintaining nuclear weapons; preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and designing, building, and maintaining naval nuclear propulsion systems. However, DOE historically has been plagued by organizational and managerial problems that have resulted in significant cost overruns and schedule delays on major projects, such as the National Ignition Facility. There have also been a number of security concerns at DOE facilities. In response to these problems, the Congress, in Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, created a new semiautonomous agency within DOE—the National Nuclear Security Administration. Reflecting initial concerns about how DOE was planning to implement Title 32, the Congress amended Title 32 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) to require, among other things, additional information on NNSA’s organization, planning, programming, and budgeting be supplied to the Congress. As of October 2000, NNSA’s basic organizational structure consisted of three program offices—Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors; three operations offices— Albuquerque, Nevada, and Oakland—that oversaw the operations of area offices located at NNSA’s eight field sites and numerous area offices. All but two of the area offices reported to an operations office. The other two area offices—Oak Ridge Y-12 and Savannah River Tritium Operations— reported directly to NNSA headquarters. In May 2001, NNSA restructured its headquarters operations and created two support offices—the Office of Management and Administration and the Office of Facilities and Infrastructure. However, the field structure remained the same. The Congress established NNSA, in part, to correct the confused lines of authority and responsibility within DOE’s nuclear weapons complex that had contributed to a wide variety of problems—such as cost overruns and schedule slippage on large projects, like the National Ignition Facility—as well as security lapses. Past advisory groups, internal DOE studies, and GAO have reported over the years on DOE’s dysfunctional organizational structure. In particular, in December 2000, we reported on our comprehensive study of the management of the Office of Defense Programs, which constitutes over 70 percent of NNSA. We found that the Office of Defense Programs suffered from organizational problems, such as a lack of clear roles and responsibilities, at three levels: within its headquarters organization, between headquarters and the field, and between contractor-operated sites and their federal overseers. This situation made it difficult for the program to be managed as an integrated whole and for managers to make sound decisions. While it did not specify exactly how NNSA was to be organized, Title 32 did establish certain NNSA positions, such as a general counsel, and gave the Administrator the flexibility to determine the best organizational structure for the new agency. Title 32 also laid out chains of command in both DOE and NNSA intended to insulate NNSA from DOE decision- making, except at the level of the NNSA Administrator. In our April 2001 testimony, we reported that some progress had been made in establishing a better-organized NNSA. We noted that the practice of “dual-hatting” had been virtually eliminated, enabling NNSA to manage its programs more independently. In addition, we noted that NNSA had established a new support structure in its headquarters office that had as its goals establishing clear and direct lines of communication, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of NNSA’s headquarters and field offices, and integrating and balancing priorities across NNSA’s missions and infrastructure. Specifically, NNSA established two headquarters support offices: one headed by an associate administrator for management and administration, who is responsible for the planning, programming, and budgeting; personnel; and procurement areas, and the other headed by an associate administrator for facilities and operations, who is responsible for managing NNSA’s infrastructure revitalization initiative and security functions. As we noted in our December 2001 report to the Panel, despite these initiatives, fundamental organizational issues remained. Specifically, the details on how the new NNSA headquarters support offices would work with the established headquarters program offices—the Office of Defense Programs and the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation—were unclear. Many of the field managers we spoke with while developing our 2001 report were concerned that reporting relationships could become more complex and confused rather than less because these various headquarters offices could have different expectations. For example, depending on how responsibility was divided, it was possible for field offices to receive direction from multiple headquarters offices on such areas as infrastructure and major construction projects. More importantly, long-standing, fundamental issues regarding confused lines of authority within NNSA’s headquarters organization, between headquarters and the field, and between contractor-operated sites and their federal overseers that directly affect how NNSA’s contractors are managed remained unresolved. Direction and guidance to the NNSA contractors was still being provided from multiple sources: NNSA local area office managers, DOE and NNSA operations office managers, and NNSA headquarters managers. As we have found in the past, when its contractors receive multiple and sometimes conflicting guidance, NNSA’s ability to hold them accountable for performance is undermined. As it attempted to address these organizational issues, we urged NNSA to employ the organizational principles cited in our April 2001 testimony before this Panel: focusing a small headquarters staff on strategic management, policy, and relationships with other federal agencies; moving program management officials as close to the action as possible; establishing clear lines of authority between NNSA and its contractors; and holding federal and contractor employees accountable for meeting mission goals. While the Administrator promised a solution to these problems by October 2001, NNSA’s report to the Congress on the organization and operations of the NNSA was not expected until February 25, 2002. Our preliminary analysis of NNSA’s proposal leads us to conclude that it contains some positive features as well as some important weaknesses. Most fundamentally, NNSA’s proposal represents only an overall plan of action, and ironing out the details and implementing the proposed new structure is likely to be a long and arduous process. On the positive side, NNSA’s proposal has outlined some potentially significant steps toward solving important long-standing organizational issues by employing some of the principles cited above. Specifically, NNSA’s proposal: Clarifies the relationship between the headquarters program offices and the headquarters support offices by establishing that program direction will come exclusively from the program offices—the Office of Defense Programs and the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation—and by reducing the role of the Office of Facilities and Operations to focus on the infrastructure revitalization initiative and support functions such as security. Establishes a framework for resolving the so-called “two headquarters” problem of duplicative roles between the Office of Defense Programs and the Albuquerque Operations Office by placing program direction for weapons production—a traditional function of the Albuquerque Operations Office—under the Office of Defense Programs. Establishes clear lines of authority between NNSA and its contractors by making the manager of each site office (formerly called an area office) the contracting officer for that site and by providing that direction to the contractor can only come from the contracting officer or a formally appointed representative. In addition, all of the site office managers will report to the Administrator through the Principal Deputy rather than the current practice of some reporting through operations offices and others reporting directly to headquarters. Removes a management layer by making existing operations offices into so-called “Centers of Excellence” that will provide support functions such as financial management and security clearance processing for all of NNSA. Promises to streamline federal staff and to hold federal staff and contractors more accountable for performing NNSA’s mission. Despite these potential improvements, important areas of concern remain. NNSA’s proposal does not address the fact that the weapons science function and the weapons production function within the Office of Defense Programs are managed separately, although their work must be coordinated to achieve mission goals. As we noted in our December 2000 report, officials in DOE’s headquarters, field offices, labs, and production plants repeatedly told us of numerous ways that the split between the weapons science and weapons production portions of the Stockpile Stewardship Program at the headquarters level negatively affects coordination within the nuclear weapons complex. NNSA’s proposal does not consistently apply the principles of streamlining headquarters staff and moving federal program management officials as close to the action as possible. While NNSA expects the weapons production work to be managed by experts in the field, NNSA continues the pattern of having the weapons science work managed out of headquarters. This is problematic because, as we noted in our report on the National Ignition Facility, inadequate oversight by headquarters managers contributed to the cost and schedule problems experienced at this facility. Finally, many important documents will need to be created and refined before the changes proposed in NNSA’s report can become truly operational. This is no small task. For example, the report notes that one document that will need revision is a May 1968 memorandum that defines the roles and responsibilities of the Office of Defense Programs and the Albuquerque Operations Office. As we noted in our December 2000 report on the management of the Office of Defense Programs, there have been several attempts to revise this relationship over the years, none of them successful. Moreover, some of the proposals, such as the Centers of Excellence, are merely concepts that need to be further defined. In addition, streamlining the federal workforce is a difficult undertaking that will take a significant amount of time to fully implement. Currently, no plan with milestones exists for refining these concepts and accomplishing the myriad of details needed to implement them. While we are hopeful that resolution of such long-standing issues may now be within NNSA’s grasp, without the discipline of an implementation plan, reaching NNSA’s organizational goals is likely to be a long and arduous process that could take several years. Moreover, unless the new chains of command are enforced and federal and contractor staff are truly held accountable, this reorganization could be simply another in a long line of missed opportunities. Numerous studies have identified problems in DOE’s planning, programming, and budgeting, including the lack of a unified planning and programming process, the absence of integrated long-range program plans, and the failure to fully link existing plans to budgets and management controls. Without sound, integrated planning, programming, and budgeting, it has been difficult for officials to ensure that decisions with resource implications are weighed against one another in a complete and consistent fashion and that mission outcomes are linked to management controls. In our December 2000 report, we recommended that NNSA take action to improve and integrate its planning processes and to improve its budgetary data to provide needed management information. Title 32 mandates the use of sound planning, programming, budgeting, and financial activities. It also requires that NNSA submit to the Congress each year a Future Years Nuclear Security Program plan that details NNSA’s planned expenditures for the next 5 years. Very early in his tenure, the current NNSA Administrator indicated that he intended to comply with Title 32 by instituting a planning, programming, and budgeting process similar to that in use at the Department of Defense (DOD). While DOD’s approach has not been without problems over the past 40 years, it is generally recognized as a system that, when properly led and staffed, is capable of making cost-effectiveness comparisons and of developing the detailed program and budget plans called for in Title 32. The Administrator originally set a goal of having fully established NNSA’s version of DOD’s planning, programming, and budgeting process—now referred to as the planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation (PPBE) process—by the fiscal year 2003 budget cycle. Subsequently, this date was pushed back to the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle because development was taking longer than expected. In our April 2001 testimony before the Panel, we reported that despite the delays NNSA was encountering, its initial attempts to develop its own PPBE process offered the potential to help bring NNSA into compliance with Title 32. It appeared that both NNSA headquarters and field units appreciated the discipline that such a process could offer. We noted, however, that an enormous amount of work would have to be completed before NNSA had even a minimally functional PPBE process. As we reported to the Panel in December 2001, beginning in the summer of 2001, the acting associate administrator of the Office of Management and Administration and the acting director of the Office of Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation, began reevaluating NNSA’s initial efforts. This shift in direction temporarily slowed NNSA’s momentum in establishing a PPBE process and caused some confusion in NNSA field offices. These officials began the reevaluation because they believed that the initial approach was oriented too much toward DOD’s program structure and that this approach failed to take into account the uniqueness of NNSA’s programs and the type of contracting approaches NNSA uses to do its work. As a result, NNSA proposed a PPBE process that would use existing NNSA plans, practices, and processes as much as possible. Nevertheless, NNSA continued to refine its PPBE process and communicated it to all NNSA program, support, and field offices on September 12, 2001. Later, NNSA began to implement some of the planning elements of the process for the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle. Examples of some of these activities follow: NNSA released draft strategic guidance developed by its Office of Policy Planning on September 27, 2001. This long-range guidance focuses on the key issues NNSA faces, such as the projected security environment and size of the stockpile, and is intended to guide the planning process. According to NNSA, the first step in its revised PPBE process, the draft strategic guidance, will establish a basis for the development of 5-year program plans for the individual programs within NNSA. NNSA’s major programs—Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Naval Reactors—and each of NNSA’s headquarters support offices have drafted program integrated plans. These plans are annual documents that delineate the responsibilities, priorities, and performance commitments for an entire program. Despite this progress, NNSA did not complete all the goals it set for its PPBE planning phase for the fiscal year 2004 cycle. For example, NNSA did not issue draft 5-year program and fiscal guidance or its strategic plan in September 2001 as it had originally envisioned. These documents will probably be issued in late February 2002. NNSA officials cited the far- reaching impact of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; delays in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations process; and the then-ongoing national security program review as reasons for the delay in issuing both documents. Nevertheless, both the draft program and fiscal guidance and the strategic plan are important early components of the “cascade” of NNSA planning documents that were to be used to shape the program integrated plans mentioned earlier. While NNSA did make some progress in implementing elements of its fiscal year 2004 planning phase, NNSA still has an enormous amount of work to do for the programming, budgeting, and evaluation phases of the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle. Examples of the implementation activities remaining follow: NNSA has not finalized significant portions of the PPBE process, such as the programming and evaluation phases. NNSA established implementation teams to help create workable processes for those two phases of its PPBE process. One of the teams has focused on the programming phase, in which competing priorities and mission needs will be evaluated, alternatives and trade-offs will be analyzed, and resources will be allocated to meet the highest priorities. The other team is working on an enhanced evaluation phase, which will establish performance measures, indicators, and metrics to evaluate progress in meeting programmatic goals. Both teams were scheduled to develop recommendations and report to the NNSA senior leadership in December 2001; however, these reports now have been delayed until late February 2002. The initiation of the programming phase has slipped from February to March 2002. NNSA has begun to work on an automated system for the budget execution phase of the PPBE process, but other decision and information systems will still need to be revised to handle the new process. In addition, NNSA’s systems will have to interface with both DOE’s existing planning, financial, and budgeting systems and DOE’s planned changes to these systems. NNSA and DOE officials report that they are cooperating on these issues. However, NNSA officials report that coordinating with the DOE Chief Financial Officer is causing some delays in implementing NNSA’s PPBE process. Except for budgeting, NNSA does not appear to have many personnel on hand with the skills to conduct the analytical functions typically associated with multiple phases of a PPBE process. These skills, which were the trademark of DOD’s system when it was implemented 40 years ago, are especially important in the upcoming programming phase where program alternatives and trade-offs are considered and cost-effectiveness comparisons are made. NNSA officials report that such factors as their recent hiring freeze have prevented them from recruiting these kinds of analysts. It is unclear if NNSA will submit a comprehensive Future Years Nuclear Security Program plan to the Congress as required by Title 32. Although NNSA previously had developed such plans, NNSA failed to submit these plans to the Congress in 2000 and 2001. NNSA did include a table containing the 5 years of budget data required for a Future Years Nuclear Security Program plan in its fiscal year 2003 budget request, and some NNSA officials have told us that a broad plan has been prepared and may be released by the end of February 2002. All the plans to date have been developed without the benefit of a functional PPBE. In summary, NNSA has experienced difficulty in fully implementing all the activities it had envisioned for the planning phase of its PPBE process. The need to implement the new programming phase, establish a more highly automated budget execution phase, and upgrade evaluation activities suggest that NNSA probably will face additional hurdles as it implements its PPBE process for the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle. Rather than the fully implemented system for the fiscal year 2004 cycle envisioned by the Administrator, it is probably better to think of NNSA’s PPBE as a prototype that will have to be more extensively refined and developed in future years. Furthermore, it is too soon to tell whether the proposed process, when fully implemented, will effectively address widely recognized problems in NNSA’s existing planning, programming, and budgeting practices and will establish an effective evaluation process. Retaining and recruiting the highly skilled scientific and technical personnel needed to make our government run efficiently and effectively challenges virtually every federal department and agency. NNSA, in particular NNSA’s Office of Defense Programs, has had difficulty meeting this challenge. According to NNSA officials, specific obstacles to recruiting and retaining staff include the downsizing and resulting program instability of the past decade, the high cost of living near some NNSA field sites or their remote locations, a shortage of people trained in the relevant scientific and engineering disciplines, relatively low federal salaries compared with those offered by private high-technology companies, and the lengthy process required to hire people into the federal workforce. Moreover, we and others have concluded that the lack of technically competent personnel has contributed to weak contract management and to poorly managed projects that are often late or over budget. In response to this situation, in Title 32 the Congress provided NNSA the authority to create up to 300 excepted service positions specifically for scientific, engineering, and technical staff. For excepted service positions, each agency—in this case NNSA—develops, within basic requirements prescribed by law or regulation, its own hiring system. NNSA’s system establishes the evaluation criteria NNSA will use in filling the excepted service positions. Specifically, NNSA may now hire staff through a noncompetitive selection process and has greater flexibility in setting salaries. NNSA managers and human resource officials with whom we spoke had mixed reactions to the excepted service authority granted by Title 32. In general, NNSA officials were optimistic that the excepted service authority would help make the agency more attractive to prospective employees. NNSA currently employs about 2,500 people, including more than 800 in scientific, engineering, and technical job series. Several managers told us that additional pay flexibility would allow them to be competitive in their efforts to hire new employees and to retain current employees. However, managers also cautioned that the limited authority might create morale problems for those NNSA employees not included in the excepted service. In light of these concerns, NNSA managers told us that they would prefer to have the entire agency in the excepted service, or at least enough positions for all of the organization’s scientific, engineering, and technical employees. Accordingly, NNSA pursued congressional authorization to expand the excepted service authority granted in Title 32; however, the Congress has not granted this authorization. At the same time, NNSA made an initial allocation of about one-third of the 300 excepted service positions provided by Title 32 to the field and headquarters units in October 2001. At that time, NNSA had plans to use 68 positions to convert employees in DOE’s excepted service and NNSA civil service to NNSA’s excepted service and to use the other 29 positions to hire new staff. In the interim, NNSA’s human resource officials had been reluctant to use the limited authority and decided to use it only to hire critical new staff. Subsequently, NNSA imposed a hiring freeze starting in October 2001 that will remain in effect for the foreseeable future. As we noted in our December 2001 report to the Panel, NNSA has made limited progress toward using its new authority. The Administrator has developed an interim excepted service policy that covers new staff and NNSA employees originally hired into DOE’s excepted service systems who will be converted to NNSA’s system. The Administrator has also delegated the authority to implement the policy to headquarters and field organizations. In addition, the Administrator created an NNSA Executive Resources Board and appointed its members. The Board is responsible for making hiring and promotion decisions affecting NNSA employees assigned to the two highest levels of the excepted service, as well as to the Senior Executive Service, Scientific and Professional, and Senior Level pay systems. According to NNSA’s deputy for workforce planning and management, NNSA has also prepared the policies needed to cover civil service employees who might consider making the conversion to excepted service. Those policies are awaiting final approval from the Administrator and DOE. In addition, in response to congressional direction, NNSA is preparing a plan for using the remainder of the 300 authorized excepted service positions. Because of the hiring freeze, the excepted service positions will be used primarily to offer existing eligible employees the opportunity to convert to the excepted service. Thus, NNSA expects that most of the 300 positions will be filled within 90 days of the Administrator’s final approval of the policies and plan by converting existing employees.

Created to correct long-standing and widely recognized management and security problems at the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) manages the nation's nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and naval reactors programs. Although NNSA announced a new headquarters organization in May 2001, it did not meet the Administrator's promise of implementing a new structure for the entire organization by October 2001. Furthermore, NNSA lost momentum during the summer in its effort to implement a comprehensive planning, programming, and budgeting process. NNSA has used only 19 of the 300 excepted service positions authorized by Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. NNSA expects to report to Congress next month on its plans for using its excepted service authority. However, NNSA lacks a long-term strategic approach to ensure a well-managed, properly sized, and skilled workforce over the long run.

Caitlin Tagner, a high school sophomore from North Carolina, is very clear about who she blames for her school's "nasty" lunches: "I blame Michelle Obama." It's great that schools are trying to make lunches better, they're not doing a very good job of it. "Starving kids at school isn't exactly a way to (get) kids' obesity down," Tagner added. "I feel like it's just been taken too far." On Monday, the Associated Press reported that some school nutrition directors want the Department of Agriculture of loosen up the new-ish lunch requirements so students will stop throwing away their food. Anthony Gallimore, a high school senior from Georgia, was more willing to acknowledge others might be at fault. "It's gotta be a combination of Michelle and the servers at the school. No one person could take all the blame," he DM'd The Wire. "Though, the servers are probably just doing what they're told." At Gallimore's school, most people "put up with" the lunch, but several have started bringing their own. "Health-wise, I'd say it's an illusion of benefit. The food even LOOKED more presentable before," he wrote. "And if nobody chooses to eat the gross food, then it can't possibly be helping anyone. It's just being thrown out anyway." Tagner and Gallimore are two of millions of students across the country adjusting to the new (as of the 2012-2013 school year) lunch standards mandated by the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act, a law Michelle Obama championed. Some kids like the lunches, but the ones who don't have school cafeterias are concerned. The right-leaning Twitchy, and several other sites, recently rounded up tweets from disgruntled high schoolers who blamed their lunches on Michelle Obama's health standards. But it turns out that the lunches, specifically the bad ones, aren't her fault — Congress and the Department of Agriculture approved the standards, and some school cafeteria's aren't adapting as well as others. The Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act New meals are required to offer a whole grain, protein, fat free or low-fat milk, fruits and vegetables. Student can turn down two of the five options, but they have to take either a fruit or a vegetable. So for instance this school lunch is not in compliance: All we get for lunch today. Thank you Michelle Obama pic.twitter.com/1rACNXM9aP — . (@BradyJustice2) March 12, 2014 ...because there are no fruits or vegetables. Brady Justice, the Oklahoma sophomore who ordered that lunch, acknowledged that his school has a salad bar ever day, "which is nice, but I don't like salad :/," he said over DM. Justice said that while the food is a little bit healthier, "I am in athletics and every day I am hungry by the end of school." Schools and students are now worried about the sodium limits that are set to take effect by 2017, according to the AP, and want to drop the requirement that every kid take a fruit or a vegetable. Every student The Wire interviewed saw and/or tasted the decline in their lunch options over the last few years. Justice replied, "In the past we always had an option for chicken nuggets or something else that was generally tasty, but this year we get a little sandwich or pizza made with wheat bread." (The pizza is not good.) Sarah Vongphachanh, a junior from Alabama, said the changes started with reduced calorie snacks. "There was a noticeable shift," Gallimore said. "The milk brands changed and the bread changed from white to a much smaller portion of wheat bread." Tagner gave up. "I started bringing my lunch now," she wrote. "The milk is usually warm also." Two things. First, it's worth noting that some kids like Justice don't eat the healthy part of the healthy school lunches. Second, as child nutrition advocate Ann Cooper told The Wire, "Michelle Obama has absolutely nothing to do with the national school lunch program." Cooper, aka the Renegade Lunch Lady, is a trained chef and the director of nutrition for the Boulder Valley School District in Colorado. "She's certainly a cheerleader for it and she certainly has made her personal views apparent," but the Department of Agriculture is in charge of the actual regulations, Cooper said. @MichelleObama thanks for ruining lunch lol bye 😒👊 — allison (@Allie_40_5) April 3, 2014 The National School Lunch Program designates federal dollars towards paying for a percentage of the cost of free, reduced price and regular priced school lunches. In return, the schools have to follow certain guidelines, including nutritional guidelines. In 2010, Congress passed the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act, which calls for healthier foods and portion sizes. "I think they're just disingenuous," Cooper said of the kids protesting their lunches. "Because what I think they would like, instead of having fruits and vegetables... they'd like to have four pieces of pizza ... There's plenty of schools that are not serving good food, but that has nothing to do with the guidelines." In addition to cracking down on junk food, the law reauthorized several child nutrition programs, expanded children's access to free and reduced price lunches, increased the government's contribution to lunches by six cents a meal and marked the largest investment in the programs in their history, as ABC News reported that August. But it's the food everyone is upset about. Schools Cafeterias Cooper acknowledged that not all school lunches are good — not all schools have a lunch program overseen by a trained chef and nutrition advocate — but thinks kids just miss junk food and aren't used to choosing better options. "If a high school student in one of our schools chose ... let's just say they had a quesadilla, and the quesadilla is the grain and the protein. They could end up with a quesadilla and an apple, and that's it," she said. "And that's not enough food for most high school kids, but that's because they didn't choose to take the rest of the food." The USDA has been open to at least temporarily adjusting some of the guidelines. Last June the Government Accountability Office recommended that the USDA loosen its restrictions on grains and meats after speaking with school food authorities from 17 schools in eight school districts. Thanks Michelle Obama I'm going to be so full after this $2.30 lunch pic.twitter.com/l7JV6Jb35i — Ciarra ☮ (@Lawsonmonster) April 25, 2014 "The school districts had problems implementing some of this," the GAO's Director of Education, Workforce and Income Security Kay E. Brown, told The Wire. In February, Brown's department released a report detailing how schools handled the implementation of the new healthy food standards. Conservative outlets latched on to the fact that 1 million students — 3.7 percent — were projected to leave the school lunch this year because of the new standers, but Brown said it was more complicated than that. "The vendors weren't necessarily ready to give them some of the right types of food in the right serving sizes that they needed. They didn't necessarily have the right kitchen equipment on hand, they had to retrain their staff to be cutting up vegetables and fruit, rather than making baked goods," Brown said. While schools across the country experienced problems with issues specific to both the health standards like plate waste, food costs for healthier meals, portion sizes and calorie ranges, schools that started implementing the standards earlier had an easier time. Studies have shown that hyper-palatable foods (junk food) can be addictive — it takes time to develop a taste for healthy foods. "We also talked to school districts that had started serving more nutritious foods earlier than what's required and we're starting to see acceptance improve among the kids," Brown said. Cooper noted that her school, which started serving the new health standards five years ago, experienced a 4 percent drop in sales their first year, followed by three years of 6 to 7 percent increases. Switching from "chicken nuggets and tater tots" to fresh salad bars isn't an easy process. "The idea that we're going to change kids palettes in just a couple of months from high fat, high salt, high sugar to fresh fruits and vegetables for older kids is unreasonable." Teens, who are in high school for about four years, aren't thinking long-term. Tagner says she regularly throws away the fruit or vegetable that comes with her school lunch. "I don't like doing it, but I'm hoping it's a lesson learned that they're not providing students nutritious meals by forcing them to get stuff." ||||| ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Becky Domokos-Bays of Alexandria City Public Schools has served her students whole-grain pasta 20 times. Each time, she said, they rejected it. Fruit and vegetables are served during lunch service at the Patrick Henry Elementary School in Alexandria, Va., Tuesday, April 29, 2014. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) (Associated Press) Brianna Delcid-Gomez, 7, right, sitting with Ruth Gebregiorgis, 8, left, and Amina Sharif, 7, center, eat lunch at the Patrick Henry Elementary School in Alexandria, Va., Tuesday, April 29, 2014. (AP... (Associated Press) Biden Arias-Romers, 5, left, and Nathaniel Cossio-Boatwright, 6, right, eat lunch at the Patrick Henry Elementary School in Alexandria, Va., Tuesday, April 29, 2014. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) (Associated Press) Becky Domokos-Bays, the Director of Food and Nutrition Services at Alexandria City Public Schools, holds up a tray of food during lunch service at the Patrick Henry Elementary School in Alexandria, Va.,... (Associated Press) Starting next school year, pasta and other grain products in schools will have to be whole-grain rich, or more than half whole grain. That includes rolls, biscuits, pizza crust, tortillas and even grits. The requirement is part of a government effort to make school lunches and breakfasts healthier. Championed by first lady Michelle Obama, the new standards have been phased in over the last two school years, with more changes coming in 2014. Some schools say the changes have been expensive and difficult to put in place, and school officials are asking Congress and the Agriculture Department to roll back some of the requirements. Their main concerns: finding enough whole grain-rich foods that kids like, lowering sodium levels and keeping fruits and vegetables from ending up in the trash. In interviews, school nutrition directors across the country mostly agreed that healthy changes were needed in school lunches — long famous for daily servings of greasy fries and pizza. Kids have adapted easily to many of the changes, are getting more variety in the lunch line and are eating healthier. But Domokos-Bays and other school nutrition directors say the standards were put in place too quickly as kids get used to new tastes and school lunch vendors rush to reformulate their foods. When kids don't buy lunch, or throw it away, it costs the schools precious dollars. "The regulations are so prescriptive, so it's difficult to manage not only the nutrition side of your businesses but the business side of your business," Domokos-Bays said. Some of the main challenges reported by school nutrition directors: —Whole grains. While many kids have adapted to whole grain rolls, breads and even pizza crusts, some schools are having problems with whole grain-rich pastas, which can cook differently. USDA's Janey Thornton, a former school nutrition director, says the government is working with the food industry to develop better pastas. Whole grains have also proved a hard sell for some popular regional items, like biscuits and grits in the South. Lyman Graham of the Roswell, New Mexico, school district says tortillas are one of the most popular foods in his area, but the whole wheat flour versions are "going in the trash." —Sodium. Schools will have to lower the total sodium levels in school meals next school year and then will have to lower them even further by 2017. School lunch directors say the 2017 target — 640 milligrams total in an elementary school lunch and 740 milligrams in a high school lunch — isn't feasible and say kids will reject the foods. USDA's Thornton acknowledges the food industry isn't there yet but encourages frustrated school lunch directors to "worry about today first before we imagine the worst down the road." —Fruits and vegetables. The standards require every student to take a fruit or vegetable to create a balanced plate. The reaction among students has been mixed. "If the kids don't eat the food, then all I have is healthy trash cans," said Peggy Lawrence, director of nutrition at the Rockdale County Public Schools in Georgia. —Healthier snacks. Schools will for the first time this year have to make sure that all foods, including vending machines and a la carte lines, meet healthier standards. While many schools have already moved to make snacks healthier, others depend on snack money to help operate their lunchrooms and are worried about a sales dip. The School Nutrition Association has asked Congress and USDA to only require that 50 percent of foods be whole grain-rich, to suspend the 2017 sodium requirements and to stop requiring students to take a fruit or vegetable. Margo Wootan, a nutrition lobbyist for the Center for Science in the Public Interest who has pushed for healthier meals, says relaxing those standards could gut the program. "You can't call a meal a meal without a fruit or vegetable," she said. USDA has shown some flexibility already: In 2012, the department scrapped maximums on proteins and grains after students complained they were hungry. USDA's Thornton says problems will lessen as the food industry creates healthier products. "I'll bet that five or seven years down the road, we'll see kids eating healthy food and we'll see acceptance," she said. Republicans say they may intervene before then. Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt, the Republican in charge of the House spending committee overseeing USDA, has said school districts need a "pause" while problems are worked out. Aderholt's panel is expected to release a new spending bill this month that may propose changes. Republicans also are eying the next five-year renewal of the school foods policy, due in 2015. Sam Kass, senior policy adviser for nutrition at the White House, said last month that there have been "tremendous gains" in school foods and said he finds efforts to undermine that disappointing. "First and foremost, the key is not going back," he said. At Alexandria's Patrick Henry Elementary last Tuesday, students said they loved their lunches and gobbled up plump strawberries. Kindergartner Jade Kennedy said she recently tried kiwi at school for the first time. But Domokos-Bays said she will serve white pasta to the students until she has to make the change this summer. Tuesday was pasta day, and several children said it was their favorite lunch — "better than my mom made," first-grader Ruth Gebregiorgis said.

Schools are struggling to adhere to new government rules on healthy lunches, and school officials are asking Washington to step back. "The regulations are so prescriptive, so it's difficult to manage not only the nutrition side of your businesses but the business side of your business," a school nutrition director says. Among the concerns are a requirement that grain products like pasta be whole-grain rich by next school year—a rule kids don't find particularly appetizing, officials say. The School Nutrition Association is asking Congress and the USDA to lower the whole-grain requirement so that it only applies to 50% of offerings, the AP reports. The association would also like to suspend new sodium limits and ditch the requirement that all meals come with a fruit or vegetable. "If the kids don't eat the food, then all I have is healthy trash cans," says another nutrition director. Teenagers, the Wire reports, have found a target for their food frustration: "I blame Michelle Obama," says one, while another says "it's gotta be a combination of Michelle and the servers at the school." Obama did back the law that implemented the changes. But according to a nutrition advocate, Obama is a "cheerleader" for the program, while the USDA actually makes the rules.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Tarik Jasarevic, from the WHO, said there were safety and ethical issues surrounding experimental Ebola drugs Global health experts at the World Health Organization (WHO) are meeting to discuss new measures to tackle the Ebola outbreak. The meeting is expected to last two days and will decide whether to declare a global health emergency. On Wednesday, a man suspected to have contracted Ebola died in Saudi Arabia. If confirmed, this will be the first Ebola-related death outside of Africa. The virus has killed nearly 900 people since February in West Africa. The outbreak began in February in Guinea, and has since spread to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. On Wednesday a nurse became the second person to die from Ebola in Nigeria. Nigeria's health minister said five other cases of Ebola were being treated in isolation in Lagos, sub-Saharan Africa's largest city. It comes as leading infectious disease experts have called for experimental treatments to be offered more widely. Two US aid workers who contracted Ebola in Liberia appear to be improving after receiving an unapproved medicine ahead of their evacuation back to the US. But it is not clear if the ZMapp drug, which has only been tested on monkeys, can be credited with their improvement. Prof Peter Piot, who co-discovered Ebola in 1976, Prof David Heymann, the head of the Centre on Global Health Security, and Wellcome Trust director Prof Jeremy Farrar said there were several drugs and vaccines being studied for possible use against Ebola. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Prof Peter Piot says experimental drugs should be more widely used in Ebola cases "African governments should be allowed to make informed decisions about whether or not to use these products - for example to protect and treat healthcare workers who run especially high risks of infection," they wrote in a joint statement. The WHO, "the only body with the necessary international authority" to allow such experimental treatments, "must take on this greater leadership role", they said. The meeting of the WHO's emergency committee in Geneva is focusing solely on how to respond to the Ebola outbreak. If a public health emergency is declared it could also involve detailed plans and efforts to identify, isolate and treat cases. It could involve imposing travel restrictions on affected areas. A WHO spokesman said: "We can't speculate in advance what the committee members are going to decide in advance." Meanwhile, the World Bank is allocating $200m (£120m) in emergency assistance for countries battling to contain Ebola. It is the world's deadliest outbreak to date and has centred on Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Eight people are currently in quarantine in Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, and two have died there. The Saudi man died after showing Ebola symptoms when he returned from a business trip to Sierra Leone, the Saudi health ministry said. He died in an isolation ward at a hospital in Jeddah, it added. Officials in Liberia said a Spanish priest and two Spanish nuns had been infected in the capital, Monrovia. The Spanish government said it would send a plane to repatriate its citizens. British Airways has temporarily suspended flights to and from Liberia and Sierra Leone until 31 August because of the health crisis, the airline said in a statement. It follows a similar suspension by two regional airlines last week. The virus spreads by contact with infected blood and bodily fluids. The current outbreak is killing between 50% and 60% of people infected. There is no cure or vaccine for Ebola - but patients have a better chance of survival if they receive early treatment. Ebola has initial flu-like symptoms that can lead to external haemorrhaging from areas like eyes and gums, and internal bleeding which can lead to organ failure. Ebola virus disease (EVD) Image copyright Science Photo Library Symptoms include high fever, bleeding and central nervous system damage Fatality rate can reach 90% - but the current outbreak is about 55% Incubation period is two to 21 days There is no vaccine or cure Supportive care such as rehydrating patients who have diarrhoea and vomiting can help recovery Fruit bats are considered to be virus' natural host Ebola: Experimental treatments Why Ebola is so dangerous ||||| RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — A Saudi national, who fell ill after returning from Sierra Leone, died early Wednesday in his hospital isolation ward where he was being tested for the Ebola virus, said the Saudi Health Ministry. The 40-year-old returned on Sunday from Sierra Leone, where there has been an Ebola outbreak, and was then hospitalized in Jiddah after showing symptoms of the viral hemorrhagic fever. The patient's samples are being tested in an international reference lab on the advice of the World Health Organization. He had already tested negative for dengue fever. Different types of viral hemorrhagic fevers have been found in the kingdom, but the ministry statement said no case of Ebola has ever been detected there. Ebola, which has no proven vaccine or treatment, has killed more than 900 people this year in four countries in West Africa. Saudi Arabia announced in April that it was not issuing visas this year to Muslim pilgrims from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea as a precaution to avoid the spread during the hajj pilgrimage, which sees massive crowds of people from around the world gather in Mecca. Saudi Ambassador in Guinea Amjad Bedaiwi was quoted in the Saudi Arab News Wednesday saying the decision affects a total of 7,400 pilgrims from those three countries. ||||| MADRID (AP) — Spain has sent a medically-equipped jet to Liberia to bring home a Spanish missionary priest who has tested positive for the Ebola virus, officials said Wednesday. The priest, Miguel Pajares, will be treated at a hospital in Madrid after he arrives but public health general director Mercedes Vinuesa did not tell reporters which one. Parajes was helping to treat people infected with Ebola and is one of three who tested positive at the San Jose de Monrovia Hospital in Liberia. All work for the San Juan de Dios hospital order, a Catholic humanitarian group that runs hospitals around the world. The other two infected aid workers were identified as Chantal Pascaline Mutwamene of Congo and Paciencia Melgar from Equatorial Guinea. Three other missionaries working at the hospital tested negative. Vinuesa said the Defense Ministry Airbus 310 that will transport Pajares has medical equipment on board to treat more people if needed. It's the first time that someone infected with Ebola will be treated in Spain. Vinuesa downplayed possible public health risk concerns during a press conference. "The (safety) protocols we will use guarantee minimum risk," she said. ||||| ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — A Nigerian nurse who treated a man with Ebola is now dead and five others are sick with one of the world's most virulent diseases, authorities said Wednesday as the death toll rose to at least 932 people in four West African countries. Nigerian health officials wait to screen passengers at the arrival hall of Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos, Nigeria, Monday, Aug. 4, 2014. Nigerian authorities on Monday confirmed a second... (Associated Press) Nigeria health official display a leaflet explaining Ebola Virus Disease at the arrival hall of Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos, Nigeria, Monday, Aug. 4, 2014. Nigerian authorities on... (Associated Press) Nigerian health officials wait to screen passengers at the arrivals hall of Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos, Nigeria, Monday, Aug. 4, 2014. Nigerian authorities on Monday confirmed a second... (Associated Press) Passengers queue for their passport document check by immigration officers at the arrivals hall of Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos, Nigeria, Monday, Aug. 4, 2014. Nigerian authorities... (Associated Press) A Nigerian health official wearing a protective suit waits to screen passengers at the arrivals hall of Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos, Nigeria, Monday, Aug. 4, 2014. Nigerian authorities... (Associated Press) Passengers are seen at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos, Nigeria, Monday, Aug. 4, 2014. Nigerian authorities on Monday confirmed a second case of Ebola in Africa's most populous country,... (Associated Press) The growing number of cases in Lagos, a megacity of some 21 million people, comes as authorities acknowledge they did not treat Patrick Sawyer as an Ebola patient and isolate him for the first 24 hours after his arrival in Nigeria last month. Sawyer, a 40-year-old American of Liberian descent with a wife and three young daughters in Minnesota, was traveling on a business flight to Nigeria when he fell ill. The death of the unidentified nurse marks the second Ebola death in Nigeria, and this worries health experts as it is the Africa's most populous country and Lagos, where the deaths occurred, one of its biggest cities. Ben Webster, a Red Cross disaster response manager in London, said it is "critically important" that people displaying symptoms are identified quickly. "It's impossible to say whether this specific situation could have been avoided, but there is certainly more likelihood of travelers coming from an Ebola-affected country in the region and authorities need to be aware, even if the infrastructure and situation is challenging." In Saudi Arabia officials say a man who was being tested for the Ebola virus has died. The 40-year-old returned on Sunday from Sierra Leone, where at least 286 people have died from Ebola, and was then hospitalized in Jiddah after showing symptoms of the viral hemorrhagic fever. Spain's Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said a medically-equipped Airbus 310 is ready to fly to Liberia to repatriate a Spanish missionary priest who has Ebola. The ministry said Wednesday that preparations for the flight are being finalized but it is not yet known what time the plane will take off. The priest, Miguel Pajares, is one of three missionaries being kept in isolation at the San Jose de Monrovia Hospital in Liberia who have tested positive for the virus, Spain's San Juan de Dios hospital order, a Catholic humanitarian group that runs hospitals around the world, said Tuesday. There have now been at least 1,711 cases of Ebola this year, which has no proven vaccine or treatment, according to new figures released Wednesday by the World Health Organization. More than 932 people have died in Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia and Nigeria as of Aug. 4, WHO said. In announcing the new deaths, WHO noted in particular that "community resistance remains high" in Liberia. Many fearful family members are refusing to bring sick relatives to isolation centers, preferring to treat them at home and pray for their survival as no proven cure or treatment exists for Ebola. The difficulties in quarantining sick people are complicating efforts to stop Ebola's spread. In Nigeria, the five people now infected from Sawyer would not have been contagious to their neighbors or family members until they started showing symptoms of their own, health experts say. The delay in enforcing infection control measures, though, is another setback in the battle to stamp out the worst Ebola outbreak in history. The specter of the virus spreading through Nigeria is particularly alarming, said Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. "It makes you nervous when so many people are potentially at risk," he said. Lagos is a bewildering combination of wealth and abject poverty, awash in luxury SUVs and decrepit buses alike that carry passengers through hours of crowded traffic on the bridges linking the city's islands to the mainland. Ebola can only be transmitted through direct contact with the bodily fluids of someone who is sick — blood, semen, saliva, urine, feces or sweat. Millions live in cramped conditions without access to flushable toilets, and signs posted across the megacity tell people not to urinate in public. Authorities in Liberia said Sawyer's sister had recently died of Ebola, though Sawyer said he had not had close contact with her while she was ill. In announcing his death, Health Minister Onyebuchi Chukwu maintained that Nigerian officials had been vigilant. "It was right there (at the airport) that the problem was noticed because we have maintained our surveillance," he told reporters. "And immediately, he went into the custody of the port health services of the federal ministry of health so there was no time for him to mingle in Lagos. He has not been in touch with any other person again since we took him from the airport." On Tuesday, the Lagos state health commissioner said, however, that they did not suspect Ebola immediately and it was only after about 24 hours in the hospital that they identified him as a possible Ebola case. "They went back to the history and they were like 'Oh, this is Liberia,' and that's why he was put into isolation," Lagos state health commissioner Jide Idris told reporters. "So even in that window period it was possible that some of these people got infected." Nigeria was among the countries present at a regional meeting of health officials in Ghana at the beginning of July where they agreed to step up surveillance of potential Ebola cases and quickly share information with the World Health Organization. Sawyer, who had a fever and was vomiting on the plane, was coming from the infected country of Liberia but had a layover in Togo. As a result, officials may not have initially known his original point of departure and it was unclear whether he was traveling on a Liberian or American passport. Experts say people infected with Ebola can spread the disease only through their bodily fluids and after they show symptoms. Since the incubation period can last up to three weeks, some of the Nigerians who treated Sawyer are only now showing signs of illness that can mimic many common tropical illnesses — fever, muscle aches and vomiting. The national health minister on Wednesday said special tents would be used to speed up the establishment of isolation wards in all of Nigeria's states. Authorities are setting up an emergency center in Lagos to deal with Ebola that will be "fully functional" by Thursday, he said. "We are embarking on recruiting additional health personnel to strengthen the team who are currently managing the situation in Lagos," said his statement. ___ Larson reported from Dakar, Senegal. Associated Press Medical Writers Maria Cheng in London and Mike Stobbe in New York contributed to this report.

The death toll from the Ebola outbreak in West Africa has risen to 932, the World Health Organization says. Most of the new deaths are coming from Liberia and Sierra Leone. The outbreak emerged in March in Guinea and shows no sign of slowing down. Among the latest news: Nigeria today confirmed the death of a nurse, the country's second death from the illness, the AP reports. Saudi Arabia announced one death of a man with Ebola-like symptoms; it could be the first death outside Africa from the illness. Spain has sent a medically-equipped jet to Liberia to bring home a Spanish missionary priest who has tested positive for the Ebola virus, officials say. The World Health Organization has kicked off two days of meetings to discuss how to address the crisis, the BBC notes.

Registered nurses are responsible for a large portion of the health care provided in this country. RNs make up the largest group of health care providers, and, historically, have worked predominantly in hospitals; in 2000, 59.1 percent of RNs were employed in hospital settings. A smaller number of RNs work in other settings such as ambulatory care, home health care, and nursing homes. Their responsibilities may include providing direct patient care in a hospital or a home health care setting, managing and directing complex nursing care in an intensive care unit, or supervising the provision of long-term care in a nursing home. Individuals usually select one of three ways to become an RN—through a 2-year associate degree, 3-year diploma, or 4-year baccalaureate degree program. Once they have completed their education, RNs are subject to state licensing requirements. The U.S. healthcare system has changed significantly over the past 2 decades, affecting the environment in which nurses provide care. Advances in technology and greater emphasis on cost-effectiveness have led to changes in the structure, organization, and delivery of health care services. While hospitals traditionally were the primary providers of acute care, advances in technology, along with cost controls, shifted care from traditional inpatient settings to ambulatory or community-based settings, nursing facilities, or home health care settings. The number of hospital beds staffed declined as did the patient lengths of stay. While the number of hospital admissions declined from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, they increased between 1995 and 1999. At the same time, the overall acuity level of the patients increased as the conditions of those patients remaining in hospitals made them too medically complex to be cared for in another setting. The transfer of less acute patients to nursing homes and community-based care settings created additional job opportunities and increased demand for nurses. Current evidence suggests emerging shortages of nurses available or willing to fill some vacant positions in hospitals, nursing homes, and home care. Some localities are experiencing greater difficulty than others. National data are not adequate to describe the nature and extent of these potential nurse workforce shortages, nor are data sufficiently sensitive or current to allow a comparison of the adequacy of the nurse workforce size across states, specialties, or provider types. However, total employment of RNs per capita and the national unemployment rate for RNs have declined, and providers from around the country are reporting growing difficulty recruiting and retaining the number of nurses needed in a range of settings. Another indicator that suggests the emergence of shortages is a rise in recent public sector efforts related to nurse workforce issues in many states. The national unemployment rate for RNs is at its lowest level in more than a decade, continuing to decline from 1.5 percent in 1997 to 1.0 percent in 2000. At the same time, total employment of RNs per capita declined 2 percent between 1996 and 2000, reversing steady increases since 1980. Between 1980 and 1996, the number of employed RNs per capita nationwide increased by 44 percent. At the state level, changes in per capita nurse employment from 1996 to 2000 varied widely, from a 16.2 percent increase in Louisiana to a 19.5 percent decrease in Alaska. (See appendix I.) Overall a decline in per capita nurse employment occurred in 26 states and the District of Columbia between 1996 and 2000. Declining RN employment per capita may be an indicator of a potential shortage. It is an imprecise measure, however, because it does not account for changes in care needs of the population or how many nurses relative to other personnel providers wish to use to meet those needs. Moreover, total employment includes not only nurses engaged in clinical or patient care activities but also those in administrative and other nondirect care positions. Data on how much nurse employment may have shifted between direct care and other positions are not available. Recent studies suggest that hospitals and other health care providers in many areas of the country are experiencing greater difficulty in recruiting RNs. For example, a recent survey in Maryland conducted by the Association of Maryland Hospitals and Health Systems reported a statewide average vacancy rate for hospitals of 14.7 percent in 2000, up from 3.3 percent in 1997. The association reported that the last time vacancy rates were at this level was during the late 1980s, during the last reported nurse shortage. A survey of providers in Vermont found that hospitals had an RN vacancy rate of 7.8 percent in 2001, up from 4.8 percent in 2000 and 1.2 percent in 1996. For 2000, California reported an average RN vacancy rate of 20 percent, and for 2001, Florida reported nearly 16 percent and Nevada reported an average rate of 13 percent. Concerns about retaining nurses have also become more widespread. A recent survey reported that the national turnover rate among hospital staff nurses was 15 percent in 1999, up from 12 percent in 1996. Another industry survey showed turnover rates for overall hospital nursing department staff rising from 11.7 percent in 1998 to 26.2 percent in 2000.Nursing home and home health care industry surveys indicate that nurse turnover is an issue for them as well. In 1997, an American Health Care Association survey of 13 nursing home chains identified a 51-percent turnover rate for RNs and LPNs. A 2000 national survey of home health care agencies reported a 21-percent turnover rate for RNs. Increased attention by state governments is another indicator of concern about nurse workforce problems. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of June 2001, legislation to address nurse shortage issues had been introduced in 15 states, and legislation to restrict the use of mandatory overtime for nurses in hospitals and other health care facilities had been introduced in 10 states. A variety of nurse workforce task forces and commissions have recently been established as well. For example, in May 2000, legislation in Maryland created the Statewide Commission on the Crisis in Nursing to determine the current extent and long-term implications of the growing shortage of nurses in the state. Available data on supply and demand for RNs are not adequate to determine the magnitude of any current imbalance between the two with any degree of precision. Both the demand for and supply of RNs are influenced by many factors. Demand for RNs not only depends on the care needs of the population, but also on how providers—hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, and others—decide to use nurses in delivering care. Providers have changed staffing patterns in the past, employing fewer or more nurses relative to other workers such as nurse aides. For example, following the introduction of the Medicare Prospective Payment System (PPS), hospitals increased the share of RNs in their workforces. However, in the early 1990s, in an effort to contain costs, acute care facilities restructured and redesigned staffing patterns, introducing more non-RN caregivers and reducing the percentage of RNs. While the number of RNs employed by hospitals remained relatively unchanged from 1995 to1997, hospitals reported significant growth in RN employment in 1998 and 1999. Supply depends on the size of the pool of qualified persons and the share of them willing to work. Current participation by licensed nurses in the work force is relatively high. Nationally, 81.7 percent of licensed RNs were employed in nursing in 2000. Although this represents a slight decline from the high of 82.7 percent reported in 1992 and 1996, this rate of workforce participation remains higher than the 76.6 to 80.0 percent rates reported in the 1980s. Moreover, some RNs are employed in nonclinical settings, such as insurance companies, reducing the number of nurses available to provide direct patient care. Current problems with the recruitment and retention of nurses are related to multiple factors. The nurse workforce is aging, and fewer new nurses are entering the profession to replace those who are retiring or leaving. Furthermore, nurses report unhappiness with many aspects of the work environment including staffing levels, heavy workloads, increased use of overtime, lack of sufficient support staff, and adequate wages. In many cases this growing dissatisfaction is affecting their decisions to remain in nursing. The decline in younger people, predominantly women, choosing nursing as a career has resulted in a steadily aging RN workforce. Over the last 2 decades, as opportunities for women outside of nursing have expanded the number of young women entering the RN workforce has declined. A recent study reported that women graduating from high school in the 1990s were 35 percent less likely to become RNs than women who graduated in the 1970s. Reductions in nursing program enrollments within the last decade attest to this narrowing pipeline. According to a 1999 Nursing Executive Center Report, between 1993 and 1996, enrollment in diploma programs dropped 42 percent and enrollment in associate degree programs declined 11 percent. Furthermore, between 1995 and 1998, enrollment in baccalaureate programs declined 19 percent, and enrollment in master’s programs decreased 4 percent. The number of individuals passing the national RN licensing exam declined from 97,679 in 1996 to 74,787 in 2000, a decline of 23 percent. The large numbers of RNs that entered the labor force in the 1970s are now over the age of 40 and are not being replenished by younger RNs. Between 1983 and 1998, the number of RNs in the workforce under 30 fell by 41 percent, compared to only a 1-percent decline in the number under age 30 in the rest of the U.S. workforce. Over the past 2 decades, the nurse workforce’s average age has climbed steadily. While over half of all RNs were reported to be under age 40 in 1980, fewer than one in three were younger than 40 in 2000. As shown in figure 1, the age distribution of RNs has shifted dramatically upward. The percent of nurses under age 30 decreased from 26 percent in 1980 to 9 percent 2000, while the percent age 40 to 49 grew from 20 to 35 percent. Job dissatisfaction has also been identified as a major factor contributing to the current problems of recruiting and retaining nurses. A recent Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals (FNHP) survey found that half of the currently employed RNs who were surveyed had considered leaving the patient-care field for reasons other than retirement over the past 2 years. Over one-fourth (28 percent) of RNs responding to a 1999 survey by The Nursing Executive Center described themselves as somewhat or very dissatisfied with their jobs, and about half (51 percent) were less or much less satisfied with their jobs than they were 2 years ago. In that same survey, 32 percent of general medical/surgical RNs, who constitute the bulk of hospital RNs, indicated that they were dissatisfied with their current jobs. According to a survey conducted by the American Nurses Association, 54.8 percent of RNs and LPNs responding would not recommend the nursing profession as a career for their children or friends, while 23 percent would actively discourage someone close to them from entering the profession. Inadequate staffing, heavy workloads, and the increased use of overtime are frequently cited as key areas of job dissatisfaction among nurses. According to the recent FNHP survey, of those RNs responding who had considered leaving the patient-care field for reasons other than retirement over the past 2 years, 56 percent indicated that they wanted a less stressful and less physically demanding job. The same survey found that 55 percent of current RNs were either just somewhat or not satisfied by their facility’s staffing levels, while 43 percent of current RNs surveyed indicated that increased staffing would do the most to improve their jobs. Another survey found that 36 percent of RNs in their current job more than 1 year were very or somewhat dissatisfied with the intensity of their work. Some providers report increased use of overtime for employees. Twenty-two percent of nurses responding to the FNHP survey said they were concerned about schedules and hours. A survey of North Carolina hospitals conducted in 2000 found significant reliance on overtime for staff nurses. Nine percent of rural hospitals reported spending more than 25 percent of their nursing budget on overtime, and, among urban hospitals, 49 percent expected to increase their use of overtime in the coming year. The trend toward increasing use of overtime is currently a major concern of nurse unions and associations. Nurses have also expressed dissatisfaction with a decrease in the amount of support staff available to them over the past few years. More than half the RNs responding to the recent study by the American Hospital Association (AHA) did not feel that their hospitals provided adequate support services. RNs, LPNs, and others responding to a survey by the ANA also pointed to a decrease of needed support services. Current nurse workforce issues are part of a larger health care workforce shortage that includes a shortage of nurse aides. Some nurses have also expressed dissatisfaction with their wages. While surveys indicate that increased wages might encourage nurses to stay at their jobs, money is not always cited as the primary reason for job dissatisfaction. According to the FNHP survey, of those RNs responding who had considered leaving the patient-care field for reasons other than retirement over the past 2 years, 18 percent wanted more money, versus 56 percent who were concerned about the stress and physical demands of the job. However, the same study reported that 27 percent of current RNs responding cited higher wages or better health care benefits as a way of improving their jobs. Another study indicated that 39 percent of RNs who had been in their current jobs for more than 1 year were dissatisfied with their total compensation, but 48 percent were dissatisfied with the level of recognition they received from their employers. AHA recently reported on a survey that found that 57 percent of responding RNs said that their salaries were adequate, compared to 33.4 percent who thought their facility was adequately staffed, and 29.1 percent who said that their hospital administrations listened and responded to their concerns. Wages can have a long-term impact on the size of a workforce pool as well as a short-term effect on people’s willingness to work. After several years of real earnings growth following the last nursing shortage, RN earnings growth lagged behind the rate of inflation from 1994 through 1997. In 2 of the last 3 years, however, 1998 and 2000, RN earnings growth exceeded the rate of inflation. The cumulative effects of these changes are such that RN earnings have just kept pace with the rate of inflation from 1989 to 2000 as shown in figure 2. A serious shortage of nurses is expected in the future as pressures are exerted on both demand and supply. The future demand for nurses is expected to increase dramatically when the baby boomers reach their 60s, 70s, and beyond. The population age 65 years and older will double between 2000 to 2030. During that same period the number of women between 25 and 54 years of age, who have traditionally formed the core of the nurse workforce, is expected to remain relatively unchanged. This potential mismatch between future supply of and demand for caregivers is illustrated by the change in the expected ratio of potential care providers to potential care recipients. As shown in figure 3, the ratio of the working- age population, age 18 to 64, to the population over age 85 will decline from 39.5 workers for each person 85 and older in 2000, to 22.1 in 2030, and 14.8 in 2040. The ratio of women age 20 to 54, the cohort most likely to be working either as nurses or nurse aides, to the population age 85 and older will decline from 16.1 in 2000 to 8.5 in 2030, and 5.7 in 2040. Unless more young people choose to go into the nursing profession, the nurse workforce will continue to age. By 2010, approximately 40 percent of the workforce will likely be older than 50. By 2020, the total number of full time equivalent RNs is projected to have fallen 20 percent below HRSA’s projections of the number of RNs that will be required to meet demand. Providers’ current difficulty recruiting and retaining nurses may worsen as the demand for nurses increases with the aging of the population. Impending demographic changes are widening the gap between the numbers of people needing care and those available to provide it. Moreover, the current high levels of job dissatisfaction among nurses may also play a crucial role in determining the extent of current and future nurse shortages. Efforts undertaken to improve the workplace environment may both reduce the likelihood of nurses leaving the field and encourage more young people to enter the nursing profession. While state governments and providers have begun to address recruitment and retention issues related to the nurse workforce, more detailed data are needed to assist in planning and targeting corrective efforts. As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to interested parties and make copies available to others upon request. If you or your staff have any questions, please call me on (202)512-7119 or Helene Toiv, Assistant Director, at (202)512-7162. Other major contributors were Eric Anderson, Connie Peebles Barrow, Emily Gamble Gardiner, and Pamela Ruffner.

The nation's hospitals and nursing homes rely heavily on the services of nurses. Concerns have been raised about whether the current and projected supply of nurses will meet the nation's needs. This report reviews (1) whether evidence of a nursing shortage exists, (2) the reasons for current nurse recruitment and retention problems, and (3) what is known about the projected future supply of and demand for nurses. GAO found that national data are not adequate to describe the nature and extent of nurse workforce shortages, nor are data sufficiently sensitive or current to compare nurse workforce availability across states, specialties, or provider types. Multiple factors affect recruitment and retention problems, including the aging of the nurse workforce fewer younger people are entering the profession. A serious shortage of nurses is expected in the future as demographic pressures influence both demand and supply.

By Dan Christensen and Anthony Summers, BrowardBulldog.org ©2013 Broward Bulldog, Inc. A Saudi family who “fled” their Sarasota area home weeks before September 11th had “many connections” to “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001,” according to newly released FBI records. The information runs counter to previous FBI statements. It also adds to concern raised by official investigations but never fully explored, that the full truth about Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 attacks has not yet been told. One partially declassified document, marked “secret,” lists three of those individuals and ties them to the Venice, Florida flight school where suicide hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi trained. Accomplice Ziad Jarrah took flying lessons at another school a block away. Atta and al-Shehhi were at the controls of the jetliners that slammed into the twin towers of New York’s World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 people. Jarrah was the hijack-pilot of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania. The names, addresses and dates of birth of the three individuals tied to the flight school were blanked out before the records were released to BrowardBulldog.org amid ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation. National security and other reasons are cited for numerous additional deletions scattered across the 31 released pages. Four more pages were withheld in their entirety. The records cast new light on one of the remaining unresolved mysteries regarding Florida’s many connections to the 9/11 attacks: what went on before the attacks at 4224 Escondito Circle, the home of Abdulaziz al-Hijji and his family before the attacks. The documents are the first released by the FBI about its once-secret probe in Sarasota. Information contained in the documents flatly contradicts prior statements by FBI agents in Miami and Tampa who have said the investigation found no evidence connecting the al-Hijjis to the hijackers or the 9/11 plot. Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, co-chair of Congress’s Joint Inquiry into the attacks a decade ago, has said the FBI did not disclose the existence of the Sarasota investigation to Congress or the 9/11 Commission. The records also show for the first time that Graham’s former colleague, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., queried Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller about the Sarasota investigation six days after its existence was disclosed in a story published simultaneously by BrowardBulldog.org and The Miami Herald on September 8, 2011. The story told how concerned residents in the gated community of Prestancia tipped the FBI after the attacks to the al-Hijjis’ sudden departure in late August 2001. The family left behind three cars, clothes, furniture, diapers, toys, food and other items. It also reported that a counterterrorism officer and Prestancia’s former administrator, Larry Berberich, said an analysis of gatehouse security records – log books and snapshots of license tags – had determined that vehicles either driven by or carrying several of the future hijackers had visited the al-Hijji home. Phone records revealed similar, though indirect, ties to the hijackers, said the counterterrorism officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity. In contrast, the newly released FBI records include a pair of two-page reports, written in response to the story, that reiterate the bureau’s public position that its investigation turned up nothing. One report, written on stationery of the Justice Department’s 9/11 prosecution unit, notes “the FBI appears not to have obtained the vehicle entry records of the gated community, given the lack of connection to the hijackers.” But the counterterrorism source, who has personal knowledge of the matter, called that assertion “not true.” The Escondito Circle home where al-Hijji lived with his wife, Anoud, and their small children was owned by her parents, Esam and Deborah Ghazzawi. Esam Ghazzawi was an advisor to Prince Fahd bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, nephew of King Fahd. Prince Fahd, a prominent racehorse owner, died in July 2001 at age 46. Al-Hijji, who following 9/11 worked for the Saudi oil company Aramco in England, could not be reached by phone or email last week. Aramco staff said there was no longer anyone by that name in the London office. Last year, al-Hijji told a reporter his family did not depart their Sarasota home in haste but left so he could take a job with Aramco in Saudi Arabia. He denied involvement in the 9/11 plot, which he called “a crime against the USA and all humankind.” The records as released do not identify al-Hijji or anyone else by name, citing various exemptions that protect persons’ names in law enforcement records. The names are apparent, however, because the documents describe unique, known events and were released in specific response to a request for information about the investigation at the al-Hijji’s residence. An April 16, 2002 FBI report says “repeated citizen calls” led to an inspection of the home by agents of the Southwest Florida Domestic Security Task Force. “It was discovered that the [ family name deleted ] left their residence quickly and suddenly. They left behind valuable items, clothing, jewelry and food in a manner that indicated they fled unexpectedly without prior preparation or knowledge,” the report says. “Further investigation of the [ name deleted ] family revealed many connections between the [ name deleted ] and individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001,” the report says. The report lists three of those individuals. While their identities remain secret, the first person on the list was described as “a [ name deleted ] family member.” That person and a second individual were said to be flight students at Huffman Aviation – the flight school at the Venice Municipal Airport attended by hijackers Atta and al-Shehhi. The third person on the list “lived with flight students at Huffman Aviation” and was “arrested numerous times by the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office,” the report says. The next paragraph, which ends the report, is blanked out entirely. The document cites two reasons: an Executive Order that allows matters “to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy” and the National Security Act, which lets the CIA director exempt his agency’s operational files from the Freedom of Information Act. FBI Special Agent Gregory Sheffield wrote the April 2002 report, according to the counterterrorism officer. His name is blanked out, too. A notice on the document indicates the censored information regarding the three individuals associated with the terrorist attacks is scheduled to remain classified for another 25 years – until March 14, 2038. The FBI released the records as a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by BrowardBulldog.org inches toward trial this summer in federal court in Fort Lauderdale. The suit was filed in September after the FBI rejected both a request for its investigative records and an appeal of that request. Thomas Julin, the news site’s attorney, called the FBI’s release of records that it had previously determined to be exempt from disclosure “highly unusual.” “The government initially took the position that it had no documents. It hasn’t explained why things changed,” said Julin, of Miami’s Hunton & Williams. Miami Assistant U.S. Attorney Carole Fernandez, who represents the FBI, declined comment. The released FBI records are in two tiers: reports and other material written in 2001-2002 and memos, letters and email that followed publication of the first story about the matter in September 2011. A number of pages recount information provided to the FBI by mail carriers and others, including a Sept. 18, 2001 observation that the al-Hijji’s appeared to have “left in a hurry.” A Sept. 25 report talks of bank records that agents had obtained. The report was referred to the counterterrorism division’s Usama Bin Laden Unit/Radical Fundamentalist Unit. One of the reports written in September 2011, after the existence of the Sarasota investigation was revealed, discusses briefly the unnamed “family member” who took flight lessons at Huffman Aviation. “[ Name deleted ] was interviewed multiple times after 9/11 and identified Atta and al-Shehhi as individuals [ phrase deleted ] flight training at Huffman. However, investigation did not reveal any other connection between [ name deleted ] and the hijackers and the 9/11 plot,” the report says. FBI 302 reports about those interviews were not made public. Senate Judiciary chair Leahy’s inquiry is disclosed in a declassified Nov. 22, 2011 response letter written by Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich. Weich called the FBI’s response to the 9/11 attacks “comprehensive and unprecedented.” He assured Leahy that agents found no evidence of contact between the hijackers and the al-Hijjis. Similarly, Weich denied Sen. Graham’s assertion that the FBI had not turned over its Sarasota records to Congress. The bureau, he stated, made all of its records available and suggested they may have been overlooked by investigators. “The FBI is unable to ascertain whether these investigators reviewed records concerning the Sarasota family. The FBI also has not identified any specific requests by the investigators concerning the Sarasota family,” the letter says. “You can’t ask for what you don’t know exists,” said Graham. Documents the FBI now has released do not mention other known aspects of the Sarasota investigation, including troubling information provided to the FBI by al-Hijji’s former friend, Wissam Hammoud. Hammoud, 47, is a federal prisoner classified by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons as an “International Terrorist Associate.” He is serving a 21-year sentence for weapons violations and attempting to kill a federal agent and a witness in a previous case against him. Florida Department of Law Enforcement documents obtained by BrowardBulldog.org last year state that shortly after his 2004 arrest Hammoud told agents that al-Hijji considered Osama bin Laden a “hero,” may have known some of the hijackers, and once introduced him to fugitive al-Qaeda leader and ex-Miramar resident Adnan Shukrijumah. When reached last year, al-Hijji acknowledged having known Hammoud well. He did not, however, respond to a question about Hammoud’s allegations and said Shukrijumah’s name did not “ring a bell.” What the FBI did about Hammoud’s allegations is not known. Other FBI documents about Sarasota are known to exist, but were not released – including a report Graham says he read last year but can’t discuss because it is classified. The Bulldog’s FOIA lawsuit asks U.S. District Judge William Zloch to order the FBI to produce all records of its Sarasota investigation, including the records seen by Graham. Dan Christensen is the editor of Broward Bulldog. Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, who also contributed to this article, are co-authors of “The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden,” published by Ballantine Books, which was a Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for History in 2012. ||||| The Justice Department Friday made public four new, heavily censored documents confirming that by 2002 the FBI had found “many connections” between 9/11 terrorist figures and the Florida family of “an allegedly wealthy international businessman” with ties to the Saudi Royal family. “On or about 8/27/01 his family fled their house in Sarasota leaving behind valuable items in a manner indicating they left quickly without prior preparation,” says an FBI “case narrative” written on April 16, 2002. The name of the international businessman, Esam Ghazzawi, is blanked out in the narrative. Ghazzawi’s name, however, is included on another page — an FBI form that accompanied a letter acquired by FBI agents in Tampa as “evidence” in July 2002. Details about the letter were not released. The release of Ghazzawi’s name is the first time the government has confirmed Ghazzawi’s involvement in the FBI investigation that lasted until at least 2004, yet was never disclosed to the 9/11 Commission or congressional investigators. Ghazzawi, advisor to a senior Saudi prince, owned the upscale south Sarasota home where his daughter, Anoud, and her husband, Abdulaziz al-Hijji lived prior to 9/11. Law enforcement sources have said that after 9/11 investigators found evidence — telephone records and photographs of license tags and security gate log books — showing that hijack pilot Mohamed Atta, former Broward resident and fugitive al Qaeda leader Adnan Shukrijumah and other terror suspects had visited the home. The home is about 10 miles from the Venice airport, where Atta and the two other hijack pilots trained. The four pages were released amid ongoing Freedom of Information litigation brought by BrowardBulldog.org after the FBI declined to release any records about the matter. In April, Fort Lauderdale U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch ordered the FBI to conduct a thorough search of its records to identify documents about the once-secret probe. The judge said the Justice Department had failed to convince him that the FBI’s prior searches had been adequate. With Friday’s action, a total of 39 pages have been released since the lawsuit was filed in September 2012. That includes four pages that were censored in their entirety. The FBI withheld certain information from the just-released documents, saying disclosure would constitute “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” or reveal techniques and procedures of law enforcement. The four pages released Friday were all declassified shortly before their release. FBI records chief David M. Hardy said in a declaration under oath that the bureau has processed the Tampa field office’s complete “sub file” on 9/11 and is in the process of turning it over to the judge as ordered. Hardy said the file consists of 80,266 pages, divided into 411 “individual documents sections,” burned onto three CDs in a searchable format. The documents, and parallel hard copies, were provided for Judge Zloch’s private inspection. He will then decide whether any of those documents are releasable under the Freedom of Information Act. ||||| By Dan Christensen and Anthony Summers, BrowardBulldog.org The Justice Department late Friday made public four new, heavily censored documents confirming that by 2002 the FBI had found “many connections” between 9/11 terrorist figures and the Florida family of “an allegedly wealthy international businessman” with ties to the Saudi Royal family. “On or about 8/27/01 his family fled their house in Sarasota leaving behind valuable items in a manner indicating they left quickly without prior preparation,” says an FBI “case narrative” written on April 16, 2002. The name of the international businessman, Esam Ghazzawi, is blanked out in the narrative. Ghazzawi’s name, however, is included on another page – an FBI form that accompanied a letter acquired by FBI agents in Tampa as “evidence” in July 2002. Details about the letter were not released. The release of Ghazzawi’s name is the first time the government has confirmed Ghazzawi’s involvement in the FBI investigation that lasted until at least 2004, yet was never disclosed to the 9/11 Commission or congressional investigators. Ghazzawi, adviser to a senior Saudi prince, owned the upscale south Sarasota home where his daughter, Anoud, and her husband, Abdulaziz al-Hijji lived prior to 9/11. Law enforcement sources have said that after 9/11 investigators found evidence – telephone records and photographs of license tags and security gate log books – showing that hijack pilot Mohamed Atta, former Broward resident and fugitive al Qaeda leader Adnan Shukrijumah and other terror suspects had visited the home. The home is about 10 miles from the Venice airport, where Atta and the two other hijack pilots trained. The four pages were released amid ongoing Freedom of Information litigation brought by BrowardBulldog.org after the FBI declined to release any records about the matter. In April, Fort Lauderdale U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch ordered the FBI to conduct a thorough search of its records to identify documents about the once secret probe. The judge said the Justice Department had failed to convince him that the FBI’s prior searches had been adequate. With Friday’s release, a total of 39 pages have been released since the lawsuit was filed in September 2012. That includes four pages that were completely censored. The FBI withheld certain information from the just-released documents, saying disclosure would constitute “an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” or reveal techniques and procedures of law enforcement The four pages released Friday were all declassified shortly before their release. FBI records chief David M. Hardy said in a declaration under oath that the Bureau has processed the Tampa field office’s complete “sub file” on 9/11 and is in the process of turning it over to the judge as ordered. Hardy said the files consists of 80,266 pages which was divided into 411 “individual documents section” that were burned onto three CDs in a searchable format. The documents, and parallel hard copies, were provided for Judge Zloch’s private inspection. He will then decide whether any of those documents are releasable under the Freedom of Information Act. Dan Christensen is the editor of Broward Bulldog. Anthony Summers is co-author with Robbyn Swan of “The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden,” published by Ballantine Books, which was a Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for History in 2012.

Looks like a wealthy Florida family had direct connections to the 9/11 hijackers and fled the US just days before the Twin Towers fell, the Miami Herald reports. According to highly redacted FBI documents released yesterday by the Justice Department, the family of "an allegedly wealthy international businessman" connected with the Saudi royal family abandoned their house in Sarasota, Fla., on or around August 27, 2001. They left behind valuable items—including furniture, clothes, and three cars, Broward Bulldog notes—so it seems they left without much preparation. The businessman's name is blanked out, but a separate FBI form names Esam Ghazzawi, adviser to a top Saudi prince and owner of the Sarasota house, where he lived with his daughter and her husband. Law enforcement sources have already pointed to evidence that hijack pilot Mohamed Atta, former al-Qaeda leader Adnan Shukrijumah, and other suspected terrorists had visited the house, but the FBI never revealed Ghazzawi's name to congressional investigators or the 9/11 commission. Ghazzawi's son-in-law, Abdulaziz al-Hijji, said last year they only moved so al-Hijji could work at the Saudi oil company Aramco in England. He called the 9/11 attacks "a crime against the USA and all humankind." (Freedom of Information litigation filed by Broward Bulldog got the latest documents released, and up to 80,266 more FBI pages could be made public at the discretion of a US district judge in Florida.)

News coverage of the abuse has clearly touched a nerve in the Vatican. As the church grapples with abuse cases that have come to light in several European countries, Benedict has come under scrutiny for how he and his subordinates handled sexual abuse allegations against priests while he served as an archbishop in Germany as well as when he was the Vatican’s top doctrinal enforcer. In 1980, when the pope was archbishop of Munich and Freising, he approved the transfer of a priest who had abused boys to therapy and was copied in on a memo saying that the priest had been allowed to resume pastoral duties shortly after his therapy began. The priest was later convicted of molesting other boys. “This is different, because it’s the pope and because it’s a pope who is most self evidently beyond accusation, particularly in this area,” said a senior Vatican official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. Cardinal Levada said he believed that “the evidence is clear” that Father Murphy represented an “egregious case” and deserved to be defrocked. But he also said he was not second-guessing the decision to suspend the trial. He said a canonical trial would be “useless if the priest were dying.” “Have you ever been to a trial? Do you know how long they take?” he said. “If the man had had a miraculous recovery and doctors said he’d live another 10 years, I’m sure a letter would say fine, ‘Start the trial.’ ” Sitting in a receiving room at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with a view of Saint Peter’s out the window and an oil portrait of Cardinal Ratzinger on the wall, Cardinal Levada expressed pain at the case of Father Murphy. “I think the evidence is clear from the documents that he was a serial abuser of children, helpless children often times, he had no respect for the sacrament of confession, even using that to accomplish his abuse,” he said. “It’s one of the saddest and the most egregious cases I’ve seen.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story At that point a canon lawyer who sat in on the interview but declined to speak on the record intervened about the nuances of the unfinished trial, effectively deflecting questions about why it had been suspended. Cardinal Levada said that although Father Murphy never faced judgment in a criminal or canonical court, the priest had not evaded it altogether. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. “As a believer,” he wrote in his statement, “I have no doubt that Murphy will face the One who judges both the living and the dead.” Cardinal Levada said Benedict had played a “very significant role” as the “architect” of the Vatican’s 2001 norms that sent sexual abuse cases directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and streamlined procedures for bishops to report sexual abuse cases. Those norms ushered in a flood of abuse trials, many of which are still unresolved. In a related letter in 2001, the future pope reminded bishops to adhere to secrecy in ecclesiastical trials, which caused some confusion about whether clerics should report abuse to the civil authorities. In recent weeks, Benedict and the Vatican have emphasized that the clergy should report evidence of crimes to the civil authorities. “He was prefect when the church put into place a very important standard and practice for helping bishops deal with these cases,” said Cardinal Levada. In light of media reports that have questioned what Benedict knew about abuse cases, Cardinal Levada said, “Anyone can say, ‘Why didn’t you do this?’ ‘You could have done this better.’ That’s part of life, but certainly it’s not the case to say that he is deficient,” Cardinal Levada said. “If anything, he was the architect of this step forward in the church and I think he deserves his credit.” Benedict named Cardinal Levada, a theologian, a former archbishop of Portland and San Francisco, and a former member of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to succeed him as prefect after he became pope in 2005. A full 80 percent of the abuse cases to come through the congregation in the past decade are from the United States, according to the head of the internal tribunal that handles abuse cases, Msgr. Charles Scicluna. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Cardinal Levada said that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had a staff of about 45 and devoted about a third of its time to disciplinary issues. “I would say it’s an increasing amount of the work of the congregation,” he said, adding that he anticipated having to expand its staff. He said it should not be seen as leniency that some 60 percent of the abuse cases that the congregation had considered since 2001 did not result in trials. In cases of “moral certitude” trials aren’t necessary, he said, and other disciplinary measures can be taken, while murkier cases requiring more evidence might require trials. “A canonical trial is an instrument appropriately used, but it would not be the normal procedure,” he said. The senior Vatican official said that the pope himself was “serene” in the face of news reports but probably upset on behalf of Catholics. “I can’t imagine he wouldn’t be troubled that the faithful are troubled,” he said. ||||| Pope Benedict XVI holds the crucifix as he celebrates the Chrismal Mass in Saint Peter's Basilica at the Vatican April 1, 2010. VATICAN CITY | VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, accused by victims' lawyers of being ultimately responsible for an alleged cover-up of sexual abuse of children by priests, cannot be called to testify at any trial because he has immunity as a head of state, a top Vatican legal official said on Thursday. The interview with Giuseppe dalla Torre, head of the Vatican's tribunal, was published in Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper as Pope Benedict led Holy Thursday services in St Peter's Basilica and Catholics marked the most solemn week of the liturgical calendar, culminating on Sunday in Easter Day. In the morning the pope blessed oils for Church services during the year, and in the evening in the Rome basilica of St John's in Lateran he washed the feet of 12 priests to commemorate Jesus' gesture of humility the night before he died. But on the day Catholics commemorate Christ's founding of the priesthood, the pope did not refer in any of his sermons to the crisis of confidence sweeping the Church as almost daily revelations surface of sexual abuse of children in the past, accompanied by allegations of a cover-up. Dalla Torre outlined the Vatican's strategy to defend the pope from being forced to testify in several lawsuits concerning sexual abuse which are currently moving through the U.S. legal system. "The pope is certainly a head of state, who has the same juridical status as all heads of state," he said, arguing he therefore had immunity from foreign courts. Lawyers representing victims of sexual abuse by priests in several cases in the United States have said they would want the pope to testify in an attempt to try to prove the Vatican was negligent. But the pope is protected by diplomatic immunity because more than 170 countries, including the United States, have diplomatic relations with the Vatican. They recognize it as a sovereign state and the pope as its sovereign head. Dalla Torre rejected suggestions that U.S. bishops, some of whom have been accused of moving molesters from parish to parish instead of turning them in to police, could be considered Vatican employees, making their "boss" ultimately responsible. CHURCH NOT A MULTI-NATIONAL "The Church is not a multi-national corporation," dalla Torre said. "He has (spiritual) primacy over the Church ... but every bishop is legally responsible for running a diocese." Dalla Torre also rejected suggestions by some U.S. lawyers and critics of the Church that Vatican documents in 1962 and 2001 encouraged local bishops not to report sexual abuse cases. He re-stated the Vatican's position that the documents, one of which called for procedures to remain secret, did not suggest to bishops that they should not report cases to authorities. "Secrecy served above all to protect the victim and also the accused, who could turn out to be innocent, and it regarded only the canonical (church) trial and did not substitute the penal process," he said. "There is nothing that prohibited anyone (in the Church) from giving information to civil authorities." The Vatican has taken off the gloves in its response to media reports alleging the pope mishandled a series of abuse cases before he was elected. It launched a frontal attack on the New York Times on Wednesday night by posting a long statement on its website (http:/www.vatican.va/resources/resources_card-levada2010_en.html)by Cardinal William J. Levada, who succeeded the pope (http:/www.vatican.va/resources/resources_card-levada2010_en.html)by Cardinal William J. Levada, who succeeded the pope as head of the Vatican's doctrinal department. Levada asked the newspaper "to reconsider its attack mode about Pope Benedict XVI and give the world a more balanced view of a leader it can and should count on." The Vatican has denied any cover-up over the abuse of 200 deaf boys in the United States by Reverend Lawrence Murphy from 1950 to 1974. The New York Times reported the Vatican and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, were warned about Murphy but he was not defrocked. The Times said its reports were "based on meticulous reporting and documents." (Editing by Mark Trevelyan) ||||| The New York Times and Pope Benedict XVI: how it looks to an American in the Vatican by Cardinal William J. Levada Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith In our melting pot of peoples, languages and backgrounds, Americans are not noted as examples of “high” culture. But we can take pride as a rule in our passion for fairness. In the Vatican where I currently work, my colleagues – whether fellow cardinals at meetings or officials in my office – come from many different countries, continents and cultures. As I write this response today (March 26, 2010) I have had to admit to them that I am not proud of America’s newspaper of record, the New York Times, as a paragon of fairness. I say this because today’s Times presents both a lengthy article by Laurie Goodstein, a senior columnist, headlined “Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest,” and an accompanying editorial entitled “The Pope and the Pedophilia Scandal,” in which the editors call the Goodstein article a disturbing report (emphasis in original) as a basis for their own charges against the Pope. Both the article and the editorial are deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness that Americans have every right and expectation to find in their major media reporting. In her lead paragraph, Goodstein relies on what she describes as “newly unearthed files” to point out what the Vatican (i.e. then Cardinal Ratzinger and his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) did not do – “defrock Fr. Murphy.” Breaking news, apparently. Only after eight paragraphs of purple prose does Goodstein reveal that Fr. Murphy, who criminally abused as many as 200 deaf children while working at a school in the Milwaukee Archdiocese from 1950 to 1974, “not only was never tried or disciplined by the church’s own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims.” But in paragraph 13, commenting on a statement of Fr. Lombardi (the Vatican spokesman) that Church law does not prohibit anyone from reporting cases of abuse to civil authorities, Goodstein writes, “He did not address why that had never happened in this case.” Did she forget, or did her editors not read, what she wrote in paragraph nine about Murphy getting “a pass from the police and prosecutors”? By her own account it seems clear that criminal authorities had been notified, most probably by the victims and their families. Goodstein’s account bounces back and forth as if there were not some 20 plus years intervening between reports in the 1960 and 70’s to the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and local police, and Archbishop Weakland’s appeal for help to the Vatican in 1996. Why? Because the point of the article is not about failures on the part of church and civil authorities to act properly at the time. I, for one, looking back at this report agree that Fr. Murphy deserved to be dismissed from the clerical state for his egregious criminal behavior, which would normally have resulted from a canonical trial. The point of Goodstein’s article, however, is to attribute the failure to accomplish this dismissal to Pope Benedict, instead of to diocesan decisions at the time. She uses the technique of repeating the many escalating charges and accusations from various sources (not least from her own newspaper), and tries to use these “newly unearthed files” as the basis for accusing the pope of leniency and inaction in this case and presumably in others. It seems to me, on the other hand, that we owe Pope Benedict a great debt of gratitude for introducing the procedures that have helped the Church to take action in the face of the scandal of priestly sexual abuse of minors. These efforts began when the Pope served as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and continued after he was elected Pope. That the Times has published a series of articles in which the important contribution he has made – especially in the development and implementation of Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, the Motu proprio issued by Pope John Paul II in 2001 – is ignored, seems to me to warrant the charge of lack of fairness which should be the hallmark of any reputable newspaper. Let me tell you what I think a fair reading of the Milwaukee case would seem to indicate. The reasons why church and civil authorities took no action in the 1960’s and 70’s is apparently not contained in these “newly emerged files.” Nor does the Times seem interested in finding out why. But what does emerge is this: after almost 20 years as Archbishop, Weakland wrote to the Congregation asking for help in dealing with this terrible case of serial abuse. The Congregation approved his decision to undertake a canonical trial, since the case involved solicitation in confession – one of the graviora delicta (most grave crimes) for which the Congregation had responsibility to investigate and take appropriate action. Only when it learned that Murphy was dying did the Congregation suggest to Weakland that the canonical trial be suspended, since it would involve a lengthy process of taking testimony from a number of deaf victims from prior decades, as well as from the accused priest. Instead it proposed measures to ensure that appropriate restrictions on his ministry be taken. Goodstein infers that this action implies “leniency” toward a priest guilty of heinous crimes. My interpretation would be that the Congregation realized that the complex canonical process would be useless if the priest were dying. Indeed, I have recently received an unsolicited letter from the judicial vicar who was presiding judge in the canonical trial telling me that he never received any communication about suspending the trial, and would not have agreed to it. But Fr. Murphy had died in the meantime. As a believer, I have no doubt that Murphy will face the One who judges both the living and the dead. Goodstein also refers to what she calls “other accusations” about the reassignment of a priest who had previously abused a child/children in another diocese by the Archdiocese of Munich. But the Archdiocese has repeatedly explained that the responsible Vicar General, Mons. Gruber, admitted his mistake in making that assignment. It is anachronistic for Goodstein and the Times to imply that the knowledge about sexual abuse that we have in 2010 should have somehow been intuited by those in authority in 1980. It is not difficult for me to think that Professor Ratzinger, appointed as Archbishop of Munich in 1977, would have done as most new bishops do: allow those already in place in an administration of 400 or 500 people to do the jobs assigned to them. As I look back on my own personal history as a priest and bishop, I can say that in 1980 I had never heard of any accusation of such sexual abuse by a priest. It was only in 1985, as an Auxiliary Bishop attending a meeting of our U.S. Bishops’ Conference where data on this matter was presented, that I became aware of some of the issues. In 1986, when I was appointed Archbishop in Portland, I began to deal personally with accusations of the crime of sexual abuse, and although my “learning curve” was rapid, it was also limited by the particular cases called to my attention. Here are a few things I have learned since that time: many child victims are reluctant to report incidents of sexual abuse by clergy. When they come forward as adults, the most frequent reason they give is not to ask for punishment of the priest, but to make the bishop and personnel director aware so that other children can be spared the trauma that they have experienced. In dealing with priests, I learned that many priests, when confronted with accusations from the past, spontaneously admitted their guilt. On the other hand, I also learned that denial is not uncommon. I have found that even programs of residential therapy have not succeeded in breaking through such denial in some cases. Even professional therapists did not arrive at a clear diagnosis in some of these cases; often their recommendations were too vague to be helpful. On the other hand, therapists have been very helpful to victims in dealing with the long-range effects of their childhood abuse. In both Portland and San Francisco where I dealt with issues of sexual abuse, the dioceses always made funds available (often through diocesan insurance coverage) for therapy to victims of sexual abuse. From the point of view of ecclesiastical procedures, the explosion of the sexual abuse question in the United States led to the adoption, at a meeting of the Bishops’ Conference in Dallas in 2002, of a “Charter for the Protection of Minors from Sexual Abuse.” This Charter provides for uniform guidelines on reporting sexual abuse, on structures of accountability (Boards involving clergy, religious and laity, including experts), reports to a national Board, and education programs for parishes and schools in raising awareness and prevention of sexual abuse of children. In a number of other countries similar programs have been adopted by Church authorities: one of the first was adopted by the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales in response to the Nolan Report made by a high-level commission of independent experts in 2001. It was only in 2001, with the publication of Pope John Paul II’s Motu proprio Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela (SST), that responsibility for guiding the Catholic Church’s response to the problem of sexual abuse of minors by clerics was assigned to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This papal document was prepared for Pope John Paul II under the guidance of Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Contrary to some media reports, SST did not remove the local bishop’s responsibility for acting in cases of reported sexual abuse of minors by clerics. Nor was it, as some have theorized, part of a plot from on high to interfere with civil jurisdiction in such cases. Instead, SST directs bishops to report credible allegations of abuse to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is able to provide a service to the bishops to ensure that cases are handled properly, in accord with applicable ecclesiastical law. Here are some of the advances made by this new Church legislation (SST). It has allowed for a streamlined administrative process in arriving at a judgment, thus reserving the more formal process of a canonical trial to more complex cases. This has been of particular advantage in missionary and small dioceses that do not have a strong complement of well-trained canon lawyers. It provides for erecting inter-diocesan tribunals to assist small dioceses. The Congregation has faculties allowing it derogate from the prescription of a crime (statute of limitations) in order to permit justice to be done even for “historical” cases. Moreover, SST has amended canon law in cases of sexual abuse to adjust the age of a minor to 18 to correspond with the civil law in many countries today. It provides a point of reference for bishops and religious superiors to obtain uniform advice about handling priests’ cases. Perhaps most of all, it has designated cases of sexual abuse of minors by clerics as graviora delicta: most grave crimes, like the crimes against the sacraments of Eucharist and Penance perennially assigned to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This in itself has shown the seriousness with which today’s Church undertakes its responsibility to assist bishops and religious superiors to prevent these crimes from happening in the future, and to punish them when they happen. Here is a legacy of Pope Benedict that greatly facilitates the work of the Congregation which I now have the privilege to lead, to the benefit of the entire Church. After the Dallas Charter in 2002, I was appointed (at the time as Archbishop of San Francisco) to a team of four bishops to seek approval of the Holy See for the “Essential Norms” that the American Bishops developed to allow us to deal with abuse questions. Because these norms intersected with existing canon law, they required approval before being implemented as particular law for our country. Under the chairmanship of Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago and currently President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, our team worked with Vatican canonical experts at several meetings. We found in Cardinal Ratzinger, and in the experts he assigned to meet with us, a sympathetic understanding of the problems we faced as American bishops. Largely through his guidance we were able to bring our work to a successful conclusion. The Times editorial wonders “how Vatican officials did not draw the lessons of the grueling scandal in the United States, where more than 700 priests were dismissed over a three-year period.” I can assure the Times that the Vatican in reality did not then and does not now ignore those lessons. But the Times editorial goes on to show the usual bias: “But then we read Laurie Goodstein’s disturbing report . . .about how the pope, while he was still a cardinal, was personally warned about a priest … But church leaders chose to protect the church instead of children. The report illuminated the kind of behavior the church was willing to excuse to avoid scandal.” Excuse me, editors. Even the Goodstein article, based on “newly unearthed files,” places the words about protecting the Church from scandal on the lips of Archbishop Weakland, not the pope. It is just this kind of anachronistic conflation that I think warrants my accusation that the Times, in rushing to a guilty verdict, lacks fairness in its coverage of Pope Benedict. As a full-time member of the Roman Curia, the governing structure that carries out the Holy See’s tasks, I do not have time to deal with the Times’s subsequent almost daily articles by Rachel Donadio and others, much less with Maureen Dowd’s silly parroting of Goodstein’s “disturbing report.” But about a man with and for whom I have the privilege of working, as his “successor” Prefect, a pope whose encyclicals on love and hope and economic virtue have both surprised us and made us think, whose weekly catecheses and Holy Week homilies inspire us, and yes, whose pro-active work to help the Church deal effectively with the sexual abuse of minors continues to enable us today, I ask the Times to reconsider its attack mode about Pope Benedict XVI and give the world a more balanced view of a leader it can and should count on.

The Vatican has come out swinging over Pope Benedict's handling of sexual abuse cases, with one top cardinal blasting the New York Times for unfair coverage on the Vatican website and in a Times interview, while another claims the pontiff has immunity from prosecution. "The Church is not a multi-national corporation," says a Vatican rep, according to Reuters. "He has (spiritual) primacy over the Church ... but every bishop is legally responsible for running a diocese." Cardinal William Levada called the Times' coverage “deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness” and defended the decision to halt the abuse trial of Wisconsin priest Lawrence Murphy. Murphy was an "egregious case," Levada said, but there was no point in pursuing a trial given that he was dying. He said Murphy has not escaped punishment for his crimes: "I have no doubt that Murphy will face the One who judges both the living and the dead.”

SSA administers three major federal programs. OASI and DI, together commonly known as Social Security, provide benefits to retired and disabled workers and their dependents and survivors. In fiscal year 2001, SSA provided OASI retirement benefits totaling more than $369 billion to over 38 million individuals and DI benefits of more than $59 billion to 6.8 million individuals. These benefits are paid from trust funds that are financed through payroll taxes paid by workers and their employers and by the self-employed. The third program, SSI, provides income for aged, blind, or disabled individuals with limited income and resources. In fiscal year 2001, 6.7 million individuals received almost $28 billion in SSI benefits. SSI payments are financed from general tax revenues. To administer these programs, SSA must perform certain essential tasks. It must issue SSNs to individuals, maintain earnings records for individual workers by collecting wage reports from employers, use these records and other information to determine the amount of benefits an applicant may receive, and process benefit claims for all three programs. To meet its customer service responsibilities, SSA operates a vast network of offices distributed throughout the country. These offices include approximately 1,300 field offices, which, among other things, take applications for benefits; 138 Offices of Hearings and Appeals; and 36 teleservice centers responsible for SSA’s national 800 number operations.The agency’s policy is to provide customers with a choice in how they conduct business with SSA. Options include visiting or calling a field office, calling SSA’s toll-free number, or contacting SSA through the mail or the Internet. To conduct its work, SSA employs almost 62,000 staff. In addition, to make initial and ongoing disability determinations, SSA contracts with 54 state disability determination service (DDS) agencies under authority of the Social Security Act. Although federally funded and guided by SSA in their decision making, these agencies hire their own staff and retain a degree of independence in how they manage their offices and conduct disability determinations. Overall, SSA relies extensively on information technology to support its large volumes of programmatic and administrative work. The process for obtaining SSA disability benefits under either DI or SSI is complex, and multiple organizations are involved in determining whether a claimant is eligible for benefits. As shown in figure 1, the current process consists of an initial decision and as many as three levels of administrative appeals if the claimant is dissatisfied with SSA’s decision. Each level of appeal involves multistep procedures for evidence collection, review, and decision making. Generally, a claimant applies for disability benefits at one of SSA’s 1,300 field offices across the country. If the claimant meets certain nonmedical program eligibility criteria, the field office staff forward the claim to the DDS. DDS staff then obtain medical evidence about the claimant’s impairment and determine whether the claimant is disabled. Claimants who are initially denied benefits can appeal by requesting the DDS to reconsider its initial denial. If the decision at the reconsideration level remains unfavorable, the claimant can request a hearing before a federal administrative law judge at an SSA hearings office and, if still dissatisfied, a review by SSA’s appeals council. After exhausting these administrative remedies, the individual may file a complaint in federal district court. The agency’s ability to continue providing Social Security benefits over the long term is strained by profound demographic changes. The baby boom generation is nearing retirement age. In addition, life expectancy has increased continually since the 1930s, and further increases are expected. This increase in life expectancy, combined with falling fertility rates, mean that fewer workers will be contributing to Social Security for each aged, disabled, dependent, or surviving beneficiary. Beginning in 2017, Social Security’s expenditures are expected to exceed its tax income. By 2041, without corrective action, experts expect the combined OASI and DI trust funds to be depleted, leaving insufficient funds to pay the current level of benefits. Unless actions are taken to reform the social security system, the nation will face continuing difficulties in financing social security benefits in the long term. Over the past few years, a wide array of proposals has been put forth to restore Social Security’s long-term solvency, and in December 2001, a commission appointed by the president presented three alternative proposals for reform. This solvency problem is part of a larger and significant fiscal and economic challenge facing our aging society. The expected growth in the Social Security program (OASI and DI), combined with even faster expected growth in Medicare and Medicaid, will become increasingly unsustainable over time, compounding an ongoing decline in budget flexibility. Absent changes in the structure of Social Security and Medicare, there would be virtually no room for any other budget priorities in future decades. Ultimately, restoring our long-term fiscal flexibility will involve reforming existing federal entitlement programs and promoting the saving and investment necessary for robust long-term economic growth. The disability determination process is time-consuming, complex, and expensive. Individuals who are initially denied benefits by SSA and appeal their claim experience lengthy waits for a final decision on their eligibility, and questions have been raised about the quality and consistency of certain disability decisions. Since 1994, SSA has introduced a wide range of initiatives intended to address long-standing problems with its disability claims process. However, the agency’s efforts, in general, have not achieved the intended result, and the problems persist. Because SSA’s DI and SSI programs are expected to grow significantly over the next decade, improving the disability determination process remains one of SSA’s most pressing and difficult challenges requiring immediate and sustained attention from the new commissioner. Additionally, in redesigning its disability decision-making process, SSA still needs to incorporate into its eligibility assessment process an evaluation of what is needed for an individual to return to work. We have recommended developing a comprehensive return-to-work strategy that focuses on identifying and enhancing the work capacities of applicants and beneficiaries. SSA’s complex disability claims process has been plagued by a number of long-standing weaknesses that have resulted in lengthy waiting periods for claimants seeking disability benefits. For example, claimants who wish to appeal an initial denial of benefits frequently wait more than 1 year for a final decision. We have reported that these long waits result, in part, from complex and fragmented decision-making processes that are laden with many layers of reviews and multiple handoffs from one person to another. The cost of administering the DI and SSI programs reflects the demanding nature of the process. Although SSI and DI program benefits account for less than 20 percent of the total benefit payments made by SSA, they consume nearly 55 percent of annual administrative resources. In addition to its difficulties in processing claims, SSA has also had difficulty ensuring that decisions about a claimant’s eligibility for disability benefits are accurate and consistent across all levels of the decision- making process. For example, our work shows that in fiscal year 2000, about 40 percent of applicants whose cases were denied at the initial level appealed this decision and about two-thirds were awarded benefits. This happens in part because decision makers at the initial level use a different approach to evaluate claims and make decisions than those at the appellate level. The inconsistency of decisions at these two levels has raised questions about the fairness, integrity, and cost of SSA’s disability programs. In 1994, SSA laid out a plan to address these problems, yet that plan and three subsequent revisions in 1997, 1999, and 2001 have yielded only limited success. The agency’s initial plan entailed a massive effort to redesign the way it made disability decisions. Among other things, SSA planned to develop a streamlined decision-making and appeal process, more consistent guidance and training for decision makers at all levels of the process, and an improved process for reviewing the quality of eligibility decisions. In our reviews of SSA’s efforts after 2 years, 4 years, and again in 2001, we found that the agency had accomplished little. In some cases, the plans were too large and too complex to keep on track, and the results of many of the initiatives that were tested fell far short of expectations. Moreover, the agency was not able to garner consistent stakeholder support and cooperation for its proposed changes. Despite the overall disappointing progress, the agency did experience some successes. For example, it conducted a large training effort to improve the consistency of decisions, which agency officials believe resulted in 90,000 eligible individuals’ receiving benefits 500 days sooner than otherwise might have been the case over a 3-year period. In addition, the agency issued formal guidance in a number of areas intended to improve the consistency of decisions between the initial and appellate levels. Overall, however, significant problems persist and difficult decisions remain. For example, SSA is currently collecting final data on the results from an initiative known as the Prototype, which was implemented in 10 states in October 1999. Although interim data indicated that the Prototype resulted in more awards at the initial decision level without compromising accuracy, it also indicated that the number of appeals would increase. This, in turn, would result in both higher administrative and benefit costs and lengthen the wait for final decisions on claims. As a result, SSA decided that the Prototype would not continue in its current form. Recently, SSA announced its “short-term” decision to revise some features of the Prototype to improve disability claims processing time while it continues to develop longer-term improvements. It remains to be seen whether these revisions will retain the positive results from the Prototype while also controlling administrative and benefit costs. Even more pressing in the near term is the management and workload crisis that SSA faces in its hearings offices. The agency’s 1999 plan included an initiative to overhaul operations at its hearing offices to increase efficiency and significantly reduce processing times at that level; however, this nationwide effort not only has failed to achieve its goals but, in some cases, has made things worse. The initiative has suffered, in part, from problems associated with implementing large-scale changes too quickly without resolving known problems. As a result, the average case- processing time slowed and backlogs of cases waiting to be processed approached crisis levels. We have recommended that the new commissioner act quickly to implement short-term strategies to reduce the backlog and develop a long-range strategy for a more permanent solution to the backlog and efficiency problems at the Office of Hearings and Appeals. According to SSA officials, they have recently made some decisions on short-term initiatives to reduce the backlogs and streamline the process, and they are preparing to negotiate with union officials regarding some of these planned changes. Finally, SSA’s 1994 plan to redesign the claims process called for the agency to revamp its existing quality assurance system. However, because of disagreement among stakeholders on how to accomplish this difficult objective, progress in this area has been limited. In March 2001, a contractor issued a report assessing SSA’s existing quality assurance practices and recommended a significant overhaul to encompass a more comprehensive view of quality management. We agreed with this assessment and recommended that SSA develop an action plan for implementing a more comprehensive and sophisticated quality assurance program. Since then, the commissioner has signaled the high priority she attaches to this effort by appointing to her staff a senior manager for quality who reports directly to her. The senior manager is responsible for developing a proposal to establish a quality-oriented approach to all SSA business processes. The manager is currently assembling a team to carry out this challenging undertaking. The disappointing results of some of these initiatives can be linked, in part, to slow progress in achieving technological improvements. As originally envisioned, SSA’s plan to redesign its disability determination process was heavily dependent upon these improvements. The agency spent a number of years designing and developing a new computer software application to automate the disability claims process. However, SSA decided to discontinue the initiative in July 1999, after about 7 years, citing software performance problems and delays in developing the software. In August 2000, SSA issued a new management plan for the development of the agency’s electronic disability system. SSA expects this effort to move the agency toward a totally paperless disability claims process. The strategy consists of several key components, including (1) an electronic claims intake process for the field offices, (2) enhanced state DDS claims processing systems, and (3) technology to support the Office of Hearing and Appeals’ business processes. The components are to be linked to one another through the use of an electronic folder that is being designed to transmit data from one processing location to another and to serve as a data repository, storing documents that are keyed in, scanned, or faxed. SSA began piloting certain components of its electronic disability system in one state in May 2000 and has expanded this pilot test to one more state since then. According to agency officials, SSA has taken various steps to increase the functionality of the system; however, the agency still has a number of remaining issues to address. For example, SSA’s system must comply with privacy and data protection standards required under the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act, and the agency will need to effectively integrate its existing legacy information systems with new technologies, including interactive Web-based applications. SSA is optimistic that it will meet its scheduled date for achieving a paperless disability claims process—anticipated for the end of 2005—and has taken several actions to ensure that its efforts support the agency’s mission. For example, to better ensure that its business processes drive its information technology strategy, SSA has transferred management of the electronic disability strategy from the Office of Systems to the Office of Disability and Income Security Programs. In addition, SSA hired a contractor to independently evaluate the electronic disability strategy and recommend options for ensuring that the effort addresses all of the business and technical issues required to meet the agency’s mission. According to an agency official, SSA is currently implementing the contractor’s recommendations. As SSA proceeds with this new system, however, it is imperative that the agency effectively identify, track, and manage the costs, benefits, schedule, and risks associated with the system’s full development and implementation. Moreover, SSA must ensure that it has the right mix of skills and capabilities to support this initiative and that desired end results are achieved. Overall, SSA is at a crossroads in its efforts to redesign and improve its disability claims process. It has devoted significant time, energy, and resources to its redesign initiatives over the last 7 years, yet progress has been limited and often disappointing. SSA is not the only government agency to experience difficulty in overhauling or reengineering its operations. According to reengineering experts, many federal, state, and local agencies have failed in similar efforts. Frequent leadership turnover, constraints on flexibility posed by laws and regulations, and the fact that government agencies often must serve multiple stakeholders with competing interests all constrain progress. Yet, it is vital that SSA address its claims process problems now, before the agency experiences another surge in workload as the baby boomers reach their disability-prone years. To date, the focus on changing the steps and procedures of the process or changing the duties of its decision makers has not been successful. Given this experience, it may be appropriate for the agency to undertake a new and comprehensive analysis of the fundamental issues impeding progress. Such an analysis might include reassessing the root causes contributing to its problems and would encompass concerns raised by the Social Security Advisory Board, such as the fragmentation and structural problems in the agency’s overall disability service delivery system. The outcome of this analysis may, in some cases, require legislative changes. The number of working-age beneficiaries of the DI and SSI programs has increased by 61 percent over the past 10 years. We have reported that as the beneficiary population has grown, numerous technological and medical advances, combined with changes in society and the nature of work, have increased the potential for some people with disabilities to return to, or remain in, the labor force. Also, legislative changes have focused on returning disabled beneficiaries to work. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 supports the premise that people with disabilities can work and have the right to work, and the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 increased beneficiaries’ access to vocational services. Indeed, many beneficiaries with disabilities indicate that they want to work, and many may be able work in today’s labor market if they receive needed support. In 1996, we recommended that SSA place a greater priority on helping disabled beneficiaries work, and the agency has taken a number of actions to improve its return-to-work practices. But even with these actions, SSA has achieved poor results in this arena, where fewer than 1 in 500 DI beneficiaries and few SSI beneficiaries leave the disability rolls to work. Even in light of the Ticket to Work Act, SSA will continue to face difficulties in returning beneficiaries to work, in part owing to weaknesses, both statutory and policy, in the design of the DI program. As we have reported in the past, these weaknesses include an either/or disability decision-making process that characterizes individuals as either unable to work or having the capacity to work. This either/or process produces a strong incentive for applicants to establish their inability to work to qualify for benefits. Moreover, return-to-work services are offered only after a lengthy determination process. Because applicants are either unemployed or only marginally connected to the labor force at the time of application and remain so during the eligibility determination process, it is likely that their skills, work habits, and motivation to work deteriorate during this wait. Thus, individuals who have successfully established their disability may have little reason or desire to attempt rehabilitation and work. Unlike some private sector disability insurers and foreign social insurance systems, SSA does not incorporate into its initial or continuing eligibility assessment process an evaluation of what is needed for an individual to return to work. Instead of receiving assistance to stay in the workforce or return to work—and thus to stay off the long-term disability rolls—an individual can obtain assistance through DI or SSI only by proving his or her inability to work. And even in its efforts to redesign the decision- making process, SSA has yet to incorporate into these initiatives an evaluation of what an individual may need to return to work. Moreover, SSA has made limited strides in developing baseline data to measure progress in the return-to-work area. In June 2000, we reported that many of SSA’s fiscal year 2001 performance measures were not sufficiently results oriented, making it difficult to track progress. SSA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan shows that SSA has begun to incorporate more outcome-oriented performance indicators that could support their efforts in this area. Two new indicators, in particular, could help SSA gauge progress: the percentage increase in the number of DI beneficiaries whose benefits are suspended or terminated owing to employment and the percentage increase in the number of disabled SSI beneficiaries no longer receiving cash benefits. However, SSA has not yet set specific performance targets for these measures. Nevertheless, SSA has recently stepped up its return-to-work efforts. For example, it has (1) established an Office of Employment Support Programs to promote employment of disabled beneficiaries; (2) recruited 184 public or private entities to provide vocational rehabilitation, employment, and other support services to beneficiaries under the Ticket to Work Program; (3) raised the limit on the amount a DI beneficiary can earn from work and still receive benefits to encourage people with disabilities to work; (4) funded 12 state partnership agreements that are intended to help the states develop services to increase beneficiary employment; and (5) completed a pilot study on the deployment of work incentive specialists to SSA field offices and is currently determining how to best implement the position nationally. While these efforts represent positive steps in trying to return people with disabilities to work, much remains to be done. As we have recommended previously, SSA still needs to move forward in developing a comprehensive return-to-work strategy that integrates, as appropriate, earlier intervention, including earlier and more effective identification of work capacities, and the expansion of such capacities by providing essential return-to-work assistance for applicants and beneficiaries. Adopting such a strategy is likely to require improvements to staff skill levels and areas of expertise, as well as changes to the disability determination process. It will also require fundamental changes to the underlying philosophy and direction of the DI and SSI programs, as well as legislative changes in some cases. Policymakers will need to carefully weigh the implications of such changes. Nevertheless, we remain concerned that the absence of such a strategy and accompanying performance plan goals may hinder SSA’s efforts to make significant strides in the return-to-work area. An improved return-to-work strategy could benefit both the beneficiaries who want to work and the American taxpayer. The SSI program is the nation’s largest cash assistance program for the poor. In fiscal year 2000, the program paid 6.6 million low-income aged, blind, and disabled recipients $31 billion in benefits. During that year, newly detected overpayments and outstanding SSI debt totaled more than $3.9 billion. In 1997, after several years of reporting on specific instances of abuse and mismanagement, increasing overpayments, and poor recovery of outstanding SSI debt, we designated SSI a high-risk program. The SSI program poses a special challenge for SSA because, unlike OASI and DI, it is a means-tested program; thus, SSA must collect and verify information on income, resources, and recipient living arrangements to determine initial and continuing eligibility for the program. Our prior work, however, shows that SSA has often placed a greater priority on quickly processing and paying SSI claims with insufficient attention to verifying recipient self-reported information, controlling program expenditures, and pursuing overpayment recoveries once they occur. In response to our high-risk designation, SSA has made progress in coordination with Congress to improve the financial integrity and management of SSI, including developing a major SSI legislative proposal with numerous overpayment deterrence and recovery provisions. Many of these provisions were incorporated into the Foster Care Independence Act, which was signed into law in December 1999. The act directly addresses a number of our prior recommendations and provides SSA with additional tools to obtain applicant income and resource information from financial institutions; imposes a period of ineligibility for applicants who transfer assets to qualify for SSI benefits; and authorizes the use of credit bureaus, private collection agencies, interest levies, and other means to recover delinquent debt. SSA also obtained separate legislative authority in 1998 to recover overpayments from former SSI recipients currently receiving OASI or DI benefits. The agency was previously excluded from using this cross-program recovery tool to recover SSI overpayments without first obtaining debtor consent. As a result of this new authority, SSA has recently begun the process of recovering overpayments from Social Security benefits of individuals no longer on the SSI rolls. The agency has also issued regulations on the use of credit bureaus and drafted regulations for wage garnishments. We have been told that the draft regulations are currently under review by the new commissioner and by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition to establishing the new legislative authorities, SSA has initiated a number of internal administrative actions to further strengthen SSI program integrity. These include using tax refund offsets for delinquent SSI debtors, an action that SSA said resulted in $61 million in additional overpayment recoveries last year. SSA also uses more frequent (monthly) automated matches to identify ineligible SSI recipients living in nursing homes and other institutions. As of January 2001, SSA’s field offices were also provided on-line access to wage, new-hire, and unemployment insurance data maintained by the Office of Child Support Enforcement. These data are key to field staff’s ability to more quickly verify employment and income information essential to determining SSI eligibility and benefit levels. SSA also increased the number of SSI financial redeterminations that it conducted, from about 1.8 million in fiscal year 1997 to about 2.2 million in fiscal year 2000. These reviews focus on income and resource factors affecting eligibility and payment amounts. SSA estimates that by conducting more redeterminations and refining its methodology for targeting cases most likely to have payment errors, it prevented nearly $600 million in additional overpayments in fiscal year 1999. SSA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has also increased the level of resources and staff devoted to investigating SSI fraud and abuse; key among the OIG’s efforts is the formation of Cooperative Disability Investigation teams in 13 field locations. These teams are designed to identify fraud and abuse before SSI benefits are approved and paid. Finally, in response to our prior recommendation, SSA has revised its field office work credit and measurement system to better reward staff for time spent thoroughly verifying applicant eligibility information and developing fraud referrals. If properly implemented, such measures should provide field staff with much-needed incentives for preventing fraud and abuse and controlling overpayments. SSA’s current initiatives demonstrate a stronger management commitment to SSI integrity issues and have the potential to significantly improve program management; however, our work shows that SSA overpayments and outstanding debt owed to the program remain at high levels. A number of the agency’s initiatives—especially those associated with the Foster Care Independence Act—are still in the early planning or implementation stages and have yet to yield results. In addition, at this stage, it is not clear how great an effect the impact of SSA’s enhanced matching efforts, online access tools, and other internal initiatives has had on the agency’s ability to recover and avoid overpayments. The same is true for the agency’s efforts to improve the accuracy of SSI eligibility decisions. SSA also has not yet addressed a key program vulnerability—program complexity—that is associated with increased SSI overpayments. In prior work, we have reported that SSI living arrangement and in-kind support and maintenance policies used by SSA to calculate eligibility and benefit amounts were complex, prone to error, and a major source of overpayments. We also recommended that SSA develop options for simplifying the program. Last year, SSA’s policy office issued a study that discussed various options for simplifying complex SSI policies. Although SSA is considering various options, it has not moved forward in recommending specific cost neutral proposals for change. We believe that sustained management attention is necessary to improve SSI program integrity. Thus, it is important that SSA move forward in fully implementing the overpayment deterrence and recovery tools currently available to it and seek out additional ways to improve program management. Accordingly, we have a review under way that is aimed at documenting the range of SSI activities currently in place; their effects on program management and operations; and additional legislative or administrative actions, or both, necessary to further improve SSA’s ability to control and recover overpayments. A particular focus of this review will be to assess remaining weaknesses in SSA’s initial and ongoing eligibility verification procedures, application of penalties for individuals who fail to report essential eligibility information, and overpayment recovery policies. Among federal agencies, SSA has long been considered one of the leaders in service delivery. Indeed, for fiscal year 2001, SSA reported that 81 percent of its customers rated the agency’s services as “excellent,” “very good,” or “good.” SSA considers service delivery one of its top priorities, and its current performance plan includes specific goals and strategies to provide accurate, timely, and useful service to the public. However, the agency faces significant challenges that could hamper its ability to provide high-quality service over the next decade and beyond. Demand for services will grow rapidly as the baby boom generation ages and enters the disability-prone years. By 2010, SSA expects worker applications for DI to increase by as much as 32 percent over 2000 levels. Determining eligibility for disability benefits is a complex process that spans a number of offices and can take over a year to complete. As we have observed earlier in this statement, SSA already has trouble managing its disability determination workload; adding additional cases without rectifying serious case processing issues will only make things worse. Furthermore, by 2010, SSA projects that applications for retirement benefits will also increase dramatically—by 31 percent over the 2000 levels. SSA’s ability to provide high-quality service delivery is also potentially weakened by challenges regarding its workforce. First, SSA’s workforce is aging, and SSA is predicting a retirement wave that will peak in the years 2007 through 2010, when it expects about 2,500 employees to retire each year. By 2010, SSA projects that about 37 percent of its almost 62,000 employees will retire. The percentage is higher for employees in SSA’s supervisory or managerial ranks. In particular, more than 70 percent of SSA’s upper-level managers and executives (GS-14, GS-15, and SES level) are expected to retire by 2010. Second, SSA will need to increase staff skills to deal with changing customer expectations and needs. SSA’s staff will need to obtain and continually update the skills needed to use the most current technology available to serve the public in a more convenient, cost effective, and secure manner. At the same time, some aspects of SSA’s customer service workload will likely become more time consuming and labor intensive, owing primarily to the growing proportion of SSA’s non-English speaking customers and the rising number of disability cases involving mental impairments. Both situations result in more complex cases that require diverse staff skills. SSA has a number of workforce initiatives under way to help it prepare for the future. For example, as we recommended in 1993, and as required by law, SSA developed a workforce transition plan to lay out actions to help ensure that its workforce will be able to handle future service delivery challenges. In addition, recognizing that it will shortly be facing the prospect of increasing retirements, SSA conducted a study that predicts staff retirements and attrition each year, from 1999 to 2020, by major job position and agency component. SSA also began to take steps to fill its expected leadership gap. We have long stressed the importance of succession planning and formal programs to develop and train managers at all levels of SSA. As early as 1993, we recommended that SSA make succession planning a permanent aspect of its human resource planning and evaluate the adequacy of its investments in management training and development. SSA created three new leadership development programs to help prepare selected staff to assume mid- and top-level leadership positions at the agency. Overall, many of the efforts being made today are consistent with principles of human capital management, and good human capital management is fundamental to the federal government’s ability to serve the American people. For this reason, we have designated strategic human capital management a high-risk area across the federal government. However, SSA is taking these human capital measures in the absence of a concrete service delivery plan to help guide its investments. We recommended as long ago as 1993 that SSA complete such a plan to ensure that its human capital and other key investments are put to the best use.In 1998, the agency took a first step by beginning a multiyear project to monitor and measure the needs, expectations, priorities, and satisfaction of customer groups, major stakeholders, and its workforce. In 2000, SSA completed a document that articulates how it envisions the agency functioning in the future. For example, SSA anticipates offering services in person, over the telephone, and via the Internet; its telephonic and electronic access services will be equipped with sophisticated voice recognition and language translation features, and work will be accomplished through a paperless process. In this service vision document, SSA also states that it will rely heavily on a workforce with diverse and updated skills to accomplish its mission. Although this new vision represents a positive step for the agency toward acknowledging and preparing for future service delivery challenges, it is too broad and general to be useful in making specific information technology and workforce decisions. We have stressed that this document should be followed by a more detailed service delivery plan that spells out who will provide what type of services in the future, where these services will be made available, and the steps and timetables for accomplishing needed changes. SSA officials told us that they are working on such a blueprint. Without this plan, SSA cannot ensure that its investments in its workforce and technology are consistent with and fully support its future approach to service delivery. SSA also plans to rely heavily on information technology to cope with growing workloads and to enhance its processing capabilities. To this end, the agency has devoted considerable time and effort to identifying strategies to meet its goal of providing world-class service. For example, SSA has begun expanding its electronic service delivery capability— offering retirees the option of applying for benefits on-line as well as pursuing other on-line or Internet options to facilitate customer access to the agency’s information and services. Yet, SSA’s overall success in meeting its service delivery challenge will depend on how effectively it manages its information technology initiatives. As SSA transitions to electronic processes, it will be challenged to think strategically about its information technology investments and to effectively link these investments to the agency’s service delivery goals and performance. Furthermore, its actions and decisions must effectively address dual modes of service delivery—its traditional services via telephone, face-to- face, and mail contacts that are supported primarily by its mainframe computer operations, as well as a more interactive, on-line, Web-based environment aimed at delivering more readily accessible services in response to increased customer demands. SSA has experienced mixed success in carrying out prior information technology initiatives. For example, the agency has made substantial progress in modernizing workstations and local area networks to support its work processes, and it has clearly defined its business needs and linked information technology projects to its strategic objectives. Moreover, our evaluation of its information technology policies, procedures, and practices in five key areas—investment management, enterprise architecture, software development and acquisition, human capital, and information security—found that SSA had many important information technology management policies and procedures in place. For instance, SSA had sound policies and procedures for software development that were consistent with best practices. However, SSA had not implemented its policies and procedures uniformly and had not established several key policies and procedures essential to ensuring that its information technology investments and human capital were effectively managed. We noted weaknesses in each of the five key areas and recommended actions to improve SSA’s information technology management practices in each area. In total, our report included 20 specific recommendations for more effectively managing the agency’s information technology. In responding to our report, SSA agreed with all of the recommendations. Let me illustrate some of the weaknesses that formed the basis for our recommendations. In making decisions on technology projects, SSA lacked key criteria and regular oversight for ensuring consistent investment management and decision-making practices. It also did not always consider costs, benefits, schedules, and risks when making project selections and as part of its ongoing management controls. Without such information, SSA cannot be assured that its investment proposals will provide the most cost-effective solutions and achieve measurable and specific program-related benefits (e.g., high-quality service delivered on time, within cost, and to the customer’s satisfaction). Furthermore, given competing priorities and funding needs, SSA will need such information to make essential tradeoffs among its information technology investment proposals and set priorities that can maximize the potential for both short- and longer-term improvements to services provided to the public. As SSA pursues Internet and Web-based applications to better serve its customers, it must ensure that these efforts are aligned with the agency’s information technology environment. A key element for achieving this transition is the successful implementation of SSA’s enterprise architecture. An enterprise architecture serves as a blueprint for systematically and completely defining an organization’s current (baseline) and desired (target) environment and is essential for evolving information systems, developing new systems, and inserting emerging technologies that optimize their mission value. It also provides a tool for assessing benefits, impacts, and capital investment measurements and supporting analyses of alternatives, risks, and trade-offs. Nonetheless, we found that SSA had not completed key elements of its enterprise architecture, including (1) finalizing its enterprise architecture framework, (2) updating and organizing its architectures and architecture definitions under the framework, and (3) reflecting its future service delivery vision and e-business goals. In addition, it had not ensured that enterprise architecture change management and legacy system integration policies, procedures, and processes were effectively implemented across the agency. As SSA moves forward in implementing electronic services and other technologies, its architecture will be critical to defining, managing, and enforcing adherence to the framework required to support its current and future information processing needs. Moreover, without effective enterprise architecture change management and legacy system integration processes, SSA will lack assurance that (1) it can successfully manage and document changes to its architecture as business functions evolve and new technologies are acquired and (2) new software and hardware technologies will interoperate with existing systems in a cost-effective manner. In surveying 116 agencies across the federal government, we found the use of enterprise architectures to be a work in progress, with much left to be accomplished. We assessed SSA at a relatively low level of maturity in enterprise architecture management. SSA plans to rely extensively on software-intensive systems to help achieve processing efficiencies and improved customer service. Because SSA is an agency in which software development continues to be predominantly an in-house effort, in 1997, its Office of Systems established the Software Process Improvement program, in which new policies and procedures were created to enhance the quality of the agency’s software development. However, our evaluation of these policies and procedures found that SSA was not consistently applying them to its software development projects. In particular, SSA had not applied sound management and technical practices in its development of the electronic disability system. This poses a significant risk given SSA’s history of problems in developing and delivering the critical software needed to support its redesigned work processes. The use of sound, disciplined software development processes is critical to ensuring that SSA delivers quality software on schedule and within established cost estimates. Until SSA consistently and effectively implements its software development policies and procedures, it will lack assurance that it can meet its goal of developing a technological infrastructure to support its service delivery vision. As SSA places increased emphasis on using information technology to support new ways of delivering service, it must ensure that it effectively manages its human capital to anticipate, plan for, and support its information technology requirements. However, SSA had not taken all of the necessary steps to ensure the adequacy of its future information technology workforce. For instance, we found that although SSA had begun evaluating its short- and longer-term information technology needs, these efforts were not complete. Specifically, SSA had not linked its information technology staff needs to the competencies it would require to meet mission goals. Doing so is necessary, however, to ensure that SSA’s plans project workforce needs far enough in advance to allow adequate time for staff recruitment and hiring, skills refreshment and training, or outsourcing considerations. Furthermore, SSA lacked an inventory identifying the knowledge and skills of current information technology staff, which is essential for uncovering gaps between current staff and future requirements. Without such an inventory, SSA has no assurance that its plans for hiring, training, and professionally developing information technology staff will effectively target short- and long-term skills needed to sustain its current and future operations. These shortcomings in SSA’s information technology human capital management could have serious ramifications as the agency moves toward making larger investments in new electronic service delivery options, such as Internet applications. Developing Internet applications represents a new era for SSA—one in which the agency must ensure that is has enough of the right people and skills to bring its electronic service delivery plan to fruition. As SSA proceeds with the development and implementation of Internet and Web-based initiatives, the need for a strong program to address threats to the security and integrity of its operations will grow. Without proper safeguards, these initiatives pose enormous risks that make it easier for individuals and groups with malicious intentions to intrude into inadequately protected systems and use such access to obtain sensitive information, commit fraud, disrupt operations, or launch attacks against other organizations’ sites. SSA has made progress in addressing the information protection issues raised in prior years. Specifically, during fiscal year 2001, the agency conducted a risk assessment to identify critical assets and vulnerabilities as part of the Critical Infrastructure Protection project; issued a final security policy for the state Disability Determination Service sites in accordance with the information security requirements included in the National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-18; established and published technical security configuration standards for operating systems and servers; completed updates for accreditation and certification of key systems; and further strengthened physical access controls over the National Computer Center. Nonetheless, weaknesses in SSA’s information security program continue to threaten its ability to effectively mitigate the risk of unauthorized access to, and disclosure of, sensitive information. For example, although the agency has made improvements to its entity-wide security program and standards, control weaknesses continue to expose key elements of its distributed systems and networks to unauthorized access to sensitive data. The general areas where exposures occurred included implementation, enforcement, and ongoing monitoring of compliance with technical security configuration standards and rules governing the operation of firewalls; monitoring controls over security violations and periodic reviews of user access; and physical access controls at nonheadquarters locations. These exposures exist primarily because SSA has not completed implementation of its enterprise-wide security program. Until a complete security framework is implemented and maintained, SSA’s ability to effectively mitigate the risk of unauthorized access to, and modification or disclosure of, sensitive SSA data will be impaired. Unauthorized access to sensitive data can result in the loss of data as well as trust fund assets, and compromised privacy of information associated with SSA’s enumeration, earnings, benefit payment processes, and programs. The need for a strong security framework to address threats to the security and integrity of SSA operations will grow as the agency continues to implement Internet and Web-based applications to serve the American public. In the past, we have reported that SSA has not undertaken the range of research, evaluation, and policy analysis necessary (1) to identify areas where legislative or other changes are needed to address program weaknesses and (2) to assist policymakers in exploring and developing options for change. The long-term solvency of the Social Security system is a critical issue facing the nation and SSA. As the debate on Social Security reform proceeds, policymakers and the general public need thoughtful, detailed, and timely analyses of the likely effect of different proposals on workers, beneficiaries, and the economy. SSA is well positioned to assess the programmatic impacts of economic and demographic trends and to identify areas where policy changes are needed to ensure that recipients’ needs are met efficiently and cost effectively. At the same time, SSA needs to prepare for the implementation of whatever programmatic changes are eventually made. Many of the reform proposals currently under debate will likely affect not only SSA but other government agencies as well. As part of their debate, policymakers need to understand the administrative aspects of each proposal, including the amount of time and money necessary to implement the proposed changes. SSA has information that could be central to the implementation and administration of proposed Social Security reforms and should be providing this information in a timely and accurate manner. SSA also faces a wide range of pressing challenges with its disability programs, including how best to 1) ensure the quality and timeliness of its decisions, 2) integrate return-to-work strategies into all phases of its disability determination process, and 3) address program complexity problems that have contributed to vulnerability in the SSI program. To address these challenges, SSA will need to target its research and conduct analyses that will allow the agency to play a key role in proposing and analyzing major policy changes. However, in the past, we have noted SSA’s reluctance to take the actions needed to fulfill its policy development and planning role in advance of major program crises, particularly when they require long-term solutions, legislative change, or both. In recent years, SSA has taken action to strengthen its research and policy development role in these and other areas. It has initiated several reorganizations of its policy component to strengthen its capacity. The agency has also significantly increased the level of staff and resources available to support research activities and has several analyses planned or under way to address key policy issues. Specific to the long-term solvency issue, SSA’s Office of the Actuary has long provided key information on the financial outlook of Social Security and projections of the effects of different reform proposals on trust fund finances. In addition, SSA has expanded its ability to use modeling techniques to predict the effects of proposed program changes, and it has established a research consortium to conduct and advise on relevant research and policy activities. With respect to its disability programs, SSA has established a separate disability research institute and has submitted to the Congress its first major SSI legislative proposal aimed at improving program integrity. However, many of the agency’s actions and studies are in the early stages, and it is not yet clear how the agency will use them and what their ultimate effect on SSA program policy will be. The Social Security Administration is responsible for issuing SSNs to most Americans. The agency relies on the SSN to record wage data, maintain earnings records, and efficiently administer its benefit programs. In addition, the SSN is used by other government agencies as well as the private sector. This widespread use offers many benefits; however, combined with an increase in reports of identify theft, it has raised public concern over how this and other personal information is being used and protected. Moreover, the growth of the Internet, which can make personal information contained in electronic records more readily accessible to the general public, has heightened this concern. Finally, the terrorist attacks of September 11th and the indication that some of the terrorists fraudulently obtained SSNs have added new urgency to the need to assess how SSNs are used and protected. We have recently testified on work we are completing at the request of Chairman Shaw and others to review the many uses of SSNs at all levels of government and to assess how these government entities safeguard the SSNs. We found that SSNs are widely used across multiple agencies and departments at all levels of government. They are used by agencies that deliver benefits and services to the public as a convenient and efficient means of managing records. More importantly, these agencies rely on SSNs when they share data with one another, for example, to make sure that only eligible individuals receive benefits and to collect outstanding debt individuals owe the government. Although these agencies are taking steps to safeguard the SSNs from improper disclosure, our work identified potential weaknesses in the security of information systems at all levels of government. In addition, SSNs are widely found in documents that are routinely made available to the public, that is, in public records. Although some government agencies and courts are trying innovative approaches to prevent the SSN from appearing on public records, not all agencies maintaining public records have adopted these approaches. Moreover, increasing numbers of departments are considering placing or planning to place documents that may contain SSNs on the Internet, which would make these numbers much more readily available to others, raising the risk of their misuse. We also found that SSNs are one of three personal identifiers most often sought by identity thieves and that SSNs are often used to generate additional false documents, which can be used to set up false identities. What is harder to determine is a clear answer on where identify thieves obtain the SSNs they misuse. Ultimately, in light of the recent terrorist events, the nation must grapple with the need to find the proper balance between the widespread and legitimate uses of personal information such as SSNs, by both government and the private sector, and the need to protect individual privacy. There are no easy answers to these questions, but SSA has an important role to play in protecting the integrity of the SSN. Given the widespread use of SSNs, the agency needs to take steps to ensure that it is taking all necessary precautions to prevent individuals who are not entitled to SSNs from obtaining them. Currently, the agency is reexamining its process of assigning SSNs to individuals. This may require the agency to find a new balance between two competing goals: the need to take time to verify documents submitted during the application process and the desire to serve the applicant as quickly as possible. In addition, the agency is studying ways to make sure it provides accurate and timely information to financial institutions on deceased SSN holders. However, once SSA has issued an SSN, it has little control over how the number is used by other government agencies and the private sector. In this light, we look forward to exploring additional options to better protect SSNs with you as we complete our ongoing work in this area. We have outlined a number of difficult challenges, most of them long- standing, that the SSA Commissioner faces. These are, in general, the same challenges we have been highlighting since SSA became an independent agency. In some cases, SSA has begun to take positive steps to address its challenges. Specifically, SSA’s efforts to strengthen its research, evaluation, and policy development activities show promise. Likewise, SSA has made considerable progress in addressing weaknesses in the integrity of the SSI program. However, more can be done in these areas. As new pressures inevitably arise that will also demand attention from the commissioner and her team, it will be important for the commissioner to sustain and expand on the agency’s actions to date. We are particularly concerned, however, about other challenges where SSA’s efforts to date have fallen short and where the agency faces increasing pressures in the near future. The commissioner faces crucial decisions on how to proceed on several of these challenges. SSA has made disappointing progress on (1) its efforts to improve its disability claims process, (2) the need to better integrate return-to-work strategies into all phases of the disability process, and (3) the need to better plan for future service delivery pressures and changes. These challenges will be exacerbated by growing workload pressures as the baby boom generation ages. After almost a year without a long-term leadership structure in place, the commissioner and a SSA team have an opportunity to take a fresh look at these longstanding challenges and the fundamental issues impeding faster progress in these areas. Again, focused and sustained attention to these challenges is vital, as the agency is running out of time to make needed changes before the expected increases in workload overwhelm its operations. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other member of the subcommittees may have. For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Director, or Kay E. Brown, Assistant Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security at (202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Michael Alexander, Yvette Banks, Daniel Bertoni, Alicia Puente Cackley, Ellen Habenicht, Carol Langelier, Valerie Melvin, Angela Miles, Carol Dawn Petersen, and William Thompson. Social Security: Issues in Evaluating Reform Proposals. GAO-02-288T. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2001. Social Security: Program’s Role in Helping Ensure Income Adequacy. GAO-02-62. Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2001. Social Security: Evaluating Reform Proposals. GAO/AIMD/HEHS-00-29. Washington, D.C.: November 4, 1999. SSA’s Management Challenges: Strong Leadership Needed to Turn Plans Into Timely, Meaningful Action. GAO/T-HEHS-98-113. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 1998. Social Security Disability: Disappointing Results From SSA’s Efforts to Improve the Disability Claims Process Warrant Immediate Attention. GAO-02-322. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2002. SSA Disability: SGA Levels Appear to Affect the Work Behavior of Relatively Few Beneficiaries, but More Data Needed. GAO-02-224. Washington, D.C.: January 16, 2002. SSA Disability: Other Programs May Provide Lessons for Improving Return-to-Work Efforts. GAO-01-153. Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2001. Social Security Disability: SSA Has Had Mixed Success in Efforts to Improve Caseload Management. GAO/T-HEHS-00-22. Washington, D.C.: October 21, 1999. SSA Disability Redesign: Actions Needed to Enhance Future Progress. GAO/HEHS/99-25. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 1999. SSA Disability: SSA Return-to-Work Strategies From Other Systems May Improve Federal Programs. GAO-HEHS-96-133. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 1996. High Risk Series: An Update. GAO-01-273. Washington, D.C.: January 2001. Supplemental Security Income: Additional Actions Needed to Reduce Program Vulnerability to Fraud and Abuse. GAO/HEHS-99-151. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 1999. Supplemental Security Income: Long-Standing Issues Require More Active Management and Program Oversight. GAO/T-HEHS-99-51. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 1999. Supplemental Security Income: Action Needed on Long-Standing Problems Affecting Program Integrity. GAO/HEHS-98-158. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 1998. SSA Customer Service: Broad Service Delivery Plan Needed to Address Future Challenges. GAO/T-HEHS/AIMD-00-75. Washington, D.C.: February 10, 2000. Information Security: Additional Actions Needed to Fully Implement Reform Legislation. GAO-02-470T. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2002. Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use Across the Federal Government Can Be Improved. GAO-02-6. Washington, D.C.: February 19, 2002. Information Technology Management: Social Security Administration Practices Can Be Improved. GAO-01-961. Washington, D.C.: August 21, 2001. Information Security: Serious and Widespread Weaknesses Persist at Federal Agencies. GAO/AIMD-00-295. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2000. SSA Customer Service: Broad Service Delivery Plan Needed to Address Future Challenges. GAO/T-HEHS/AIMD-00-75. Washington, D.C.: February 10, 2000. Social Security Administration: Update on Year 2000 and Other Key Information Technology Initiatives. GAO/T-AIMD-99-259. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 1999. Information Security: Serious Weaknesses Place Critical Federal Operations and Assets at Risk. GAO/AIMD-98-92. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 1998.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) provided $450 billion in benefits to 50 million recipients in fiscal year 2001. Since 1995, when SSA became an independent agency, GAO has called for effective leadership and sustained management attention to several unresolved management challenges, including the redesign of its disability claims process, management and oversight problems with its SSI program, future service delivery demands, and implementing its information technology and research and policy development capacity. SSA has much more to do and will need to take bolder action or make more fundamental changes to existing programs.

Prior to the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, the federal government had no formally established security standards for federally owned or leased facilities. Immediately following the bombing, President William J. Clinton directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to assess the vulnerability of federal facilities to terrorist attacks or violence and to develop recommendations for minimum security standards. The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), within DOJ, coordinated two working groups to accomplish these presidential directives. The working groups identified and evaluated various security measures and activities that could address potential vulnerabilities, and minimum security standards were also proposed for federal facilities. Additionally, USMS deputies and General Services Administration (GSA) security specialists conducted inspections at more than 1,200 federal facilities to obtain security data on buildings for use in upgrading existing conditions to comply with the proposed minimum standards. The result of the working groups' efforts was the report Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities . This report was significant because it represented the first time that broad security standards were applied to federal facilities. After the report was issued, President Clinton directed all executive branch agencies to begin upgrading their facilities to meet the recommended minimum security standards. Following the DOJ recommendations, President Clinton also required GSA to establish building security committees for all GSA facilities. In the 112 th Congress, legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate to improve the Federal Protective Service (FPS), the agency charged with responsibility to protect federal buildings. In the House, H.R. 176 , the Federal Protective Service Improvement and Accountability Act of 2011, was introduced on January 5, 2011. Similar legislation, S. 772 , the Supporting Employee Competency and Updating Readiness Enhancements for Facilities Act of 2011 (SECURE Facilities Act of 2011) was introduced in the Senate on April 8, 2011. The purpose of both bills is to strengthen the security of federal facilities and improve the safety of employees who work there and public visitors by enhancing the ability of FPS to provide the necessary security. The two bills are discussed in this report under the section, " Legislation in 112 th Congress: Federal Protective Service ." Because of the differences among federal buildings and their security needs, USMS categorized federal facilities into five classes based on building size, agency mission and function, tenant population, and the degree of public access to the facility, and developed security standards corresponding to the security level needed for each class: Level I—buildings with no more than 2,500 square feet, 10 or fewer federal employees, and limited or no public access; Level II—buildings with 2,500 to 80,000 square feet, 11 to 150 federal employees, and moderate public access; Level III—buildings with 80,000 to 150,000 square feet, 151 to 450 federal employees, and moderate to high public access; Level IV—buildings with 150,000 square feet or more, more than 450 federal employees, and a high level of public access; and Level V—buildings that are similar to Level IV but are considered critical to national security (for example, the Pentagon). The Interagency Security Committee was established in 1995, originally as part of GSA, and was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003. The following two sections describe the ISC's work under GSA and DHS chairmanships. On October 19, 1995, President Clinton issued an executive order that established the ISC to address "continuing government-wide security" for federal facilities. Chaired at the time by the GSA Administrator, the ISC was composed of representatives from each of the executive branch agencies. The ISC was authorized to consult with other entities, including the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in order to perform its duties. The executive order directed the ISC to (1) establish policies for security in and protection of Federal facilities; (2) develop and evaluate security standards for Federal facilities, develop a strategy for ensuring compliance with such standards, and oversee the implementation of appropriate security measures in Federal facilities; and (3) take such actions as may be necessary to enhance the quality and effectiveness of security and protection of Federal facilities, including but not limited to: (A) encouraging agencies with security responsibilities to share security-related intelligence in a timely and cooperative manner; (B) assessing technology and information systems as a means of providing cost-effective improvements to security in Federal facilities; (C) developing long-term construction standards for those locations with threat levels or missions that require blast resistant structures or other specialized security requirements; (D) evaluating standards for the location of, and special security related to, day care centers in Federal facilities; and (E) assisting the Administrator in developing and maintaining a centralized security data base of all Federal facilities. Following its establishment, the ISC began to address new security technology developments, cost considerations, and the need to balance security standards with public access to federal buildings. In May 2001, the ISC issued its Security Design Criteria for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects (updated in 2004), based on the five security levels for federal facilities. This document required new construction projects to include the use of window glazing protection, establish minimum acceptable distances between federal buildings and streets, control vehicular access to buildings, and evaluate the location and securing of air intake vents. The September 2001 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center heightened concerns about the vulnerability of federal buildings to violence or bombings. In response to these events, the ISC issued revised procedures to respond to potential vehicle bomb attacks by recommending that new federal buildings be constructed at a minimum distance of between 20 to 50 feet from the nearest perimeter barrier, depending upon the security level. Even though the ISC successfully completed its security design criteria and related documents, a 2002 GAO report found that the committee had made "little progress" in other mandated responsibilities. While GAO reported that the ISC was successfully disseminating security information to member agencies, it also found that the committee's effectiveness was hindered by GSA's "lack of aggressive leadership and support," in that the agency failed to issue operating procedures and did not provide sufficient staff support and funding. GSA was also unable to provide any documentation indicating that the agency or the ISC had actually monitored agency compliance with the security recommendations. Congressional enactment of the Homeland Security Act in 2002 and the creation of DHS centralized the federal government's efforts to respond to terrorism, including enhancing physical security for federal facilities. Accordingly, the chairmanship of the ISC was transferred from the GSA Administrator to the DHS Secretary on February 28, 2003. Within DHS, the chairmanship of the ISC was delegated to the Director of the Federal Protective Service (FPS) in January 2004. A 2004 report issued by GAO recommended that DHS direct the ISC to develop a plan that "identifies resource needs, implementation goals, and time frames for meeting the ISC's ongoing and yet-unfulfilled responsibilities." GAO reported that standard operating procedures had been approved by agency members, and included new requirements for attendance and participation at ISC meetings. To address these issues, DHS (through the ISC) is creating and maintaining a centralized security database of all existing federal facilities. Since its transfer to DHS, the ISC has either updated or established the following standards or best practices: Use of Physical Security Performance Measures , gives policy guidance on metrics and testing for physical security programs; Facility Security Level Determinations , defines the criteria and process used in determining the security level of a federal facility; Physical Security Criteria for Federal Facilities , establishes a baseline set of physical security measures to be applied to all federal facilities; Design-Basis Threat Report , creates a profile of the type, composition, and capabilities of potential threats to federal facilities; and ISC Best Practices for Safe Mail Handling , identifies best practices for mail room operations in federal agencies and assists security managers in implementing safe mail-handling practices. In addition to its duties to coordinate federal security efforts and develop security standards for the construction of new federal facilities, the ISC has been assigned responsibility for reviewing federal agencies' physical security plans. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, issued December 17, 2003, required federal agencies "to identify and prioritize United States critical infrastructure and key resources and to protect them from terrorist attacks," and it assigned implementation responsibilities to DHS. In July 2004, the ISC was designated to oversee and review each agency's physical security plan pertaining to protection of the nation's infrastructure and key resources. According to GAO, the ISC's successful completion of these new responsibilities would represent "a major step" toward carrying out its existing duties pertaining to compliance and oversight. The ISC, however, does not have the authority to enforce standards on other federal departments and agencies. It relies on other federal entities' willingness and abilities to implement security standards and best practices. Numerous agencies have responsibility for federal building security entities. Among them are such law enforcement agencies as the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Security Protective Service, the Department of Defense's (DOD) Pentagon Police Directorate, and the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service's uniformed law enforcement officers. These agencies and facilities are usually limited in scope and size, involving a single location or a limited number of buildings. However, the primary agency for protecting federal facilities is the Federal Protective Service (FPS), which is responsible for protecting almost half (48%) of all GSA owned or leased property. FPS, now within DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), is responsible for the protection and security of federally owned and leased buildings and property and of federal personnel. In general, FPS operations focus on security and law enforcement activities that reduce vulnerability to criminal and terrorist threats. FPS protection and security operations include all-hazards based risk assessments; emplacement of criminal and terrorist countermeasures, such as vehicle barriers and closed-circuit cameras; law enforcement response; assistance to federal agencies through Facility Security Committees; and emergency and safety education programs. FPS also assists other federal agencies with additional security, such as assisting the U.S. Secret Service at National Special Security Events (NSSE). FPS is the lead Government Facilities Sector Agency for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. Currently, FPS employs approximately 1,225 law enforcement officers, investigators, and administrative personnel, and administers the services of approximately 15,000 contract security guards. Currently, FPS employs approximately 1,225 law enforcement officers, investigators, and administrative personnel. The Senate-reported version of FY2012 appropriations for DHS recommended $1.2 billion for FPS, and the House-reported version recommended $1.3 billion. The responsibility to protect federal buildings was given to the Federal Works Agency in June 1948. Specifically, Congress authorized the Federal Works Administrator to appoint uniformed guards as special policemen with responsibility for "the policing of public buildings and other areas under the jurisdiction of the Federal Works Agency." The special policemen were given the same responsibility as sheriffs and constables on federal property to enforce the laws enacted for the protection of persons and property, and to prevent "breaches of peace, and suppress affrays or unlawful assemblies." On June 30, 1949, the Federal Works Agency was abolished, and all of its functions, including the protection of federal buildings, were transferred to GSA In September 1961, Congress authorized the GSA Administrator to appoint non-uniformed special policemen to conduct investigations in order to protect property under the control of GSA; enforce federal law to protect persons and property; and make an arrest without a warrant for any offense committed upon federal property if a policeman had reason to believe the offense was a felony and the person to be arrested was guilty of the felony. The GSA Administrator formally established the Federal Protective Service (FPS) in January 1971 through GSA Administrative Order 5440.46. FPS, as an official GSA agency, continued to protect federal property and buildings with both uniformed and non-uniformed policemen. FPS was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, and placed within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ). The act required the DHS Secretary to "protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed ownership corporation thereof) and persons on the property." With the passage of FY2010 DHS appropriations, Congress authorized the transfer of FPS from ICE to the National Protection and Programs Directorate. On October 29, 2009, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced this transfer. Under current statutory provisions, FPS officers are authorized to enforce federal laws and regulations to protect persons and federal property; carry firearms; make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of an officer or for any federal felony; serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of the United States; conduct investigations, on and off federal property, of offenses that may have been committed against federal property or persons on the property; and carry out other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the DHS Secretary may prescribe. FPS's contract security guard responsibilities include federal building access control, employee and visitor identification checks, security equipment monitoring, and roving patrols of the interior and exterior of federal property. Within the National Capital Region (NCR), FPS contracts with 54 private security guard companies to provide approximately 5,700 guards to protect 125 federal facilities. FPS issues task orders to contract security guard services that detail the terms and conditions under which the contract security guard services are to be provided. Some of these task orders include the identification of buildings requiring protection, specific guard post locations, and the hours and days of the week each post is to be staffed; whether security guards are to be armed; and the number of guards at each post. FPS currently employs approximately 15,000 contract security guards across the nation, and, according to the DHS Inspector General (DHS IG), contract guard services "represent the single largest item in the FPS operating budget, with an estimated FY2006 budget of $487 million." The safe conduct of court proceedings and the security of judges, court personnel, and visitors in courtrooms, as well as the safety of judges off-site, continue to be a concern. The 2005 murders of family members of a federal judge in Chicago; the killings of a state judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff's deputy at an Atlanta courthouse; and the 2006 sniper shooting of a state judge in his Reno office all spurred efforts to improve judicial security. Other threats against judges and court facilities have not stopped. For example, in September 2009, a plan to bomb the Paul Findley Federal Building and Courthouse in Springfield, IL, was uncovered and an arrest was made. On January 4, 2010, a gunman wounded a deputy U.S. marshal and killed a court security officer at the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building in Las Vegas. Possible threats in the first week of 2010 included suspicious substances in letters sent to courthouses in Alabama. These recent incidents may result in review and increased oversight of judicial security at court facilities to ensure that adequate protective policies, procedures, and practices are in place. Additionally, increased security enhancements may be necessary for federal courthouses where trials of individuals charged with acts of terrorism are to be held. Each of the three branches of the federal government plays a unique role in helping to ensure the safety of judges and the security of the federal courts. The role of Congress is to authorize programs that enhance security, appropriate funds, and provide oversight of judicial security. The Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Security monitors the security of the judiciary (including the protection of court facilities and proceedings, judicial officers, and court staff at federal court facilities and other locations) and makes policy recommendations to the conference. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts implements Judicial Conference policies, including security matters. By statute, the United States Marshals Service within the Department of Justice has primary responsibility for the security of the federal judiciary, including the safe conduct of court proceedings, as well as the security of federal judges and court personnel at court facilities and off-site. USMS is charged with the protection and security of more than 2,000 federal judges and approximately 5,250 other court officials at over 400 court facilities nationwide. Within USMS, the Judicial Security Division (JSD) is specifically responsible for providing security services and staff support for the federal judiciary, including personal protection for judges and physical security for federal courthouses. Other space in the court facilities under the control of USMS includes holding cells adjacent to courtrooms, interview rooms used by attorneys and prisoners, cellblocks, prisoner elevators, and office space for USMS use. An appointed U.S. marshal, confirmed by the Senate, has security responsibility in each of the 94 federal judicial districts and the District of Columbia Superior Court. District U.S. marshals provide and oversee security of the judiciary using USMS resources and court security officers (CSO), who are employees of private security companies under contract with USMS. Over 4,500 CSOs provide various types of security (e.g., fixed posts, roving patrols, entry screening, and mail and package screening) in courthouses and at multi-tenant facilities. Also under USMS jurisdiction are the design, installation, and maintenance of security systems, and the oversight of communications equipment. USMS conducts investigations of threats made against federal judges, U.S. attorneys, court staff, and their family members to determine the level of security that is necessary for developing security plans. In accordance with these findings, USMS assigns the required resources to ensure the safety of these people. A deputy marshal is required to attend any session of court at the request of the presiding judge. A judicial security inspector (a senior-level deputy marshal) is assigned to each judicial district to evaluate courthouse security and procedures and to coordinate scheduling, posting, and other matters related to CSOs. The inspectors also conduct security surveys at judges' homes and recommend improvements. On June 1, 2004, USMS established the Office of Protective Intelligence (OPI) to review and analyze intelligence information about the security of those under USMS protection. OPI issues daily security advisories, intelligence bulletins, and law enforcement alerts to USMS district offices and senior staff at headquarters so that protective measures can be taken. When threats are made, USMS works with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to evaluate the threats. Within the Department of Homeland Security, FPS has overall responsibility for security in GSA-managed, multi-tenant federal buildings. When the buildings include court facilities, USMS and FPS share security responsibilities; this is authorized by a series of memoranda of agreement and understanding (MOA and MOU) between GSA and DOJ. When the court is the sole tenant in a GSA-managed building, USMS has primary responsibility for security, although FPS may provide some support for the perimeter security, or it may delegate this responsibility to USMS. The manner in which the responsibilities are shared varies case by case, depending on the differing requirements of tenants, functions, and locations of occupied space. These shared responsibilities and jurisdictions at individual court-occupied buildings are further determined by agreements (sometimes in writing), and coordinated to avoid duplication. Generally, USMS is responsible for and controls access to judicial space, while FPS is primarily responsible for perimeter security and for other interior space that is not court-related space. FPS conducts risk assessments of multi-tenant buildings to deter threats and take countermeasures. Uniformed FPS officers and hired contract guards (similar to court security officers) protect the buildings and their assets, and investigate crime at the facilities. Other than perimeter responsibilities, FPS duties may include visitor entry processing, roving patrols, garage access control, and mail and package screening. These principal entities communicate and coordinate at the national and district levels to ensure the security of the courts. At the national level, the Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Security coordinates security issues involving the federal courts with USMS, DOJ, and DHS. According to USMS, the Marshals Service works daily with the AOUSC Office of Court Security and the Office of Facilities and Security, and the Committee on Judicial Security also consults and coordinates over national and district-level security matters. At semi-annual meetings, the Committee on Judicial Security and USMS senior management discuss security, legal, and budget issues. In addition, USMS and AOUSC hold working sessions to discuss issues that include the purchase and installation of security systems, CSO staffing, and budget matters. At the local level, U.S. marshals routinely meet with the district chief judge at court security committee meetings including representatives from the magistrate, district, and bankruptcy courts (and sometimes circuit judges and U.S. attorneys) to review and implement security plans. AOUSC and USMS also consult on security considerations (e.g., design and installation of security systems) in the construction of new or renovated courthouses. On January 5, 2009, USMS implemented a pilot program to assume primary responsibility for perimeter security at selected courthouses that were previously the responsibility of the FPS. This pilot was undertaken in accordance with FY2009 enacted legislation as a result of the judiciary's concerns that FPS was providing inadequate perimeter security. The pilot program, expected to cover an 18–month period, includes five courthouses located in Chicago, Detroit, Phoenix, New York, and Tucson, and two in Baton Rouge. The judiciary submitted a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Financial Services and General Government on the implementation progress of the pilot program and is currently working with USMS on assessment tools for the program. As the Supreme Court's general manager, paymaster, and chief security officer, the Marshal of the Supreme Court oversees the administration and operations of the Court building. The Marshal manages over 200 Court employees and supervises the federal property used by the Court. The Marshal also directs the Supreme Court Police Force, which comprises a chief of police and approximately 80 officers. The police force jurisdiction covers the Court building, its grounds, and adjacent streets. Federal building security includes such activities as the daily interaction of FPS and its federal customers, the coordination between USMS and the FPS in federal multi-use buildings, and the federal agency interaction with contract security guard companies. It should be noted that some Members of Congress have state and district offices in multi-tenant federal buildings and recently the FBI has coordinated with Members due to an increase in threats to Members and their offices. Federal agencies communicate with one another and state, local, and private sector entities to coordinate federal building security. It is important to note that the federal government's communication of potential and imminent terrorist and criminal threats to states, localities, and private sector entities is an important aspect of federal building security because the majority of federal agencies and departments lease, build, and occupy facilities located in local jurisdictions and are not segregated from the general populace, private industries and businesses, and state and local government facilities. Not only would local jurisdictions be susceptible to collateral damage in a terrorist attack on a federal building, but some federal agencies and departments also rely on state and local law enforcement entities in the event of criminal or terrorism activities at federal facilities. One established way the federal government communicated threats was through the use of the Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS), which was managed by DHS. HSAS, established on March 12, 2002, was a color-coded terrorist threat warning system. The system, which federal departments and agencies were required to implement and use, provided recommended protective measures for federal departments and agencies to prevent, prepare for, mitigate against, and respond to terrorist attacks. DHS disseminated HSAS terrorist threat warnings to federal departments, state and local agencies, the public, and private-sector entities. DHS, however, only provided protective measures for federal departments. This dissemination of warnings was conducted through multiple communication systems and public announcements. HSAS had five threat levels: low, guarded, elevated, high, and severe. In 2009, DHS's Homeland Security Advisory Council established a task force to review the HSAS and recommend changes to the administration and use of the system. Upon review, DHS replaced the HSAS with the National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS). NTAS is a new system that is to communicate terrorism threat information by providing "timely, detailed information to the public, government agencies, first responders, airports and other transportation hubs, and the private sector." Some federal entities, in response to targeted and specific threats, have developed mechanisms for notifying other federal departments and agencies, such as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, which coordinates with DHS, the federal intelligence and law enforcement communities, and the Department of Energy (DOE). In 2005, John E. Lewis, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security about the FBI's coordination with other federal agencies concerning potential nuclear threats or incidents. Mr. Lewis stated that the FBI has developed liaison relationships with DHS, DOE, and DOD, and he detailed how the FBI and these departments would coordinate their response efforts if there was a nuclear threat or incident. Within DHS, the Office of Operations Coordination is responsible for monitoring the nation's security situation daily, through the National Operations Center (NOC), and coordinating activities among DHS, governors, homeland security advisors, law enforcement entities, and critical infrastructure operators. Information on domestic incident management is shared with Emergency Operations Centers at federal, state, and local levels through the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN), and state and local intelligence fusion centers. Due to recent attacks on federal buildings and continued terrorism threats, Congress may wish to address issues associated with federal building security. Some of these issues include FPS's operations and use of contract security guards, coordination and sharing of federal building security information, Facility Security Committees, and appropriations and resources. These issues are discussed below. The threat of terrorism since the September 11, 2001, attacks has increased emphasis on the physical security of federal property and congressional interest in FPS. Since 2009, GAO has issued three reports about FPS, one on FPS's use of contract security guards and two on FPS's operations to address federal facility vulnerabilities. In November 2009, GAO identified the following concerns about FPS's operations: FPS does not have a risk management framework that couples threats and vulnerabilities with resource requirements; FPS lacks a strategic human capital plan to guide its current and future workforce planning efforts; FPS lacks a systematic approach for using technology to reduce risk to federal facilities; FPS is inconsistent in sharing information and coordinating security with GSA and tenant agencies; and FPS lacks a reliable data management system for accurately tracking performance measurement and testing. One GAO recommendation is for FPS to improve its use of a fee-based system by developing an accurate method of accounting for the cost of providing security services to tenant agencies and ensuring that its fee structure takes into consideration the varying levels of risk and service provided at GSA facilities. Congress may wish to address the implementation of this recommendation by requiring FPS specifically, and DHS generally, to develop an accurate method for assessing security service costs through statutory or conference language. Additionally, GAO recommended an evaluation of whether continued use of the current fee-based system or another funding mechanism would be the most appropriate method for funding FPS operations. Congress might want to require the DHS IG to review the use of the fee-based system versus the method of directly providing appropriations to FPS. Alternatively, Congress could determine without further review to begin a direct appropriation for FPS operations through statutory language in annual DHS appropriations. This approach would possibly reduce the amount of appropriations GSA and tenant agencies currently receive to pay FPS for security operations. Considering all of these issues, Congress may want to review FPS operations further through oversight hearings or require FPS and DHS to report on what actions, if any, the agency is taking to address GAO and DHS IG findings. Further review and hearings may not, however, immediately ameliorate continuing FPS shortcomings. GAO identified concerns with FPS's use of contract security guards, including that FPS does not fully ensure that its contract security guards have the training and certifications required to secure federal facilities; FPS does not have a completely reliable system for monitoring and verifying contract guard training and certification requirements; FPS does not have specific national guidance on when and how contract guard inspections should be performed; and FPS inspections of contract security guard posts at federal facilities are inconsistent, and the quality of the inspections varies across FPS regions. FPS has implemented some actions in response to GAO's findings. According to FPS officials, these actions include authorizing overtime to monitor contract security guards during non-routine business hours and requiring penetration tests to identify weaknesses at access control contract security guard posts. Additionally, FPS has implemented a new directive developed to clarify FPS responsibilities for conducting and reporting the results of inspections and evaluations. In FY2010, Congress attempted to address FPS's use of contract security guards by requiring FPS to maintain no fewer than 1,200 full-time equivalent staff and 900 full-time police officers, investigators, inspectors, area commanders, and special agents. This requirement could increase FPS's oversight of contract security guards; however, increasing the number of FPS law enforcement officers may not solve problems immediately because of the time required to inspect contract security guard operations, to identify continuing shortcomings, and to train FPS and contract security guard personnel. Additionally, increasing the number of FPS law enforcement personnel could further strain FPS resources by increasing the amount of personnel benefits afforded to federal employees. Terrorism threat information sharing and coordination of federal, state, and local government security operations are multi-faceted endeavors that require constant attention and are immediately reviewed, and possibly revised, following an attempted or successful terrorist attack, such as the recent attempted bombing of an airplane on December 25, 2009. Federal facilities and agencies sharing terrorism threat information and coordinating facility security are specific and integral parts of this government endeavor to ensure the nation's security. Congressional action on terrorism information sharing includes passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which mandated the creation of an Information Sharing Environment (ISE). The ISE is to facilitate the sharing of terrorism information among federal, state, local, and private sector entities through the use of policy guidelines and technologies. However, problems have arisen related to the coordination and sharing of federal building security information. GAO, in November 2009 testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security, stated that even though FPS and GSA management officials have established communication processes, information sharing at the regional and facility levels is inconsistent, and FPS and GSA disagree overall about what information should be shared. As an example, GAO cited a memorandum of agreement between DHS and GSA that specified that FPS will provide quarterly briefings at the regional level; however, this has not been done consistently across all FPS regions. GSA security officials stated that the briefings that did occur primarily focused on crime statistics and did not constitute comprehensive threat analyses. Additionally, on September 30, 2009, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stated, before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, that there is no single process or system for federal, state, and local entities to receive or share terrorism intelligence and threat information. The Secretary stated that the present system of sharing information is not streamlined, that it is a "work in progress," and that this may be the result of the security classification of the information. Also, the Secretary said that state and local officials may be confused about where to obtain terrorism threat information. To address the issue of coordination and sharing of terrorism threat information among federal facilities, Congress could choose to require, through statutory language, that federal agencies report periodically on this matter to the committees of jurisdiction. Additionally, Congress could request that GAO revisit the ISE and its implementation since 2004. In 2008, GAO reported limited success with the implementation and noted that the ISE lacked guidance on ensuring accountability and assessing progress. Additionally, Congress could request information on how federal agencies train personnel (specifically, building security managers and officials) on the sharing of terrorism threat information. Congress could also require a review of the coordination and integration of information sharing systems used by federal agencies, such as Law Enforcement Online and the Homeland Security Information Network. This review might identify what systems are utilized most and what systems appear effective. The review might disclose which federal agencies are involved, and at what level, in each system. On this point, GAO noted in 2007 that when "identical or similar types of information are collected by or submitted to multiple agencies, integrating or sharing this information can lead to redundancies." None of these options, however, address the issue of how specific federal facilities interact with federal security entities such as FPS, or what type of informal coordination is conducted daily to ensure the safety and well-being of federal employees, and members of the general public who visit federal facilities. When a federal court is in a multi-tenant building, the court's representative is a member of the Facility Security Committee (FSC) (previously known as the Building Security Committee). Each FSC, made up of tenants in the building, considers and makes decisions on building security matters. FSCs were mentioned at the November 18, 2009, House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on Federal Protective Service Transition. The committee chair raised the issue of the potentially dangerous items that are allowed to be brought into federal buildings. In July 2009, GAO staff reported that they were able to smuggle bomb-making components into 10 high-security federal facilities in four different cities and successfully assemble the items inside the building. The components were not on the prohibited list for those facilities. Reportedly, FSCs in each federal building determine what items are prohibited, and there is no standard list of prohibited items. FPS makes security assessments and presents them to FSCs, but, according to the FPS director, FPS does not determine the prohibited items list. Congress might consider whether the current process for determining which items should be prohibited is sufficient, and whether the input provided by various tenants, including the judiciary—as well as recommendations by USMS, FPS, GSA, and others—is effective. Further, consideration might be given to mandating a standard list of prohibited items to enhance security at federal facilities and to establishing regular evaluations of the list. Research also indicated that few across-the-board standards have been established for the FSCs. The Interagency Security Committee formed a working group to examine and issue a document to address FSC operations. While each federal facility may have different or unique security administrative challenges, the lack of standards in FSC administrative operations could imperil security. Among the areas that could be examined are the following: FSC membership composition, and the designation and authority of the committee chair; voting issues, including how a quorum and majority vote are determined; whether one vote for each tenant is fair or whether votes should be proportional to tenant space; whether the formula for allocating how much each tenant pays for security enhancements, now generally based on square footage, is equitable or appropriate; whether a minimum number of mandatory regularly scheduled meetings of the FSC (and others on an as-needed basis) should be required; whether there is a need for possible standards for written records of FSC meetings and other recordkeeping requirements; whether there is a system for tenants to appeal decisions and resolve possible disagreements; whether each tenant has efficient processes for securing the approval of its headquarters office with regard to security enhancement requests so that FSC can act to implement improvements without delay from one or more tenants; whether FSCs have adequate and timely communication with federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations; and whether there should be regular congressional or ISC review of FCS operations and reporting requirements. Early in the 112 th Congress, legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate to improve the ability of FPS to protect federal facilities, the employees who work there, and public visitors. Both bills are similar to legislation introduced in the previous Congress but no further action was taken before the 111 th Congress adjourned. On January 5, 2011, Representative Bennie G. Thompson introduced H.R. 176 , the Federal Protective Service Improvement and Accountability Act of 2011. On January 31, 2011, the bill was referred to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; House Homeland Security Committee; and subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology, where it is pending. H.R. 176 would reform the FPS workforce, security practices, and contract oversight capacity. Following is a summary of the bill's main provisions: The DHS Secretary would be directed to maintain no fewer than 1,350 full-time equivalent positions in the FPS inspector force (fully trained federal law enforcement officers). These positions would be classified as Federal Facility Security Officers (responsible for security assessment), and law enforcement officers (responsible for physical law enforcement and investigations). The DHS Secretary would establish a FPS contract oversight force to monitor contracts, contractors, and contract guards, and require minimum training and certification standards for security guard services at FPS-protected facilities. The FPS Director would begin a one-year pilot program (within six months after the enactment of the act) to research the conversion of contract guard positions to federal employee positions at the highest-risk federal facilities. The GAO Comptroller General would review periodically the pilot program and the performance of federal facility security guards in the program, and submit a final report of its evaluation to Congress. The GAO Comptroller General would review the current FPS fee-based funding system, and recommend changes or alternatives, as appropriate, to the system. H.R. 176 also expresses the sense of Congress that specified security standards for federal facilities established by the Interagency Security Committee should be implemented for all federal facilities. On April 8, 2011, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman introduced (for himself and Senators Susan M. Collins and Daniel K. Akaka) S. 772 , the Supporting Employee Competency and Updating Readiness Enhancements for Facilities Act of 2011 (SECURE Facilities Act of 2011). The purpose of the bill is to protect federal employees and public visitors by improving the security of federal facilities and modernizing FPS. The bill was referred to the Senate Hom eland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on the same day. On May 11, 2011, the committee adopted by a vote of 10-5, an amendment Senator Tom Coburn offered to require the DHS Secretary to offset each new full-time FPS employee position with the reduction of one full-time DHS employee position. On May 18, 2011, the Senate committee reported the bill favorably, as amended, by voice vote. S. 772 would increase the guard workforce, require training and regular assessments of guard capabilities, and stabilize the management of FPS. Following is a summary of the bill's main provisions: The DHS Secretary would ensure that FPS maintain at any time no fewer than 1,371 full-time equivalent employees (including no fewer than 950 in-service field staff) in FY2012. The DHS Secretary is also to ensure that there would be no fewer than 1,200 full-time employees at any time (including 900 in-service field staff). After FY2012, the DHS secretary would submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees if there is a decrease in the number of full-time equivalent employees and provide a revised model projected for future fiscal years on the number of full-time equivalent employees. FPS would increase the training provided to contract guards, maintain testing programs to assess training and the security of federal facilities, and establish procedures for retraining or terminating guards. FPS officers would be authorized to carry firearms on or off duty. The DHS Secretary would coordinate with the ISC, to develop standards for checkpoint detection technologies for explosives and other threats at FPS-protected federal facilities. ISC's authority to enforce compliance on security standards for the federal buildings would be increased. The DHS Secretary would submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees if any facility is determined to be in non-compliance with the ISC security standards. Federal agencies' representatives serving on a Federal Security Committee would be trained on security matters, in accordance with standards established by ISC. Other requirements for each committee include meeting on a quarterly basis, or more frequently (as determined by the committee chair), and maintaining official records of the meetings. The DHS Secretary would be required to submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees within 180 days after enactment of the act on the FPS funding system, including recommendations for alternatives, including direct appropriations, or a combination of fee collections, security charges, and appropriations. If the Administration decided to hold trials of individuals charged with terrorist acts in federal civilian court rather than in military tribunals, enhancing communication and coordination of all law enforcement agencies (federal, state, and local) and the judiciary would be critical. The planning and implementation of additional security enhancements, including staff, training, technology, and equipment, would be necessary for the security and safety of all parties involved. A systematic method for identifying and addressing concerns of the local community and officials might include assessing the disruptive impact security measures might have on the businesses and residences in the area, and on traffic around and leading to the courthouses. Depending on the location of such trials, airspace surveillance and extension of the perimeter for security might be considered. Congress might take into account the unique jurisdictional responsibilities of each entity, including national intelligence agencies. Establishing a system for entities to coordinate expenditures in a timely manner might be necessary because such trials could continue for several years. Planning for multiple years of appropriations might be needed to enable the entities to continue to fulfill their functions. Congressional oversight could be critical to ensure that funds and resources are maximized under fiscal constraints. If sufficient funding is not provided in a timely manner to the federal entities involved, Congress might consider whether authorities are in place for entities to transfer resources currently devoted to other programs, and whether such transfers might adversely affect the performance of other missions. Congress might also consider whether funding FPS directly could provide it with more stable and predictable funding than its current reliance on fees from other agencies and the judiciary. In addition, direct appropriations to FPS might reduce administrative costs for both FPS and the federal courts. The federal government faces, daily, the task of securing a portfolio comprising 446,000 buildings. Accordingly, Congress could address concerns, some of which are addressed in this report, to ensure effective federal agency operations and the health, well-being, and safety of federal employees and the public.

The security of federal government buildings and court facilities affects not only the daily operations of the federal government but also the health, well-being, and safety of federal employees and the public. Early in the 112th Congress, legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate to improve the Federal Protective Service (FPS), the agency charged with responsibility to protect federal buildings, the employees who work in the buildings, and public visitors. On January 5, 2011, H.R. 176, the Federal Protective Service Improvement and Accountability Act of 2011, was introduced in the House. On April 8, 2011, similar legislation, S. 772, the Supporting Employee Competency and Updating Readiness Enhancements for Facilities Act of 2011, was introduced in the Senate. The purpose of both bills is to strengthen the security of federal facilities and the ability of FPS to provide the necessary security. For the purposes of this report, federal facilities include any building leased or owned by the General Services Administration. In FY2007, the federal government's real property portfolio comprised 446,000 buildings with an area of 3.3 billion square feet and a replacement value of $772.8 billion. Federal courthouses and facilities are also discussed in this report. Additionally, it should be noted that many Members of Congress have state and district offices located in multi-tenant federal buildings. Security of federal facilities includes physical security assets such as closed-circuit television cameras, barrier material, and security guards (both federally employed and contracted). Federal facility security practices have been subject to criticism by some government auditors and security experts. Elements that have received criticism include the use of private security guards, the management and security practices of the FPS, and the coordination of federal facility security.

The four military services stockpile in their retail and wholesale inventories conventional ammunition, explosives, and missiles (hereafter referred to as ammunition) valued at about $80 billion as of September 30, 1994. About $58 billion of this ammunition is classified as usable or serviceable. Serviceable ammunition valued at about $34 billion is owned, stored, and managed by the services (retail stocks). The remaining serviceable ammunition, valued at $24 billion, is owned by the services but stored under Army management to ensure that a sufficient supply is available to meet needs for peacetime training and for war (wholesale stocks). Including the retail stocks, the amount of ammunition stored is over 5 million tons, which if loaded into railway cars would stretch over 800 miles, about the distance from Washington, D.C., to Orlando, Florida. Under current guidance, the services must maintain enough ammunition to support forces fighting in two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. This requirement represents a change in national strategy dictated by international developments and a major reduction in U.S. forces. A 1993 study directed by the Joint Ordnance Commanders Groupfound that the changes had seriously affected stockpile operations and readiness. Each service determines the types and quantities of ammunition it needs to meet requirements for war reserves and training. The requirements are based on the national military strategy, which requires the services to be capable of fighting two major regional conflicts. The Defense Planning Guidance gives general direction to the services and planning factors for the conduct of military operations under the strategy. Each service is to use the Department of Defense’s (DOD) capabilities-based munitions requirements process to establish its munitions requirements. Under this intricate process, the services determine their requirements based on the operational objectives of the combatant commander in chiefs against potential threats. The requirements determination process also considers the services’ logistics capabilities and the need for sufficient ammunition to remain after an operation or conflict for future contingencies. Each service must maintain enough ammunition to meet all those requirements. The services assess the combination of inventories at both wholesale and retail levels and in the procurement pipeline to determine whether they have sufficient ammunition to meet requirements for combat, strategic readiness, residual readiness, training, and testing. In 1977, the Army became the single manager for conventional ammunition, assuming responsibility for the storage, management, and disposal of wholesale inventories of ammunition and explosives for all the services. As of September 30, 1995, this stockpile consisted of 3 million tons of ammunition stored at nine depots, two plants, and one arsenal (see fig. 1.1), comprising in all 37.8 million square feet of storage space. The services own 80 percent of the total tonnage of ammunition stored by the single manager. The Army owns the largest amount, 43 percent, followed by the Air Force with 17 percent, the Navy with 13 percent, and the Marine Corps with 7 percent. As the manager of the wholesale ammunition stockpile, the Army undertakes all the management functions—distribution, storage, inventorying, surveillance, maintenance, and disposal (see table 1.1). The Army’s effectiveness in performing these functions determines the stockpile’s readiness. During the 1980s, ammunition storage was generally stable. In 1985, with 55 to 60 percent of the storage space occupied, the stockpile held about 2 million tons of ammunition. Most of the stockpile consisted of large lots, which optimized space and facilitated economical surveillance and inventories. However, in 1990 and 1991, world politics changed significantly as the Soviet Union collapsed. As a result of this event and other worldwide changes, the United States shifted from preparing for a global war to preparing for regional conflicts and crises, and a general reshaping of military resources and budgets began. First, four major Army storage installations were closed or realigned, which reduced the ammunition stockpile’s storage capacity from 36 million to 30 million square feet. Second, because of overall reductions in the budget, the single manager decided to significantly decrease its inventorying of the wholesale stockpile. Third, massive amounts of ammunition were returned from overseas: (1) prepositioned ammunition from Europe, as U.S. forces stationed there were withdrawn and (2) stock from Operation Desert Storm, of which only 10 percent was used during the war. The continental U.S. stockpile installations received twice as much stock—1 million tons—as they had shipped out. This ammunition arrived in small, broken-up lots, which required more storage space and inventory work. The stockpile has also been affected by (1) increases in retail stock stored within its facilities, which increased the cost of storage installation operations and reduced storage space and (2) lower usage rates, as customer demand declined. In 1993, the Joint Ordnance Commanders Group, concerned that the wholesale conventional ammunition stockpile’s readiness and quality had been degraded, initiated a comprehensive study to assess the wholesale ammunition stockpile. The resulting report, issued in October 1993, identified several conditions adversely affecting the readiness and reliability of the ammunition stored in the stockpile. The report identified problems in all the major functions that related to stockpile operations and management. Some degraded functional areas, such as inventory and surveillance, directly affect the readiness and reliability of the stockpile; others, such as receipts, issues, and storage of ammunition, affect the efficiency and effectiveness of operations. The report predicted that conditions would worsen over the next 4 years because of continued funding problems and identified several initiatives to effect improvements to the readiness and operations of the stockpile. The report’s findings led to a charter for an ammunition functional area analysis and the development of the Integrated Ammunition Stockpile Management Plan to address funding and storage management concerns. Concerned about the condition and readiness of the wholesale ammunition stockpile, given changes in world and stockpile conditions, the Chairmen, Subcommittee on Military Readiness and Subcommittee on Military Procurement, House Committee on National Security, asked us to determine (1) the availability of ammunition to meet wartime and peacetime requirements and (2) what problems the Army single manager has in managing the military services’ wholesale ammunition stockpile. To determine whether DOD has sufficient ammunition to meet demands for training and war reserves, we compared serviceable ammunition, from both wholesale and retail inventories, on hand for each service as of September 30, 1994, with the amount needed to meet requirements for wartime and peacetime operations. In making this determination, we used the automated data systems that each service maintains for its ammunition items. Specifically, the requirements were obtained from the Army Worldwide Ammunition Reporting System (WARS), Navy Non-Nuclear Ordnance Requirements System, Air Force Theater Allocation Buy/Budget System, and the Marine Corps Ammunition Requirements Management System. We did not independently verify the military’s method of determining ammunition requirements. To determine whether the services have excess amounts of ammunition, we analyzed computerized files of the services’ inventories as of September 30, 1994 (the end of the fiscal year). First, we compared the total on-hand serviceable inventory, item by item, to that needed to satisfy wartime requirements, testing and training requirements for 7 years (6 years of testing for the Army), and other requirements. We used testing and training requirements for 7 years (1) to be conservative in calculating on-hand quantities exceeding requirements, (2) because DOD’s retention policy authorizes this level of supply to meet Defense Planning Guidance, and (3) because 7 years coincides with the future years’ planning of the services. As requested by the Army, we used operational project, wholesale, and basic load requirements in addition to 6 years of testing requirements and 7 years of training. Second, we determined the amount of unserviceable ammunition by type of ammunition for which there was excess serviceable inventory. Third, we compared the single manager’s inventory database showing ammunition stored for the services with the services’ databases that we had used in our comparison. We then determined the amount of additional ammunition excess to requirements that was not on the services’ records. Finally, we identified the amount of ammunition DOD has designated for disposal. To determine the services’ rationale for excesses, we selected and discussed with item managers 145 types of ammunition (126 randomly selected and 19 judgmentally selected because they had large quantities of excess items) for which on-hand quantities exceeded service-determined requirements. To determine whether the services have shortages of ammunition, we compared the same universe to the amount needed to meet wartime requirements plus that needed for 1 year of training and testing. We used only 1 year of training and testing requirements to be conservative in calculating ammunition shortages. To determine the services’ rationale for types of ammunition with shortages, we selected and discussed with item managers 154 types of ammunition (152 randomly selected and 2 judgmentally selected because they represented large dollar values) for which on-hand quantities were less than service-determined requirements. Additionally, we selected and discussed with service officials the 42 highest unit cost items (representing $32 billion of the $60 billion shortage) to determine the rationale for shortages. We used the Standard Depot System database for our analyses of the wholesale stockpile. This database includes information from 11 of the 12 storage installations (Pine Bluff Arsenal is not included in the system). We used data as of March 1995 for old ammunition in the wholesale stockpile, serviceability of ammunition in the stockpile as classified by condition codes, and backlogs of periodic inspections and data as of September 1995 on the net storage space of installations. We also used data from an Army disposal study dated September 1995 on items designated for disposal and estimates of disposals anticipated in the future. In relation to the management of the stockpile, we interviewed ammunition management officials and reviewed policies, procedures, and documents related to the management of conventional ammunition at the following sites: Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, Washington, D.C. U.S. Army Materiel Command, Alexandria, Virginia U.S. Industrial Operations Command, Rock Island, Illinois U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center and School, Savanna, Illinois Inventory commands Air Force Air Logistics Center, Ogden, Utah Naval Ordnance Center, Indian Head, Maryland Marine Corps Systems Command, Clarendon, Virginia Hawthorne Army Depot, Hawthorne, Nevada Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania Red River Army Depot, Texarkana, Texas Sierra Army Depot, Herlong, California McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, McAlester, Oklahoma Crane Army Ammunition Activity, Crane, Indiana We did this review from April 1994 to April 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. DOD expressed concern about the requirements database we used, particularly for the Army. We used the WARS database, which was the most complete automated database we found for the Army. At our exit conference, Army officials suggested that we use the Army’s RDAISA database for greater accuracy. However, we determined that this database does not contain requirements for all Army ammunition items; it only contains requirements for ammunition items for which procurement actions are in process or planned. We remain unconvinced that the Army has a more complete automated database that we could have used. Also, DOD notes in its comments on this report that it started using a capabilities-based munitions requirements process beginning with the fiscal year 1996 budget. Our requirements data were the latest available as of September 1994, which was after the beginning of the development of the fiscal year 1996 budget and included capabilities-based principles. The services have to do a better job of managing their ammunition needs. As of September 30, 1994, the total stockpile of usable and unusable ammunition was worth about $80 billion. We estimate that about $31 billion of this total ammunition stockpile was excess. This excess amount includes about $22 billion worth of ammunition that was still usable. This situation has occurred primarily as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and the change in the primary threat to the United States. As a consequence, the services’ ammunition requirements were drastically reduced, and more of the ammunition stockpile became excess. The Army’s war reserve requirements, for example, were reduced by 74 percent. Of the various types of ammunition in the stockpile, we found that almost half have amounts that exceed the services’ needs in varying quantities. For some types of ammunition, the services have over 50 times their stated needs. While there are shortages of some specific ammunition types, overall, the services generally have enough ammunition to meet their wartime and peacetime requirements. DOD management practices perpetuate the buildup of excess and aging ammunition, even though the ammunition stockpile is supposed to comprise only ammunition and explosives essential for peacetime and wartime needs. In many instances, the services keep it available just in case they or other organizations, such as state agencies or foreign allies, have a need for it. However, DOD often does not determine what would be a reasonable amount to keep to meet these needs. For all these reasons, storage facilities are reaching capacity levels, and the excess ammunition is stressing the ability of installation personnel to manage required ammunition since all ammunition not identified for disposal, including the $31 billion excess mentioned above and $2.9 billion in excess that appears on the single manager’s inventory records but not the services’ inventory records, receives the same amount of single manager attention (see ch. 3 for a discussion of stockpile management). Moreover, in fiscal years 1993 and 1994, the services spent about $125 million for ammunition that exceeded fiscal year 1995 stated requirements. No service purchased ammunition items in fiscal year 1995 for which it had quantities on hand in excess of stated requirements at the end of fiscal year 1994. In addition to its ammunition in excess of stated requirements, DOD has shortages of some types of ammunition. However, the services generally believe that these shortages are manageable because they have substitute items and planned procurements to make up for shortages. We believe that the shortages of some items could be satisfied by better sharing of amounts in excess of stated requirements among the services. While the Army has shared some excess ammunition among the other services, the single manager is unaware of all ammunition in excess of stated requirements because the services have not identified which of their ammunition is required and which is not required. Without this information, the single manager cannot adequately identify and coordinate redistribution of excess ammunition. During our review, we identified $1.2 billion of items in excess of stated requirements that could be shared to meet service shortages of required ammunition, reduce potential future procurements, and avoid maintenance. Because the threat the United States faces has changed from a global war to a much smaller one involving two major regional conflicts, all the services’ war requirements have been reduced. Army war reserve requirements in total tonnage declined 74 percent—from 2.5 million tons in fiscal year 1992 to 650,000 tons in fiscal year 1994 (see fig. 2.1). For example, the requirement for multiple launch rocket system pods decreased by 82 percent. Likewise, the requirement for the 155-millimeter dual purpose improved conventional munitions decreased by 61 percent. The reduced threat has led to reduced requirements, and reduced requirements have contributed significantly to large quantities of various ammunition types becoming excess to the services’ stated needs. All the services have serviceable ammunition in the stockpile that exceeds their needs as defined in the Defense Planning Guidance; that is, to support U.S. forces during two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts, for training and testing during peacetime, and for other needs. In total, about 50 percent of the ammunition types in the services’ inventories include quantities exceeding requirements. The 50 percent includes ammunition types in their inventories for which the services have no stated requirements. Although ammunition managers agreed that some items were excess, they believed that ammunition should be kept for other uses, such as training and foreign military sales. However, they have set no limits on how much should be kept for other purposes. The retention of excess ammunition adds unnecessarily to workload and costs and requires the use of increasingly valuable storage space. The services own and store in the wholesale and retail stockpiles excess ammunition valued at about $22 billion, or 40 percent of the value of the total serviceable stockpile (see table 2.1). To determine the adequacy of the stockpile, we compared the amount of serviceable ammunition on hand in both wholesale and retail level storage facilities as of September 30, 1994, to the services’ stated requirements. At that time, the services owned and stored 2,781 different types of serviceable conventional ammunition worth $58 billion. Before considering stocks excess, we accounted for the quantity of ammunition needed for two major regional conflicts and for 7 years of training and testing (6 years of testing for the Army). For all services, we allowed 1-1/2 times the stated requirements before determining excess quantities. Of the excess ammunition owned by the services, 30 percent exceeded requirements by 1-1/2 to more than 30 times. For another 18 percent, the services did not identify a requirement. The total value of these items is $21.6 billion. (See table 2.2.) One example of excess ammunition types is the .30-caliber carbine ball cartridge. The Air Force has enough of this type of ammunition to meet its stated requirement 58 times, and the Army has 517 times the amount needed. Similarly, the Navy has 276 times the amount of the .50-caliber ball cartridges needed, and the Marine Corps has 92 times the number of offensive hand grenades needed to meet its requirements. Also, as table 2.2 shows, 500 types of ammunition worth $3 billion have no stated requirements. For example, the Air Force has no requirement in its database for its 4.8 million of 20-millimeter cartridges worth over $21 million. According to Air Force officials, this ammunition is needed for the M39 gun and the F-5 aircraft and can be used in the M61 gun, when separated. In addition, the Marine Corps does not show a requirement in its database for its 4,307 105-millimeter cartridges valued at over $2.5 million and 2.9 million .50-caliber cartridges valued at about $2.7 million. Marine Corps officials stated that they do not need these types of ammunition. The other services similarly have ammunition on hand for which there is no stated requirement. Although Air Force officials said that they have specific uses for the ammunition, they nevertheless do not show that they need it by including it in their requirements database. We calculated the total amount of excess ammunition—serviceable and unserviceable—at about $31 billion. In addition to the $22 billion of serviceable ammunition in excess of stated needs, we calculated that as of September 30, 1994, DOD had about $9.4 billion in unserviceable assets that exceeded stated needs (see table 2.3), for a total excess of $31 billion, or about 39 percent of the $80 billion ammunition stockpile. In addition, there was over $2.9 billion of excess assets on the single manager’s inventory records that did not appear on the services’ inventory records, and over $2 billion of ammunition that was identified for disposal. Without some identification of ammunition not needed to meet wartime and peacetime requirements or some other prioritization, all ammunition other than that identified for disposal receives the same level of attention by the single manager. As discussed in chapter 3, the large amount of ammunition being stored by the single manager is stressing the ability of installation personnel to manage required ammunition. We queried ammunition item managers about the reasons that DOD had excess ammunition for 145 selected (126 randomly and 19 judgmentally) types of ammunition. These managers agreed that they had excess items for 59 (41 percent) of the 145 types we selected. They disagreed that the rest were excess for varying reasons. All cited training as a reason for keeping excess ammunition. However, we had already computed training and testing needs in our analysis, and the ammunition they cited as needed for training was excess to stated requirements. Other reasons cited for keeping the ammunition were for foreign military sales, research and development, trade purposes, military competitions, and ceremonies, such as military funerals. However, the services had not determined what would be a reasonable amount to meet these needs; rather, they seemed to keep all of any item they thought might be needed. Historically, the age of ammunition in the stockpile has been a concern and the object of study since before fiscal year 1979. In fiscal year 1979, the single manager initiated a purification program to eliminate old, obsolete, or otherwise unneeded ammunition items. This particular effort built on the results of past studies. In September 1985, the single manager issued an ammunition stockpile rotation study that assessed the effectiveness of stockpile rotation policies and regulations. This study analyzed ammunition stocks in the United States and Europe and found that 30 percent of the Army’s stocks in the United States and 26 percent of the overseas stocks were 20 years old or older. Little change, if any, has occurred since 1985. Despite an awareness of age and the need to rotate ammunition stocks, we found that as of March 1995, a considerable portion of the wholesale ammunition stockpile was over 25 years old. The age of over 56 percent of the lots in the wholesale ammunition stockpile is unknown because the date of manufacture is either not recorded in the database or recorded incorrectly. Of the remaining 44 percent, 14 percent was over 30 years old, 34 percent was over 20 years old, and more than 55 percent was over 10 years old. Table 2.4 shows the ages of the ammunition lots in the wholesale stockpile. We observed ammunition dating to the 1940s (see fig. 2.2). Service officials generally said that unless ammunition has a shelf life, its age does not alter its serviceability. They noted that if ammunition is stored properly, it is as good as the day it was manufactured. While old ammunition may still be serviceable, it is less likely to be used if a new item is available. The 1985 rotation study noted that soldiers in the field demanded the newest and best lots of ammunition available, thus older lots remained in storage. More recently, during Operation Desert Storm, battlefield commanders opted to use newer, more modern items. Ammunition that was shipped to Southwest Asia for Operation Desert Storm, partly from Europe, but was not used now occupies over 2 million square feet of space in the U.S. depot system, awaiting potential use and continuing to age. Also, according to single manager officials, commanders insist on training the way they are expected to fight a war. Consequently, they also do not want to train with the “old stuff.” Rather, they want to use the more modern and the most current ammunition, if available. The Joint Ordnance Commanders Group’s 1993 study and resulting report on the wholesale stockpile found that the excess ammunition in the stockpile contributes to the stockpile’s annual operational costs. The report suggested that the services reduce the amount of excess ammunition stored. The report also suggested that training, foreign military sales, grant aid programs, and destruction are among the ways of eliminating excess. However, the services have made little progress in eliminating excess and aging ammunition because they are reluctant to classify ammunition as excess; have no incentive to declare ammunition excess, since the Army pays for its storage; are storing ammunition for weapon systems no longer in their inventories; and have purchased ammunition that, according to their records, was not needed to meet required levels. In addition, the services keep ammunition over and above requirements, or in “long supply,” to meet various retention needs. Moreover, single manager personnel do not always issue the older stock, leaving it to continue to age. According to the 1993 report on the wholesale stockpile, the services have known for some time that they have excess quantities of ammunition items. We were told that the services do not like to declare ammunition excess because they then lose ownership of stocks. Also, if items in long supply are transferred to another service, the transferring service is reimbursed for the items. However, if an item is identified as excess and then given to another service, the issuing service is not paid for the item. Also, theater commanders may exercise their judgment to retain ammunition items even if requirements no longer exist. Air Force inventory control point officials agreed in October 1994 that they could no longer provide effective and efficient management of vast quantities of older, obsolete weapon systems. They listed 138 potential items for disposal because they had no operational requirement, were no longer reliable, were environmentally unacceptable, or their shelf life had expired. Although headquarters officials approved some of these items for disposal, they directed that others be retained until suitable substitutes became available or more data were provided about the items. Currently, the services have no incentive to reduce excess ammunition in the wholesale stockpile because the single manager is responsible for its care; that is, storage, inventories, surveillance, and disposal of the ammunition. The 1993 report on the wholesale stockpile notes that an incentive for inducing the services to reduce excess ammunition would be to charge a storage fee or charge each service for the cost to maintain its stock in the wholesale system. However, single manager officials we talked to did not support charging the services a storage fee. In their opinion, the real issue is the need for the services to identify nonrequired items and turn them over to the single manager for disposal or identify them for possible redistribution where they exceed stated requirements. However, the services have only partially provided this information. Ammunition is being stored and managed for weapon systems that either have been purged or are no longer in the active inventory. Although we did not determine the total amount of ammunition stored for weapon systems no longer in the inventory, we found specific examples of such ammunition. The M60A2 tank and the M42 self-propelled gun are obsolete weapon systems to the Army. However, the Army continues to store 147,300 152-millimeter cartridges valued at $43.6 million for the M60A2 tank and 269,000 40-millimeter cartridges valued at $2.5 million for the M42 self-propelled gun. Although Army officials acknowledged that the 152-millimeter cartridges were at one time used for the M60A2 tank, in commenting on this report, DOD said the Army is maintaining these 152-millimeter cartridges for the M551 Sheridan tank. However, DOD noted that there will be a reevaluation of the need to retain these cartridges. Also, the Army is storing 97 million rounds of various small arms ammunition valued at $146 million for weapons no longer in the Army’s inventory. According to Army officials, this ammunition cannot be used for other weapons currently in the inventory. The Air Force continues to store motors for the Nike Hercules rocket. According to the Air Force’s database, there is no requirement for these rocket motors, and the Air Force owns only 39 of them. However, the Standard Depot System database, which accounts for wholesale ammunition assets, shows that the Air Force owns 469 of the Nike rocket motors—430 more than the Air Force’s system shows. The Navy continues to store in the wholesale inventory about 4,000 16-inch projectiles for its battleships, which are no longer in the active fleet. These projectiles are in the single manager’s wholesale inventory database as belonging to the Navy. However, they are not in the inventory database used by the Navy. Also, the Navy stores 3-inch, .50-caliber ammunition and MK25 mines in the wholesale system. At one depot we visited, we were told it had little or no issues of the 3-inch, .50-caliber ammunition in 15 years, and according to an official at another installation, there had been no activity at all for the MK25 mines in over 10 years. Like the 16-inch projectiles, over 5,000 MK25 mines in the single manager’s wholesale inventory listed as belonging to the Navy are not in the Navy’s inventory database. The Marine Corps continues to store about 3 million .50-caliber cartridges for the M85 machine gun, even though the Marine Corps has removed the M85 gun from its inventory and no other weapon system uses this type of .50-caliber ammunition. Likewise, the Marine Corps continues to store over 4,000 105-millimeter projectiles that were used for the M60A1 tank. The M60A1 tank, however, is also no longer in the Marine Corps’ inventory. In commenting on this report, DOD noted phasing out of the M60A1 tanks from the Marine Corps’ inventory began in 1991 and was completed in 1994. DOD stated that the purging of ammunition for the M85 and M68 weapons began in October 1991 and is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1997. We compared the services’ ammunition purchases during fiscal years 1993 through 1995 to ammunition items in excess quantities as of September 30, 1994. For fiscal years 1993 and 1994, we found that the Army and the Navy bought 17 types of ammunition at a cost of about $124.4 million and $0.3 million, respectively, that according to their records they did not need to meet stated requirements. We did not find that similar purchases were made for fiscal year 1995. As can be seen in table 2.5, in fiscal year 1993, the Army purchased six types of ammunition at a cost of over $114 million. According to Army records, all of these items were excess to their fiscal year 1995 stated requirements, and after deducting the quantities purchased in fiscal years 1993 and 1994, inventory quantities remaining still exceeded service-defined requirements. For example, the Army bought 118,893 155-mm projectiles (D864) at a cost of $78.9 million. After deducting this quantity from the excess quantity as of September 30, 1994, 86,307 of these projectiles remained in inventory. An Army official told us that these purchases may have been made because (1) the Congress directed the purchase, (2) it was more economical to purchase a large quantity rather than a small quantity to meet the requirement, or (3) the requirements decreased after the item was placed in the budget request cycle. Another Army official commented that the purchases could have been made before the requirements changed. Smaller, but similar purchases were made by the Navy (see table 2.6). In fiscal years 1993 and 1994, the Navy bought six types of ammunition at a cost of $320,000. According to Navy records, all of these items were excess to their fiscal year 1995 stated requirements and after deducting the quantities purchased in fiscal years 1993 and 1994, inventory quantities remaining still exceeded service-defined requirements. Assuming ammunition requirements are accurate and in accordance with Defense Planning Guidance, we believe the readiness posture of the Army and the Navy could have been enhanced if fiscal year 1993 and 1994 procurements had been focused on items with shortages rather than on items that either met and/or exceeded requirements. It is the single manager’s policy for installations to first issue ammunition from small lots and use older stocks for training. However, this policy is not always followed. All the installations we visited noted that, as a practical matter, this policy is often too difficult to follow. Not all items in a storage facility are easily accessible, and if the facility is at or near capacity, single manager personnel have little choice but to issue the more accessible stock to maximize efficiency and to ensure that the customer’s required delivery date is met. We agree that additional work would be required to consistently issue first-in stock and that this could increase labor costs and delay deliveries. We recognize, however, that the longer first-in stock remains in storage facilities, the older it becomes and the more likely it is to become obsolete and destined for destruction. As we noted previously, over 55 percent of ammunition in the wholesale system for which the age of the ammunition is recorded is over 10 years old. As of September 30, 1994, the services had shortages of items in 752 ammunition types valued at about $60 billion. According to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Ammunition, U.S. Army Materiel Command, however, “sufficient munitions are currently in the stockpile to support any projected military operation.” Inventory control point officials from all the services agree that they have no major problems with shortages because they consider inventory quantities sufficient, they have substitutable items, and/or they have plans to purchase the items. During our review, Marine Corps officials stated that the Marine Corps did not have enough ammunition to support requirements. However, in commenting on this report, DOD said a Marine Corps ammunition study conducted after our review was completed validated a lower level of war reserve requirements than was previously identified. Therefore, DOD commented that all the services have sufficient ammunition to support their requirements, although the mix of ammunition is not optimum. Thirty percent of the items with shortages were on hand in quantities ranging from over 50 percent of the requirement to almost the entire requirement; 41 percent were on hand in quantities ranging from 1 percent to 50 percent of the requirement; and 29 percent had none on hand to meet the requirement. Some of the items are expensive, which accounts for the large amount of money ($60 billion) needed to eliminate these shortages. Also, we used service-defined requirements in our analysis, and these requirements did not always take into account the availability of substitute items and the planned phaseout of ammunition. In six classified DOD/Inspector General (IG) reports issued from June 1994 through June 1995 on quantitative requirements for antiarmor munitions, DOD/IG concluded that the services had overstated requirements by $15.5 billion. Forty-two of the items identified as in a shortage condition in our analysis accounted for over 50 percent ($32 billion) of the total dollar value of the shortages. Fifteen items have a unit cost that exceeds $1 million, which accounts for over $18 billion in shortages. Stated requirements for many of these items may not reflect the true need for the item. For example, according to the Navy’s database, the Navy has a shortage of 1,587 AIM-54C Phoenix missiles, but the Navy does not consider the missile to be in a shortage status. In fact, after considering several other substitute items, the Navy’s inventory has about 191 percent of the requirement for the Phoenix. The replacement cost of each missile would be over $2 million; the shortage amount accounts for over $3.2 billion of the total shortage. Similarly, the Air Force is short about 18,000 AGM-88B High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM), which account for over $6 billion of the shortage amount. However, according to Air Force officials, HARMs are no longer being procured and their database only shows a lesser shortage amount. Likewise, the Army is short 616 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), which accounts for over $390 million, but according to Army officials, the ATACMS is not recognized as being in a shortage position. Various versions of the Patriot missile are also shown in the database as being in short supply. The value of these missiles is about $760 million. According to an Army official, no procurements had been requested since about 1993, and there had been no procurements since about 1993 or 1994. A more sophisticated version of the Patriot missile will be the next missile purchased for the inventory. The official commented that the requirement in the database may be the number that was needed at an earlier date. Service officials generally disagreed with the service-defined requirements, which when compared to ammunition on hand indicated that 42 high dollar value items were actually in a shortage position. To the contrary, we were told that inventories are generally sufficient to meet requirements, particularly when quantities of substitute items are considered. With budget constraints, the services do not have the money to purchase some items in a shortage position. And with the exception of the Marine Corps, service officials generally believed that they had sufficient quantities of substitute ammunition and that future procurements would be adequate to meet wartime and peacetime requirements under the Defense Planning Guidance. Army officials noted, however, that in the future they anticipate problems in filling training requirements. We randomly selected 152 ammunition items showing shortages. Managers said that 67 of the items had shortages, and they planned future purchases for some of these items. However, despite the records, which showed that these items lacked sufficient quantities to meet established requirements, the item managers contended that most of the items (85) were not considered to have shortages because of available substitutes and planned buys. Our sample showed a serious shortage of top-priority items for the Marine Corps but no major problem for the other services. The Marine Corps asserted that it had an insufficient amount of some ammunition to support two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. According to the Marine Corps’ program manager for ammunition, the Marine Corps “is prepared and capable of executing one MRC [major regional conflict] and doing significantly more than that . . . does not have the ammunition to support .” The program manager noted that the Marine Corps is short of ammunition valued at about $1.5 billion, including $500 million in ammunition for current training needs. We were told that shortages are mainly long-range artillery and war reserve items such as .50-caliber SLAP 4 and 1-linked cartridges, 9-millimeter ball cartridges, and 7.62-millimeter ball linked cartridges. DOD’s comments on this report noted that a Marine Corps ammunition study conducted after this review was completed has validated a lower level of war reserve requirements than was previously identified. Therefore, DOD said all services, including the Marine Corps, have sufficient ammunition to support their requirements. Although the Army has shared some excess ammunition across the services, we found that (1) purchases of about $185 million in fiscal years 1993 and 1995 could have been avoided if ammunition in excess of stated requirements had been shared among the services, (2) $1.2 billion in ammunition in excess of stated requirements could be shared to alleviate shortages, and (3) $19 million in costs could be avoided by providing ammunition in excess of stated requirements in good condition to services that planned maintenance for the same ammunition. The Senate Committee on Appropriations has also recognized the need for the services to be more aggressive in sharing excess ammunition. For fiscal year 1995, on the basis of our identification of potential ammunition budget reductions, it directed the Army to transfer at least 17,000 excess M203A1 155-millimeter red bag charges, at no cost, to the Marine Corps and denied the Marine Corps $12 million for new charges. Ammunition officials stated that one reason that more ammunition in excess of stated requirements has not been shared is that the single manager does not know the other services’ requirements or the total holdings of ammunition. Even if the single manager did have this knowledge, it is not authorized to redistribute ammunition. It, therefore, cannot initiate the distribution of ammunition in excess of stated requirements and purge the wholesale system of unnecessary items for which there is no reason to retain. Cross-sharing of existing ammunition that exceeds one or more service’s stated requirements can preclude unnecessary purchases and redirect resources to fill or partially fill shortages. During fiscal years 1993 through 1995, the military services purchased $184.5 million of ammunition items that were not needed to meet stated requirements (see table 2.7). The ammunition purchased, according to service-defined requirements and inventory records, was already available or partially available in DOD inventories in quantities that exceeded fiscal year 1995 service requirements. For example, in fiscal year 1995, the most current year after the September 30, 1994, excess analysis, the military services bought 18 types of ammunition at a total cost of $102.2 million. However, enough of the same types of ammunition were already in the inventory system to completely satisfy or partially satisfy 58 percent, or $59.4 million, of the total fiscal year 1995 purchase quantity. Similar conditions existed in fiscal years 1993 and 1994. Examples of excess ammunition that could have filled services’ shortages include the Marine Corps’ 22 million 5.56-millimeter tracer rounds. As of September 30, 1994, the Marine Corps had a quantity of this ammunition sufficient to meet the quantities bought by the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy and still had about 12 million rounds more than needed. Redistribution of the Marine Corps’ assets in these instances could have saved and/or redistributed over $5 million spent by the other services for the same ammunition. In another example, the Army had over 1.9 million 25-millimeter APDS-T cartridges, which exceeded its stated requirements. The Navy bought this same item in fiscal years 1993 and 1995 at a cost of over $5 million, and the Marine Corps bought the item in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 at a cost of over $6 million. Redistribution of these assets could have saved or redirected over $11 million for ammunition with shortages or for other purposes, and the Army would still have had 1.4 million rounds more than its stated requirement. We believe that centralized oversight and management of DOD ammunition requirements and assets would enable better use of ammunition through redistribution and free up funds to purchase items determined to have shortages. We identified $1.2 billion of ammunition in excess of stated requirements that could be shared among the services to meet service shortages. Some cross-sharing of ammunition has been done. For example, in fiscal year 1993, the Army transferred over 1.8 million excess .50-caliber blank linked cartridges and 61,500 60-millimeter cartridges to the Navy and the Marine Corps, respectively. And in fiscal year 1994, the Army again transferred additional excess ammunition—about 3,800 .45-caliber blank cartridges and about 68,000 .50-caliber blank cartridges to the Navy, about 484,000 5.56-millimeter dummy cartridges and about 118,000 7.62-millimeter dummy cartridges to the Marine Corps, and 347,000 5.56-millimeter dummy cartridges and 16.5 million 5.56-millimeter cartridges to the Air Force. While this is a step in the right direction, the services must make a concerted effort to identify ammunition in excess of requirements that can be shared to reduce shortages. DOD directives currently require each service to report to the single manager its total assets against requirements to help identify excesses and corresponding needs among the services. However, the single manager has not regularly received this data from all the services. Despite the Army’s transfers of excess ammunition, our analysis of ammunition requirements and assets showed 139 instances where excess on-hand quantities of $1.2 billion could be shared among the services to meet shortages. For example, 30 ammunition items with shortages in the Navy could be partially or totally filled by excess quantities in the Army, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps; shortfalls of 8 items in the Army could be relieved by excess items from the Marine Corps; and 15 Air Force items with shortages could be partially or wholly filled by excess items from the Army. As shown in table 2.8, for some ammunition types, two of the four services have excess quantities that could be shared to fill a deficit in another service, and even when shortages are relieved by excess ammunition, excess quantities still remain. In addition to filling some of the services’ shortages, the cross-sharing of excess ammunition during fiscal years 1996 through 2000 could result in the avoidance of more than $19 million in planned maintenance costs (see table 2.9). For example, about $11.5 million in planned maintenance could be avoided by sharing a portion of the 839,694 excess 155-millimeter projectiles with services that plan maintenance on 370,000 projectiles. In addition, the $3.4 million cost to repair 40-millimeter cartridges could be avoided because, in this case, the Air Force has more than 1 million excess cartridges that could partially fill the Army’s requirement to repair 1.7 million rounds of this item. In 1979, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense assign responsibility to the single manager for operating a single national inventory control point to provide DOD-wide integrated inventory management, designate the single manager as owner of the ammunition in the wholesale inventory, and require the single manager to apply the principles of vertical stock management for inventory. DOD disagreed with these recommendations, stating that the single manager organization’s objective would be to permit the cross-sharing of stocks between services and to avoid procurements by one service for needs that could be satisfied with another service’s excess ammunition. DOD stated that the single manager would be provided information on location and condition of retail stocks and service stratification of stocks. This information would allow the single manager to perform, with service approval, cross-sharing to gain efficiencies in procurement, inventory, and transportation management. However, we found that the single manager does not have information on location and condition of retail stocks or information on service stratification of stocks. Concerning our 1979 recommendation that the single manager be the owner of the ammunition in the wholesale inventory, DOD disagreed. DOD said the services have an obligation to control the assets they acquire through congressional appropriations and the custodial responsibility of the single manager does not conflict with cross-sharing economies of common items or inhibit effective depot-level management. In our 1979 report, we noted that several problems with the existing organization of the single manager preclude achieving further centralized ammunition management. The single manager organization lacks visibility over the services’ retail stocks, has limited communication channels, and must compete for resources with other Army programs. It is principally staffed by Army personnel and is viewed by the other services as parochial. In addition, the single manager is unable to fully implement the concept within the single manager’s own service—the Army. As we noted in our 1979 report, the services are reluctant to give the single manager the degree of control the manager needs to provide efficient and economic inventory management in peacetime and the intensive inventory management needed during war. Ammunition at U.S. storage and production facilities is designated wholesale and the remainder retail. The services retain total responsibility for the retail inventory. In our 1979 report, we noted that single manager officials claim they could achieve more savings if they had retail asset visibility for all services through transportation savings and matching long supply and excess ammunition items against projected procurements. The wholesale and retail designations, coupled with the services’ responsibilities, preclude the single manager from managing a substantial segment of the inventory. DOD partially concurred with our findings. DOD agreed that there were excesses, but took exception to the criteria that we used in determining excess inventory. It said we inferred that stocks above established requirements were excess and should therefore be disposed of. Our report states that DOD has about $22 billion of serviceable ammunition that exceeds established needs and about $31 billion in excess serviceable and unserviceable ammunition. We agree that not all the ammunition in excess of stated requirements should be disposed of and do not state that it should be. However, we believe that the assets in excess of stated requirements should be made available for cross-sharing to avoid one service purchasing assets that another service has in excess of its wartime and peacetime requirements. In addition, we believe there are many items being stored that will never be used and should be identified for disposal. Furthermore, items in excess of stated needs that should be retained should be identified as not required, but to be retained for potential future use. This could greatly help the single manager to better apply limited resources to storing and maintaining ammunition. DOD agreed that cross-sharing of ammunition at the wholesale level would allow for better use of ammunition through redistribution. DOD stated the planned Joint Defense Total Asset Visibility Program will provide all the services the capability to review all assets and will further expand cross-sharing of assets at the wholesale level. DOD did not agree with our analysis of ammunition requirements and assets that showed excess on-hand quantities of $1.2 billion that could be shared among the services to meet shortages. DOD provided information for the Army that showed stockage retention levels rather than excesses for most of these items. DOD makes available for cross-sharing ammunition it considers excess; however, it does not consider stocks in its retention categories as available for cross-sharing. We believe all assets in excess of requirements, including retention stocks (such as economic retention levels) should be considered for cross-sharing, which may avoid a future procurement. Army data from its September 30, 1994, asset stratification of conventional ammunition, which excludes missiles, shows total assets of $18.7 billion and an authorized acquisition objective of $13.3 billion. It shows various retention levels totaling $4.4 billion, or 23.7 percent, and a potential excess of about $1 billion, or 5 percent. Using the stratification data for cross-sharing would only make the $1 billion of potential excess available while the $4.4 billion in various retention levels would not be identified for cross-sharing. We believe the economic retention amounts of over $1 billion should be made available for cross-sharing to avoid purchases by another service and other retention stocks should be considered for cross-sharing. Increases in the wholesale ammunition stockpile due to returns of massive amounts of munitions from Europe and Operation Desert Storm, combined with a decrease in the wholesale stockpile’s workforce, have created a situation that could, if allowed to continue, degrade the forces’ readiness to meet wartime and peacetime needs. Because the Army has placed a lower priority on funding ammunition functions, management of the stockpile has become a difficult task, and managers have had to concentrate on the receipt and delivery of ammunition to the detriment of their inspections, tests, maintenance, storage, and disposal. During the summer of 1993, the Joint Ordnance Commanders Group’s study team assessed the management of the stockpile and found major deficiencies in stockpile management. The team predicted that unless something was done about the deficiencies, conditions would worsen. Our review confirmed that the stockpile’s condition and readiness have indeed been degraded. We found that ammunition was reported as serviceable when it might not be because the single manager’s method of recording the condition of stock was misleading; the condition of ammunition was often unknown because required inspections and testing had not been done; top-priority ammunition was not serviceable because repairs had not been done; ammunition was inefficiently stored, taxing facilities where space is at a premium; and the ammunition designated for disposal is accumulating faster than it can be eliminated. In 1994, the single manager developed the Integrated Ammunition Stockpile Management Plan to improve the poor condition of the wholesale ammunition stockpile. However, the single manager has made little progress toward improving the stockpile’s operations and readiness. Two factors beyond the single manager’s control hinder the success of implementing the plan: (1) the services’ lack of incentives to identify required and nonrequired items in the stockpile and (2) the uncertainty of sustained funding for the care, maintenance, and disposal of ammunition. None of the services, including the Army, have provided a list of required and nonrequired ammunition, and although funding increased in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the sustainment of increases to carry out the plan to completion is not ensured. Because of the vast influx of ammunition from overseas in recent years and decreases in storage space, funding, and staff, the ability of the single manager to manage the stockpile has been taxed. As discussed in chapter 2, much of this ammunition is excess, old, and deteriorating but has not been removed from the inventory and is taking up valuable space. The single manager has concentrated on receiving and issuing ammunition and because of resource constraints has neglected the surveillance, maintenance, and disposal of ammunition. As a result, the condition of the stockpile is unknown. This situation degrades the overall readiness of the ammunition stockpile and could, if allowed to continue, degrade the forces’ readiness. As of March 1995, 59 percent of the ammunition tonnage and 223,293 of the services’ ammunition lots were classified as serviceable; the remaining 41 percent of the tonnage was unavailable for issue because it was unserviceable, suspended, or designated for disposal. Because of the lack of identification of required and nonrequired items, we could not determine serviceability statistics for required stocks. Of the services’ top-priority items (which make up 25 percent of the stockpile’s tonnage), about 71 percent were classified as serviceable, but 29 percent were termed unusable because they needed repair, could not be fixed, needed inspection, or were suspended from issue (see fig. 3.1). For example, motors for the MK66 2.75-inch rocket could not be issued as of March 1995 because 100 percent of them needed inspection. The condition of ammunition lots is identified by codes signifying that the ammunition is serviceable, unserviceable, or suspended. Lots in all conditions may also have defect codes indicating, for example, rust, paint needed, replacement of unserviceable components required, or nonhazardous/unserviceable/nonreparable. Of the lots classified as serviceable, 24 percent had at least one defect, and 1,752 lots (about 1 percent) were identified as nonhazardous/unserviceable/nonreparable. Of the services’ top-priority serviceable items, 19 percent had at least one defect. When the lots with defect codes are deducted from the serviceable tonnage, the portion of the stockpile classified as serviceable without defect is about 46 percent, and the portion of top-priority items classified as serviceable is about 58 percent. One defect code indicates that an ammunition lot is overdue for periodic inspection by at least 6 months. Before 1990, overdue inspections were clearly indicated by changing the lot’s condition code, but the other services objected to this procedure, and the Army dropped it. Now, the condition code remains unchanged, and the defect code is added. According to one official, under this system, the lot’s condition does not look as bad as it really is, since the condition code is not changed. Even though the defect code is indicated on ammunition lots, inventory records that item managers routinely use do not include defect codes. Item managers must look up the lot number in an ammunition lot report to determine whether it has a defect. Because of personnel shortages, only a small percentage of overdue inspection codes is entered into the inventory database. Although stockpile officials’ statistics show that about 68,000 lots were past due for periodic inspections as of June 30, 1995, our analysis of stockpile data shows that only 6,609 lots had been coded as past due. Therefore, lots that appear to item managers as available for issue may, in fact, not be available. This situation creates a false impression of readiness, and issuance of ammunition could be delayed as a result. To ensure that requisitions can be speedily filled with usable ammunition, especially in wartime, the single manager must continually check the condition of ammunition items to ensure that they are ready for use and safely stored. Each stockpile installation is supposed to inspect ammunition periodically to ensure that items are serviceable, properly classified as to condition, and safe. Based on the expected rate of deterioration, ammunition is to be inspected every 2 to 10 years. For example, Army guidelines specify that blasting caps should be inspected every 2 years and small arms ammunition every 5 years. In addition, regular tests are to be done to ammunition, not only to ensure that all items are safe and reliable but also to identify those of marginal reliability or capacity and those for maintenance or disposal. However, inspections and ammunition tests have fallen so far behind in recent years due to personnel and funding cuts that the condition of many items, including the services’ top-priority items, is no longer known, with the result that stockpile readiness may be impaired. According to stockpile officials, a backlog of inspections has existed since the 1980s, when the lack of personnel precluded periodic inspections of unserviceable ammunition. However, the backlog has more than doubled since fiscal year 1989 (see fig. 3.2), largely because of the influx of material from Europe and Operation Desert Storm and the loss of inspection personnel. In fiscal year 1994, stockpile managers suspended periodic inspections for all but fast-moving items, and in fiscal year 1995, they concentrated instead on reducing the backlog of lots that were in an unknown condition. By fiscal year 2001, periodic inspections of more than 139,000 lots could be backlogged. Our analysis shows that the services’ priority items had not been treated any differently from lesser priority items when periodic inspections were done. As of March 1995, the periodic inspections of 15 percent (4,444) of the services’ top-priority lots were past due, meaning the serviceability, condition, and safety of these priority items were questionable. This number is likely to be larger because the date for the next inspection for 22 percent (8,396) of these lots was not in the inspection database. Periodic inspections of top-priority items are important because these are the items the services need to be available (without defect) and ready for war. Because inspections cannot detect all deterioration of ammunition, lot samples are regularly taken for test-firing or examination at test facilities or laboratories. This effort includes several testing programs, including programs for small-caliber and large-caliber ammunition. According to stockpile officials, of all the testing programs, only the large-caliber program is backlogged. Stockpile management has concentrated its limited testing funds on such programs as small arms at the expense of the large-caliber program, which is a much more costly effort. The large-caliber program covers 129 items having a 5-year test cycle, 85 of which are war reserve stock; the remaining 44 are classed as substitutes and do not have a war requirement. As of September 1995, testing for 25 percent of the war reserve items and 59 percent of the substitutes was overdue. Officials predicted that, by fiscal year 1998, these backlogs could increase to 55 percent for war reserve items and to 84 percent for the substitutes. (See fig. 3.3.) In the 1993 report on the wholesale stockpile, the single manager stated that 27 percent of the services’ critical items for war, including the M830 120-millimeter cartridge and the M864 155-millimeter projectile, were unserviceable; that is, the items needed maintenance before they could be used, were missing components, or were earmarked for reclamation. As of March 1995, 18 percent of the services’ top-priority ammunition for war and training needed repair, and 2 percent was beyond repair. Because of the backlog in inspections and tests of ammunition, however, the full extent of unserviceable items in the stockpile today is uncertain. As long as managers lack accurate information on the condition of stored items, effective planning and performance of maintenance are problematic. More important, the failure to maintain ammunition in good condition could affect the services’ ability to meet wartime requirements. Repairs and maintenance of ammunition in storage are important not only to sustain readiness but also to save funds, since an unserviceable item can be repaired, on average, for 10 to 12 percent of the cost of a new item. The single manager estimates that the average cost to repair a ton of ammunition is $800. Using that estimate, about $99 million would be needed to repair the 18 percent of top-priority ammunition currently known to need repair. The estimated cost to purchase new items could be as much as $826 million. Several factors contribute to the inefficient use of storage space. These factors include the loss of storage space due to downsizing, the addition of ammunition from Europe and Operation Desert Storm, the retention of ammunition that is unusable or awaiting disposal, and the proliferation of fragmented (broken up) lots of ammunition. As a result of these factors, some usable ammunition is stored outside when it should be stored inside. Since 1988, the storage space for ammunition has been drastically reduced. Storage space was reduced by 6 million gross square feet when four installations were closed based on the recommendations of the 1988 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. As of September 1995, over 80 percent of the stockpile installations’ net storage space of 26.1 million square feet was full, and that space will be reduced by about 16 percent when the Sierra, Seneca, and Savanna storage areas are closed, as recommended by the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. In addition to dealing with less space, storage facilities had to accommodate a vast amount of ammunition returned from abroad after Operation Desert Storm and from bases closing in Europe. Ammunition storage space will soon become even more cramped as ammunition use declines through force reductions and the stockpile receives another 113,000 tons of ammunition from Europe in fiscal year 1996. Due to the inefficient storage of ammunition, some serviceable items that should be stored inside were stored outside, while material with less demanding storage requirements occupied high-explosive storage areas. For example, serviceable high-explosive items were stored outside, while inert material was stored in about 600,000 square feet of structures designed to house high-explosive and small arms items. Also, serviceable Maverick, Patriot, and Hawk missiles, which should be stored inside, were stored outside at one depot. (Fig. 3.4 shows Maverick missiles stored outside.) Among the serviceable ammunition stored at installations were items that were beyond repair and designated for disposal and occupying considerable space. As of September 1995, 12 percent, or 3.2 million square feet, of the stockpile’s storage capacity was occupied by stocks designated as beyond repair or for disposal. For example, about 300,000 tons of items designated for disposal were stored inside at an annual cost of about $8 million and occupied nearly 2.8 million square feet. Aggregated, these stocks would fill at least two storage installations that could be used to store serviceable stocks. We found the following examples of individual types of ammunition with questionable needs. In one case, 251,000 propelling charges (for 155-millimeter guns) that had been condemned but not designated for disposal were taking up 36,031 square feet (see fig. 3.5). In another case, 715 unserviceable Nike Hercules rocket motors with no requirements occupied 31,212 square feet. One depot was storing 458 of these items, some of which were manufactured in 1959. According to an official there, these rocket motors occupied 16 to 20 storage sites at that depot (see fig. 3.6). Two types of 3-inch, 50-caliber gun ammunition occupied about 15,000 square feet, even though the Navy no longer has any weapon in active inventory that uses this ammunition. According to an official at one installation, this ammunition has had few or no issues in 15 years. In yet another case, 5,382 Navy MK25 mines that appeared in the Army’s wholesale inventory database as belonging to the Navy did not appear in the Navy’s inventory database, and was occupying 49,552 square feet. About 2,200 (40 percent) of these mines had been suspended because their condition was unknown. We noted that some of these mines at one installation were manufactured in 1954, and at another installation, none of these mines had moved in over 10 years (see fig. 3.7). The proliferation of small, fragmented lots of ammunition also impedes the efficient management and use of ammunition storage space. According to the 1993 report on the wholesale stockpile, about 32,000 fragmented lots were stored largely because of base closures and the return of ammunition from Europe and Operation Desert Storm. Installations were forced to store the returned ammunition without knowing whether additional quantities of the same lots would be received. These lots were often stored in more than one location. To optimize storage space and reduce inventories and surveillance, ammunition from the same lot in the same condition should be located in one storage structure when possible. If personnel have to fill requisitions from several locations, response time is delayed and issue costs increase. Our analysis shows that since October 1993, the number of fragmented lots in the stockpile has increased 14 percent. These lots—some of which were stored in more than three structures—occupy 24 percent (5.9 million square feet) of the total storage space (see fig. 3.8). Fragmented lots can be reduced by selecting them first when filling requisitions, either by using an automated lot selection process or a manual selection process. As storage space has been significantly reduced and ammunition has been added, the disposal of excess, obsolete, and unusable ammunition has become crucial. (See fig. 3.9 for ammunition disposal operations.) As of September 1995, nearly 375,000 tons of ammunition items designated for disposal remained stored in the stockpile. According to single manager officials, the ammunition designated for disposal has increased and is likely to increase further. Also, in recent years, the identification of ammunition for disposal has greatly exceeded the amount disposed of. Ammunition designated for disposal from fiscal years 1986 through 1995 amounted to 681,000 tons, while the amount eliminated was 390,000 tons (see fig. 3.10). Storage installations and contractors execute the ammunition disposal program. Before an item is earmarked for disposal, other options—sales, transfers, and reuse—are explored. According to single manager officials, foreign military sales have not proved a successful means of disposing of excess ammunition because foreign countries buy new, rather than obsolete, items if they have the means to do so. Currently, the primary means of disposing of ammunition is by open burning or detonation. Greater emphasis, however, is being placed on the resource recovery and recycling method of ammunition disposal, even though this will increase costs. In 1994, the single manager developed the Integrated Ammunition Stockpile Management Plan to improve the poor conditions found in the wholesale ammunition stockpile. The plan proposes specific actions to achieve, by 2001, a smaller, safer ammunition stockpile by changing operations and optimizing space with fewer installations and staff. However, except in its inventorying of ammunition, the single manager has not substantially improved the operations and readiness of the wholesale ammunition stockpile. The single manager cannot ensure success in implementing the plan and managing the stockpile until the Army and other services identify their ammunition as required and nonrequired, but the services have no incentives to do so. Successful implementation of the plan also is dependent on sufficient funding being provided for the care, maintenance, and disposal of stockpile items. The Congress established a minimum funding level in fiscal year 1995, and the conferees on the DOD appropriations act established a funding minimum for fiscal year 1996 for the care and maintenance of ammunition. Also, the House Committee on Appropriations, in its report on DOD’s fiscal year 1995 appropriations, said it expects DOD to fund disposal activities at a level that will decrease the disposal backlog to a sustainable level of about 100,000 tons early in the next century. The single manager has greatly improved its inventory records, a critical function previously identified as seriously degraded. In 1995, the single manager inventoried the entire wholesale stockpile at a cost of $14 million. This inventory restored the stock records’ accuracy of item locations and quantities. It also introduced major changes in the inventory process to focus on the accuracy of quantities within storage sites. It did not, however, assess condition. Once a site is physically inventoried, it is sealed and no longer subject to a yearly inventory unless activity affects its stock balance. To ensure that stock balances are correct, 10 percent of all sealed locations will be sampled annually. This new process is intended to reduce the inventory workload, freeing staff for other duties. The single manager has also taken steps to improve the stockpile’s operations, as planned. For example, it has consolidated some small, fragmented lots of material and redistributed them within warehouses and has removed some items from inappropriate storage. Storage installations in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 freed about 800,000 square feet of space. In addition, the single manager has adopted a priority system to ensure that required war reserve and training items receive maintenance first. Quarterly reviews will focus on the most urgent maintenance needs. At all six storage installations we visited, officials either were unaware of any progress made or had not detected any change in operations resulting from the single manager’s “tiering” concept, which relies on each service’s categorization of its ammunition as required and nonrequired. The problem is that neither the Army nor the other services have identified stock in those categories. The single manager’s three-tier concept is designed to ensure that the more critical ammunition is stored in depots capable of providing the quickest response to mobilization. Four tier I depots would contain mostly required items needed in the first 30 days of mobilization, items needed for training, and items needed beyond 30 days to augment tier II and III depots’ war reserve stocks. Tier I depots would receive all support necessary for storage, surveillance, inventories, maintenance, and disposal. Tier II depots would normally store war reserves needed more than 30 days after mobilization, production offset items, and some nonrequired stocks awaiting disposal. Tier III depots would be caretakers for items awaiting disposal or relocation. The single manager has not aggressively pursued the services’ efforts to identify stock as required and nonrequired, and the single manager does not know the priority the services place on each type of ammunition. As a result, surveillance, maintenance, storage, and inventories may not be focused on priority stock to ensure it is ready for shipment when needed, and scarce resources may be spent on items with low or no priority. During our review, we found that the Army had not fully complied with the single manager’s plan to identify ammunition, and the other services may not fully understand the stockpile’s definition of required and nonrequired ammunition. Some attempts were made to generate the necessary data, but the services did not provide sufficient detail. In 1993, the Air Force classified serviceable high-priority items as tier I, unserviceable items as tier III, and all others as tier II, but it did not know whether the items in tiers I and II were required and the items in tier III were nonrequired. Officials said that the single manager did not ask for the information by required and nonrequired categories. In 1994, the Navy provided tonnage data to the single manager by types of ammunition, which in a general sense categorizes items into tiers. Navy officials could not recall being requested to categorize ammunition as required or nonrequired, and they noted that the wholesale stockpile manages only 13 percent of the Navy’s ammunition inventory. Most of the Navy assets are stored aboard ships and at naval weapon stations, which they consider to be tier I and II locations. Marine Corps officials said they had not been required by the single manager to categorize items as required or nonrequired. During our review, we found that for inspection purposes, the Army had assigned a priority to each type of ammunition that can be used to identify required and nonrequired ammunition. The priorities range from ammunition needed for training and war reserve to ammunition for which there is no formal requirement. The single manager requested that the other services concur with these priority definitions. The Marine Corps responded; however, the Navy and the Air Force have not responded to this request, and the single manager cannot require the services to provide this information. The single manager is concerned that it will not consistently have sufficient funds through 2001 to implement its $2.7 billion plan to restore the stockpile to a usable condition and dispose of unneeded ammunition. The single manager uses operation and maintenance (O&M) funds for receipts and issuance, inventories, and surveillance of ammunition and procurement appropriations for disposal of excess, obsolete, and unsafe ammunition. The O&M funding allocated by the Army for inventories, storage, and surveillance has historically been less than needed by the single manager and has not yet been provided to implement the single manager’s plan. Therefore, the single manager has made little progress in correcting stockpile problems. Moreover, the progress made in correcting inventory records in 1995 may be jeopardized because funding allocated by the Army is insufficient to maintain the accuracy of the records. According to the single manager, to successfully carry out its plan and restore stockpile readiness, it must have consistent full funding over several years for stockpile activities. The plan was based on near-term funding levels, beginning in fiscal year 1996, and it projected full implementation by fiscal year 2001. However, actual funding for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was less than required, which, according to the single manager, postponed implementation of the plan by 2 years—from 2001 to 2003. Moreover, because of limited staff at stockpile installations, large funding levels in any given year will not enable the single manager to catch up—a lost year will add an additional year to fully implement the plan. For fiscal year 1995, the Congress statutorily required that a minimum of $388.6 million of the Army’s 1995 O&M account be spent specifically for the safety and security, receipt and issue, efficient storage and inventory, surveillance, and other activities associated with conventional ammunition. For fiscal year 1996, the conferees on the DOD appropriations act directed that a minimum of $300.9 million be spent for the same purpose. According to single manager officials, setting a minimum is a good approach because funding levels are consistent and better planning and management decisions can be made. The House Committee on Appropriations report on the 1995 DOD appropriations stated that it expects the Army to fully fund ammunition activities in future budget submissions. It also commended DOD for increasing its budget for disposal activities to $95 million for fiscal year 1995, and it recommended funding of $110 million and stated the expectation that DOD would continue this level of funding in future budgets. In its 1994 plan to improve stockpile management, the single manager set a goal to reduce the 423,000 tons of ammunition awaiting disposal to 100,000 by fiscal year 2004. The three interrelated factors to accomplish this goal are anticipated disposal quantities between fiscal years 1996 and 2004, the actual disposal funding, and the average cost to destroy a ton of ammunition. In March 1996, the Army estimated that 685,900 tons—more than triple the 1994 single manager’s estimate of 225,000 tons—will be generated between fiscal years 1996 and 2004. This estimate does not include 98,834 tons (85,733 tons of industrial stocks and 13,101 tons of tactical missile and large rocket motor assets) that will be generated which have other sources of disposal funding. If the single manager receives $100 million a year through fiscal year 2004 for disposal, and the disposal cost per ton is no more than $909 a ton, the single manager will meet its goal of eliminating the 100,000-ton backlog. The single manager recognizes that it will be difficult to meet this goal because it relies on a significant level of funding and the cost to dispose of ammunition may increase. Therefore, the goal will not be met if the single manager does not receive $100 million a year or if the disposal cost per ton increases. For example, if the average cost per ton is $1,100, the disposal backlog will be over 239,000 tons at the end of fiscal year 2004. Likewise, if the cost is $1,300 a ton, the backlog will be over 365,000 tons. The disposal stockpile most likely will grow even more as ammunition quantities excess to service requirements are identified (see ch. 2). Moreover, the single manager is concerned that the disposal program will suffer from funding cuts, personnel shortages, and low priority. If the past is any indication, the single manager may be correct. During fiscal years 1986-94, funding for disposal totaled $266 million, considerably less than the $695 million the single manager estimated was needed to operate at maximum capacity. The disposal of obsolete and deteriorated ammunition is a time-consuming and expensive process. At the installation with the largest disposal capacity, 1,300 tons of ammunition were destroyed at a cost of about $1 million during 1 week we visited. Additionally, the lack of Army funding has affected the single manager’s ability to operate disposal facilities at full capacity. Although the estimated disposal capacity is over 100,000 tons of ammunition per year, the single manager has not been able to fully fund this function. Prior to 1995, the greatest amount disposed of was 61,500 tons in 1992; only 11,700 tons were disposed of in 1990. For example, one installation that can process 27,800 tons of ammunition annually had been allocated only 19,200 tons for disposal in fiscal year 1995. Another installation with a capacity to dispose of about 35,900 tons had been allocated only about 3,800 tons in fiscal year 1994. The single manager plans to gradually decrease its reliance on open burning/detonation of ammunition because environmental regulations have made these methods difficult and undesirable. Currently, however, open burning/detonation is the only cost-effective method of disposal for some items, such as cluster bombs and large rocket motors. Nonetheless, the single manager plans to increase disposal through resource recovery and recycling methods. These methods are more costly—over $2,000 per ton or over twice as much as for open burning/open detonation. Should the cost per ton to dispose of ammunition approach this higher level, the backlog would increase significantly. DOD concurred that problems with the ammunition stockpile management threaten readiness. DOD noted that funding levels in fiscal years 1993 and 1994 were so low as to force concentration on shipments and receipts at depots. DOD said that during this period surveillance, stockpile reliability testing, and priority maintenance projects were severely limited. DOD agreed that defect codes had not been entered for all items with overdue inspections but said inspections are performed prior to issuance of any item. DOD also said that during the first quarter of fiscal year 1996, significant progress was made toward prioritizing ammunition items and identifying those that satisfy power projection and training requirements. Based on the new priorities, periodic inspection backlogs were adjusted and reduced from approximately 60,000 lots to approximately 30,000 lots with the identification of the required part of the stockpile. We strongly support identifying what is needed for power projection and training and concentrating limited resources on these ammunition items. We believe that DOD’s observation that periodic inspection needs were reduced from 60,000 to 30,000 lots and is indicative of potential reductions that can be made in the care and maintenance functions of the single manager. DOD partially concurred that the single manager’s plan for improvement has been delayed. DOD said that while funding has been problematic, DOD does not believe that the implementation of the improvements in ammunition management will be delayed. DOD said the overall goal of the Integrated Ammunition Stockpile Management Plan is to accomplish (1) depot tiering by 2001 and (2) the other changes in stockpile management as soon as possible. With the closure of three depots, DOD expects to accomplish the tiering goal on schedule. DOD notes that the two major requirements to implement the management plan are adequate funding and segregation of the stockpile. We agree that these are important. We are particularly concerned that the identification of required ammunition, such as for power projection and training, be done as quickly as possible so that the single manager can better use limited resources. We are also particularly concerned that unless funding levels and ammunition disposal are closely monitored, the single managers will not meet its 2004 disposal goal. Unquestionably, the single manager faces difficulties in resolving problems that developed with the wholesale stockpile as the Cold War ended. These difficulties stem from DOD’s downsizing of its force and facilities in response to the much reduced threat. Reductions in ammunition storage space and the workforce, coupled with the return of massive amounts of ammunition from closed bases in Europe and from Operation Desert Storm, have degraded the single manager’s ability to manage the stockpile. In addition, this ammunition was returned in small, broken lots that were stored haphazardly as they came from overseas. Partly as a result of this situation, half of the ammunition types in the stockpile contain items in excess of stated requirements, which we estimated to be valued at about $31 billion. This $31 billion of usable and unusable ammunition, as well as $2.9 billion of excess ammunition that was on the single manager’s inventory records but not the services’ inventory records, was being treated by the single manager as necessary to meet requirements. Because the single manager has concentrated on responding to requests for usable ammunition, inspections and tests of ammunition have been delayed. The single manager does not know how much ammunition in excess of stated requirements is in the stockpile and is therefore unaware of what ammunition could be shared among the services to alleviate shortages and what unusable ammunition does not need attention beyond that for safety reasons. In addition, there are tremendous backlogs of ammunition to dispose of. For the foreseeable future, this disposable ammunition will increase and take up limited storage space. These problems are not insurmountable, but they will take time to overcome. The Integrated Ammunition Stockpile Management Plan is a step in the right direction. In addition, the minimum levels set for the care and maintenance of ammunition established by the Congress for fiscal year 1995 and the House Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 1996 have helped the single manager in meeting its responsibilities. The single manager’s success in implementing the management plan is limited by the services’ lack of incentives to identify excess ammunition. The services are not inclined to determine which of their ammunition is required and declare the remainder excess because once ammunition is declared excess, a service is not reimbursed for its cost if another service wants it. Also, the services have no incentive to mark ammunition for disposal because they do not have to pay the single manager to store it. As the Joint Commanders Ordnance Group’s 1993 report points out, the single manager could charge the services a storage fee as an incentive for the services to relinquish ownership of excess, old, and obsolete ammunition. The report also suggested that additional storage space could be made available if excess ammunition was used in training, included in foreign military sales or grant aid programs, or destroyed. In addition, as we recommended in 1979, the single manager could own, manage, and control the entire ammunition stockpile. If this was the case, the manager would have visibility over ammunition in excess of established requirements and could distribute it to other services that need it or, if unneeded, dispose of it when there was no longer a reason to retain it. Another troublesome problem is the disposal of excess ammunition, which is a time-consuming, expensive process. For example, at the installation with the largest disposal capacity, 1,300 tons of ammunition were destroyed at a cost of about $1 million during 1 week we visited. With over 375,000 tons of ammunition awaiting disposal at the end of fiscal year 1995 and additional ammunition identified for disposal each year, it will take years to dispose of the ammunition. And because of the expense associated with disposing of this much ammunition, finding the funds to facilitate disposal is difficult. One option would be to require the services to include the cost to dispose of ammunition being replaced in budgets for new ammunition. While this option would not eliminate the significant quantities of ammunition already awaiting disposal, it would focus earlier attention on the ammunition disposal problem, provide additional funds for disposal, and over time significantly reduce the quantities for disposal. To impress upon the services the need to address the problem of excess ammunition, the Congress may wish to consider requiring the Secretary of Defense to report annually the amount of ammunition on hand and the amount that exceeds established requirements. This report could also cite progress made in addressing specific ammunition stockpile management problems, including identifying ammunition in excess of established requirements, cross-sharing of ammunition in excess of established requirements among services that have shortages, inspecting and testing ammunition, and disposing of excess ammunition when it no longer makes sense to retain it. With this information, the Congress could make more informed annual budget decisions related to the ammunition stockpile. To facilitate implementation of the single manager’s plan for storing, maintaining, and disposing of ammunition, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense develop incentives to encourage the military services to categorize their ammunition as required or as excess to stated requirements, to update this information annually, and to relinquish control of their excess ammunition to the Army single manager for distribution to other services that have shortages of ammunition or for disposal when it no longer makes sense to retain it. Possible changes in ammunition management, include requiring the services to pay the single manager a fee for storing their ammunition; using excess ammunition in training; authorizing the single manager to own, manage, and control the wholesale stockpile and/or have visibility of the services’ retail stocks and total requirements so the manager can identify ammunition excess to stated requirements and coordinate redistribution of it to services that need the ammunition or dispose of it; and requiring the services to include the cost to dispose of excess ammunition in their budgets for new ammunition. DOD partially concurred with the matter for congressional consideration. DOD said it already provides the Congress with ammunition inventory data in the Supply System Inventory Report and demilitarization information in the procurement budget justifications. We are aware of this report and the information contained in it. However, as currently prepared, the inventory report does not provide any information on the amount of ammunition that exceeds established requirements. Also, information on stockpile management problems and progress in solving these problems is not provided. DOD disagreed with the recommendation and options given for potential changes in ammunition management. DOD stated that it considers the present arrangement for managing much of the services’ stockpile to be satisfactory. DOD stated it believes stockpile stratification and cross-sharing could be enhanced but does not consider incentives to be necessary to encourage compliance by the military services. Problems with cross-sharing among the services noted in our 1979 report continue. In addition, due to large quantities of ammunition in storage and a reduced work force to manage this ammunition, problems with ammunition management threaten readiness. Therefore, we do not believe that existing DOD practices will solve the serious problems. The Integrated Stockpile Management Plan is a step in the right direction, yet all the services still have not identified required and nonrequired ammunition as called for in the 1994 plan. This is a very important part of this plan’s implementation. DOD disagreed with the options to require a storage charge or increase the single manager’s responsibilities. We agree other options are possible; those in our report are some potential options. However, we do not agree the present arrangement for managing the stockpile is working well and believe that existing DOD practices will not solve the problems. We are not advocating erosion of the centralized management of ammunition but are providing options to further strengthen ammunition management and provide incentives to the services to help the single manager operate more effectively. We continue to believe our recommendation is valid.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the status of the Department of Defense's (DOD) ammunition stockpile, focusing on: (1) the amount of excess ammunition in the stockpile; and (2) problems related to the stockpile's management. GAO found that: (1) of the $80 billion in usable and unusable ammunition as of September 1994, about $31 billion was excess ammunition and about $22 billion was ammunition that was still usable; (2) the excess in usable ammunition is primarily due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and reduced U.S. military requirements; (3) while shortages of some specific ammunition types exist, the services generally have inventories that exceed their wartime and peacetime requirements; (4) in 1993 and 1994, the services spent about $125 million for ammunition that exceeded their fiscal year 1995 requirements; (5) the services have stored and continue to manage significant amounts of ammunition for weapons that are no longer in the active inventory; (6) increases in the ammunition stockpile and decreases in budget, workforce, and storage space could degrade the forces' readiness to meet wartime and peacetime needs; (7) DOD has not been able to conduct adequate ammunition testing and inspections to ensure the stockpile's usability and readiness; (8) DOD does not know the extent of excess ammunition stored at the services facilities; and (9) the ammunition stockpile will continue to grow until the services are given incentives to relinquish ownership of the ammunition and the single manager is provided with the funding and information necessary to expedite ammunition disposal.

SSI is an income assistance program for people who are aged, blind, or disabled. It was authorized in 1972 and is administered by SSA. To be eligible for SSI, individuals cannot have income greater than the maximum benefit level (in 1995, $458 per month for an individual and $687 for a couple if both spouses were eligible) or resources worth more than $2,000 ($3,000 for a couple), subject to certain exclusions, such as a home that is the primary residence. In 31 states and the District of Columbia, SSI recipients are automatically eligible for Medicaid without filing a separate application for benefits with the state Medicaid agency. The remaining states may require a separate application for Medicaid benefits or have more restrictive definitions of disability and financial eligibility requirements than SSI. Beginning in 1981, individuals filing SSI claims were prohibited from transferring resources for less than fair market value to qualify for SSI. Under the provision prohibiting such transfers, SSI applicants or recipients who got rid of resources to qualify for SSI had the uncompensated value of those resources counted toward the resource limit for 24 months from the date of transfer. As a result, such individuals were probably ineligible for SSI benefits for 2 years after transferring resources, and, in many cases, they were also ineligible for Medicaid for the same length of time. In 1988, the Congress eliminated the SSI restriction for resource transfers at less than fair market value, allowing individuals who dispose of resources to qualify for benefits. The Congress, however, retained a similar restriction for the transfer of resources by individuals applying for Medicaid nursing home benefits. Under the current Medicaid provision, applicants for Medicaid long-term care benefits who transfer resources at less than fair market value within 3 years of application or within 3 years of entering a nursing home are deemed to be temporarily ineligible for such benefits. Since information on resource transfers is relevant to the Medicaid nursing home eligibility decision, the law requires SSA to ask SSI applicants about resource transfers even though their answers do not affect the determination of their SSI eligibility. SSA is also required to provide this information to state Medicaid agencies. A provision to reinstate a transfer-of-resource restriction for certain transfers was included in welfare reform legislation passed by the 104th Congress, which was subsequently vetoed by the President. SSA is currently considering the merits of reinstating an SSI transfer-of-resource restriction and may include such a proposal in its fiscal year 1997 legislative proposals. Since 1989, the number of SSI recipients reporting nonexcludable resource transfers has substantially increased, from fewer than 500 in 1989 to almost 2,800 in 1994. Between 1988 and 1994, 9,326 recipients reported transferring resources. While the number of recipients reporting resource transfers is relatively small compared with the total number of SSI recipients, it represents a growing population receiving millions of dollars in SSI benefits each year. We analyzed data on those individuals for whom data were maintained centrally in an automated database at SSA headquarters; this represented about one-third of the 9,326 SSI recipients who reported resource transfers, about 3,505 recipients (see app. I for more details). We estimate that between 1990 and 1994 these recipients transferred cars, homes, land, cash, and other resources worth over $74 million. The average value of transferred resources was about $21,000. This recipient group of 3,505 does not include the more than 5,800 transfers documented in nonautomated case files, nor does it include recipients who failed to report resource transfers. Consequently, the total amount of resources transferred is larger than our estimate. Although SSI benefits are for those with limited income and resources, the resources recipients transferred were often of considerable value. These individuals could receive millions of dollars in SSI benefits in the 24 months after they transferred resources. For example, one individual transferred an apartment complex valued at $800,000 to a nonrelative in May 1994. In July 1994, this person applied for SSI and has subsequently received about $6,800 in SSI payments. Another individual gave away about 380 acres of land valued at $100,000 to a relative in September 1993. This person applied for SSI in October 1993 and has received about $4,200 in SSI payments. In many cases individuals applying for SSI benefits reported having transferred large amounts of cash. For example, one individual gave away almost $38,000 in cash to a relative in July 1992 and applied for SSI in August 1993. This person has received about $4,900 in SSI payments. In another case, a person gave away $29,000 to a relative in September 1993 and applied for SSI in the same month. This person has received about $4,300 in SSI payments. Since repeal of the resource transfer restriction in 1988, 9,326 SSI recipients reported transferring resources before applying for or while receiving SSI; however, the actual number of people who did so is unknown. The extent of resource transfers is unknown because field office claims representatives accept self-reported information. If an applicant does not report a transfer, SSA does not verify this information nor is it required to. Consequently, instances in which individuals transfer resources but do not report the transfer are not detected. Moreover, we found cases in which questionable data were accepted by the claims representatives. Although SSA requires an applicant to provide a bill of sale or other documents to establish that the applicant no longer owns the resource, it does not verify the value because resource transfers do not affect the amount of SSI benefits an individual receives. As a result, our estimate of $74.3 million in resource transfers from 1990 to 1994 probably understates the actual value of resources transferred. Some recipients (5.5 percent) reported transferring resources such as homes and other property but reported the value as $0. For example, one individual gave a house and 72 acres of land to a relative and reported a market value of $0. Moreover, 7.4 percent of recipients reported transferring resources without reporting any value for the resources. In addition to those recipients reporting the value of their resources as $0, other recipients apparently reported inaccurate market values of the resources they transferred. For example, an individual gave away 4 acres of land and reported the value as $10. Another individual gave away two homes and reported the total value of the homes as $20. Under the restriction in effect until 1988, resources transferred by individuals were counted as a resource for 2 years after the date of the transfer, making such individuals ineligible for SSI benefits until 24 months elapsed. We estimate that the 3,505 recipients who reported transferring resources between 1990 and 1994 would receive about $7.9 million in SSI benefits during the 24 months following the date the resources were transferred. Assuming that some individuals did not report such transfers, the total amount of benefits paid is likely to be larger than our estimate, which was based on the 3,505 cases. Currently, the period of ineligibility for Medicaid long-term care is based on the value of the resources transferred at less than fair market value. That is, the period of ineligibility is calculated by dividing the uncompensated value of the resource by the average monthly cost of nursing home care in the state where the person lives. We estimate that from 1990 through December 1995 about $14.6 million in SSI program expenditures could have been saved if SSI had in place a transfer-of- resource restriction similar to Medicaid’s provision. For example, if an individual gave away $25,000, under the previous SSI transfer-of-resource restriction, the person would have been ineligible for SSI benefits for 2 years. However, basing the period of ineligibility on the uncompensated value of the resource divided by the maximum SSI payment that can be awarded would have resulted in about 4-1/2 years of ineligibility. Most of the 3,505 recipients who reported transferring resources were, like most SSI recipients, eligible for Medicaid acute-care benefits. In 1994, aged SSI recipients who received Medicaid benefits averaged about $2,800 in benefits, and blind and disabled SSI recipients averaged about $5,300, excluding nursing home and institutional care. An SSI transfer-of-resource restriction could possibly result in savings in the Medicaid program. Some of the individuals denied SSI benefits would not become eligible for Medicaid during the period in which they were ineligible for SSI. We cannot estimate potential Medicaid savings because some individuals denied SSI could possibly receive Medicaid by applying for “medically needy” coverage directly to the state in which they live. SSA estimated that it spent about $600,000 in fiscal year 1995 to obtain transfer-of-resource information. However, virtually all of these costs were related to explaining the provision and asking individuals about resource transfers. SSA incurred little cost to verify the accuracy of reported information. If a restriction were reinstated, SSA would have to substantially expand the effort required to verify the accuracy and completeness of transfer information reported by individuals as well as detect unreported transfers. This is important because individuals may be less likely to report transfers if such transfers affect SSI eligibility. Verifying the accuracy of reported transfer information would be less costly than detecting unreported transfers. Although no data exist to estimate the potential costs of the additional verification and detection requirements that SSA would have to initiate, the costs could be significant. Eliminating the SSI transfer-of-resource restriction has increased SSI benefit expenditures and program costs, which is especially troublesome considering current budgetary constraints. The number of new recipients reporting transfers of resources has increased dramatically since repeal of the restriction. These individuals, who transferred resources that they could have used for self-support, are instead receiving SSI benefits. In addition, many of these individuals, by virtue of their admission to the SSI program, have also become eligible for Medicaid acute-care benefits. An SSI transfer-of-resource restriction similar to Medicaid’s restriction could save millions in SSI program expenditures by delaying individuals’ date of eligibility for benefits. Such a restriction could also save an unknown amount of Medicaid expenditures. If a restriction were reinstated, SSA would have to considerably expand the steps it takes to verify the value of transferred resources as well as develop mechanisms to detect unreported transfers. This is especially important because individuals might be less likely to report transfers once they affected SSI eligibility. As a result, SSA would incur additional administrative expense in implementing such procedures. However, these cost estimates are not readily available and would have to be developed by SSA. Moreover, this use of SSA’s limited resources and the increased administrative costs should be properly balanced with the benefits of bolstering the program’s integrity by assuring the public that people may not rely on public services when they can use their own resources and by guaranteeing that only those who need SSI will receive it. SSA is considering whether to include such a proposal in its fiscal year 1997 budget request. In light of the potential for reduced program expenditures and increased program integrity, the Congress may wish to consider reinstating an SSI transfer-of-resource restriction. The restriction could be calculated in a way that takes into account the value of the resource transferred so that individuals transferring more valuable resources would be ineligible for SSI benefits for longer periods of time than those who transfer less valuable resources. SSA agreed with our findings and conclusions that reinstating a transfer-of- resource restriction would increase the SSI program’s integrity. SSA noted that it is continuing to work with the Congress to include a provision restoring an SSI transfer-of-resource restriction in welfare reform legislation. SSA also stated its concern that our excluding eight cases from our sample significantly understates the number of cases with excludable resources. We excluded cases on the basis of comments in individuals’ files indicating that the resources transferred involved primary residences. Other cases involving transfers of excludable resources may also exist, but SSA could not identify which, if any, involved such resources, and we had no other means to identify those cases. SSA acknowledged that identifying such cases would be difficult since information on many of the transfers would not have been noted in the case files. The agency also made other technical comments, which we incorporated throughout the report as appropriate. (See app. II.) We are sending copies of this report to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and other interested parties. Copies also will be available to others on request. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me on (202) 512-7215. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix III. Data on the nature and value of the resources transferred in over half of the reported 9,326 transfers that occurred between 1988 and 1994 were not readily available because the information was not centrally located or contained in an automated database. This information was documented in case files in field offices or other storage facilities. In 1990, however, SSA began using an automated claims process, the Modernized Supplemental Security Income Claims System (MSSICS), to collect and document application information about SSI claimants. These data were centrally located at SSA headquarters and contained relevant automated information on 4,293 individuals who transferred resources. Of these individuals, 3,550 transferred their resources between 1990 and 1994 and received SSI benefits; the other 743 were denied benefits. From the 4,293 individuals, we selected a random sample of 750 individuals whose SSI applications were processed in MSSICS and obtained their transfer-of-resource data. We subsequently found that, of these 750 individuals, only 631 had been determined eligible for SSI; the other 119 were denied benefits. Under SSA operating guidance, field office claims representatives should only collect transfer-of-resource information on countable resources, that is, any assets that count toward the resource limit. The value of resources such as a home that is the primary residence or one automobile is excluded when calculating an individual’s resources. SSA officials expressed concern that some of the homes transferred by SSI recipients included in our sample were in fact primary residences. Because such transfers would not have been penalized under the previous transfer-of-resource restriction, SSA did not believe they should be included in our sample. SSA, however, could not identify which, if any, of the cases involved excludable resources. In response to SSA’s concern, we reviewed our sample and on the basis of comments noted in the cases determined that eight resource transfers may have involved primary residences. We excluded those cases from our sample. As a result, our revised sample size is 623. Although other cases involving potential transfers of excludable resources may be in our sample, comments indicating this were not noted in the individuals’ records, and we had no other available means to identify those cases. We assumed that the proportion of the 3,550 recipients with automated resource data in MSSICS who transferred resources other than primary residences would be the same as the proportion of these individuals in our random sample, 98.73 percent. Thus, we based our estimates on a population of about 3,505 recipients. All of the sampling errors reported below have a confidence level of 95 percent. For estimates of the value of resources transferred when a value was not reported by a recipient, we considered the value of that transfer to be $0. Our estimate of the total value of resources that recipients reported having transferred, $74.3 million, has a sampling error of plus or minus $12.9 million. The estimate of the average value of transferred resources, $21,000, has a sampling error of plus or minus $3,672. For the estimates of proportions in column 2 of table 1, sampling errors do not exceed plus or minus 3 percentage points. In addition, sampling errors associated with estimates of benefits to be received ($7.9 million) and potential program savings ($14.6 million) do not exceed plus or minus $1 million. Since the principal source of our automated data, the Supplemental Security Record (SSR), is subject to periodic SSA quality assurance reviews, we did not independently examine the computer system controls for the SSR. Except for the limitations noted, our review was done between May and December 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In addition to those named above, the following individuals also made important contributions to this report: Graham D. Rawsthorn, Evaluator; Daniel A. Schwimer, Senior Attorney; Vanessa R. Taylor, Senior Evaluator (Computer Science); Nancy L. Crothers, Communications Analyst; James P. Wright, Assistant Director (Study Design and Data Analysis); and Joel I. Grossman, Social Science Analyst. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, focusing on: (1) the number of SSI recipients reporting resource transfers; (2) the kind and worth of resources being transferred; and (3) the possible savings resulting from a reinstatement of the SSI transfer-of-resources restriction. GAO found that: (1) while the number of SSI recipients reporting resource transfers has increased, they are only a fraction of the total number of SSI recipients; (2) between 1990 and 1994, 3,505 SSI recipients reported transferring resources worth more than $74 million; (3) the value of reported transferred resources varied and the actual extent of resource transfers is unknown because the Social Security Administration (SSA) does not verify or investigate SSI recipients' self-reported information about resource transfers; and (4) reinstating the SSI transfer-of-resource restriction could reduce program costs, reduce Medicaid costs, and increase SSA administrative costs.

Recent estimates that the unauthorized (illegally present) alien population in the United States exceeds 11 million has focused renewed attention on this population. The 107 th and 108 th Congresses considered legislation to address one segment of the unauthorized population—aliens who, as children, were brought to live in the United States by their parents or other adults. In a 1982 case, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited unauthorized alien children from receiving a free public education, making it difficult, if not impossible, for states to deny an elementary or secondary education to such students." Unauthorized aliens who graduate from high school and want to attend college, however, face various obstacles. Among them, a provision enacted in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) discourages states and localities from granting unauthorized aliens certain "postsecondary education benefits." This provision (IIRIRA §505) directs that an unauthorized alien— shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident. Although IIRIRA §505 does not refer explicitly to the granting of "in-state" residency status for tuition purposes and some question whether it even covers in-state tuition, the debate surrounding §505 has focused on the provision of in-state tuition rates to unauthorized aliens. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, also makes unauthorized alien students ineligible for federal student financial aid. In most instances, they are likewise ineligible for state financial aid. Moreover, as unauthorized aliens, they are unable to work legally and are subject to removal from the country regardless of the number of years they have lived in the United States. In the 107 th and 108 th Congresses, legislation was introduced—but not enacted—to provide relief to unauthorized alien students. These bills sought to repeal IIRIRA §505 and, thereby, provide unauthorized students greater access to postsecondary education. These bills also would have enabled certain unauthorized students to adjust to legal permanent resident (LPR) status. Legal permanent residents, sometimes referred to as "green card holders," are able to live and work indefinitely in the United States. In most cases, they are able to apply for U.S. citizenship after five years. The unauthorized student bills introduced in the 107 th and 108 th Congresses were H.R. 1563 , Preserving Educational Opportunities for Immigrant Children Act, introduced in the 107 th Congress and reintroduced as H.R. 84 in the 108 th Congress by Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee; H.R. 1582 , Immigrant Children's Educational Advancement and Dropout Prevention Act, introduced in the 107 th Congress by Representative Luis Gutierrez; H.R. 1918 , Student Adjustment Act, introduced in the 107 th Congress and reintroduced as H.R. 1684 in the 108 th Congress by Representative Chris Cannon; S. 1291 , Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act), introduced in the 107 th Congress and reintroduced (in modified form) as S. 1545 in the 108 th Congress by Senator Orrin Hatch; S. 1265 , Children's Adjustment, Relief, and Education Act (CARE Act), introduced in the 107 th Congress by Senator Richard Durbin; and Title III, Subtitle D of S. 8 , Educational Excellence for All Learners Act of 2003, introduced in the 108 th Congress by then-Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle. In the 107 th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported an amended version of S. 1291 , known as the DREAM Act. This amended measure represented a compromise between S. 1291 , as introduced, and S. 1265 . None of the other pending bills saw any action beyond committee referral. ( Appendix A contains a table comparing four unauthorized alien student bills introduced in the 107 th Congress.) In the 108 th Congress, S. 1291 , as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 107 th Congress, was included as part of S. 8 , an education measure introduced by then-Senate Minority Leader Daschle. In addition, a new version of the DREAM Act ( S. 1545 ) was introduced by Senator Hatch. On November 25, 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported S. 1545 with an amendment. The other unauthorized alien student bills did not see any action beyond committee referrals. Four bills ( H.R. 84 , H.R. 1684 , S. 8 , and S. 1545 , as reported) would have enabled eligible unauthorized students to obtain LPR status through an immigration procedure known as cancellation of removal . (The major features of the bills are compared in Appendix B .) Cancellation of removal is a discretionary form of relief authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, that an alien can apply for while in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. If cancellation of removal is granted, the alien's status is adjusted to that of an LPR. H.R. 84 and H.R. 1684 would have permanently amended the INA to make unauthorized alien students who meet certain requirements eligible for cancellation of removal/adjustment of status, whereas S. 8 and S. 1545 would have established temporary cancellation of removal/adjustment of status authorities separate from the INA. H.R. 1684 , S. 8 , and S. 1545 would have allowed aliens to affirmatively apply for relief without being placed in removal proceedings. Other bills, H.R. 3271 and H.R. 1830 , also would have enabled eligible unauthorized alien students to obtain LPR status, but they would not have done so through a cancellation of removal mechanism. Instead, they would have established a temporary adjustment of status authority. The INA limits the number of aliens who can be granted cancellation of removal/adjustment of status in a fiscal year to 4,000. It, however, contains exceptions for certain groups of aliens. H.R. 1684 would have amended the INA to add an exception to the numerical limitation for aliens granted cancellation of removal/adjustment of status under its terms. No numerical limit would have applied under H.R. 3271 , S. 8 , or S. 1545 . S. 1545 differed from the other bills in that it would have established a two-stage process by which aliens could obtain LPR status. Aliens granted cancellation of removal under the bill would have been adjusted initially to conditional permanent resident status. Such conditional status would have been valid for six years and would have been subject to termination. To have the condition removed and become full-fledged LPRs, the aliens would have had to submit an application during a specified period and meet additional requirements. The other bills would have adjusted all eligible aliens directly to full-fledged LPR status. As detailed in Appendix B , H.R. 84 , H.R. 1684 , H.R. 3271 , S. 8 , and S. 1545 varied in their eligibility criteria. Among these criteria, all five would have required continuous physical presence in the United States for a specified number of years. In the case of S. 8 and S. 1545 , the continuous presence requirement would have had to be satisfied prior to the date of enactment. Under H.R. 84 , H.R. 1684 , and H.R. 3271 , the continuous presence requirement would have needed to be met prior to the date of application for relief. All of the bills except H.R. 84 would have limited relief to aliens meeting specified age requirements. All five bills would have required a showing of good moral character. With respect to educational status, H.R. 1684 and H.R. 3271 would have required prospective beneficiaries to be enrolled at or above the 7 th grade level, or enrolled in, or actively pursuing admission to, an institution of higher education in the United States. S. 8 would have granted LPR status only to individuals with a high school diploma or equivalent credential. Under S. 1545 , in order to obtain conditional LPR status, aliens would have needed to gain admission to an institution of higher education or possess a high school diploma or equivalent credential. H.R. 84 contained no educational requirements. On October 16 and October 23, 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up S. 1545 . At the October 16 session, the Committee voted in favor of an amendment in the nature of a substitute proposed by Senator Hatch for himself and Senator Durbin. The substitute amended various provisions of S. 1545 , as introduced. Among the substantive amendments were changes to the confidentiality of information section. For example, the bill, as introduced, stated that information furnished by applicants could not be used for any purpose other than to make a determination on the application. The substitute amended this provision to state that information furnished by applicants could not be used to initiate removal proceedings against individuals identified in the application. At the October 23 meeting, the Judiciary Committee considered a set of amendments to S. 1545 offered by Senator Charles Grassley. Two of these amendments were the subject of debate at the markup. The first proposed to amend a provision in the bill allowing aliens who, prior to the date of enactment, met the requirements for both conditional resident status and removal of the condition, to petition for LPR status without first becoming conditional residents. The amendment would have made these aliens subject to the same period of conditional residence as other aliens eligible for relief under the bill. The second amendment proposed to place restrictions on the availability of federal student financial aid to aliens eligible for adjustment to LPR status under the bill. Under the amendment, these aliens would have been eligible only for specified student loan and work-study programs. Among the other amendments in the Grassley package was one that would have required beneficiaries of the bill to be registered in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), the monitoring system for foreign students. The Committee voted, 18-1, to approve the Grassley amendments, and voted, 16-3, to report the bill, as amended. The Committee acted, however, with the understanding that the bill would be subject to further discussion and modification prior to being reported. In S. 1545 , as reported, the Grassley amendment language on federal financial assistance was modified, as described in the next section. The rest of the Grassley amendments were unchanged. Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, LPRs and certain other eligible noncitizens may receive federal student financial aid. Pell Grants and Stafford loans authorized under Title IV comprise 85% of postsecondary student aid. S. 1545 , as reported, would have placed restrictions on eligibility for higher education assistance for beneficiaries of the bill's adjustment provisions. With respect to assistance provided under Title IV, it would have made aliens who adjust to LPR status under the bill eligible only for student loans, federal work-study programs, and services (such as counseling, tutorial services, and mentoring), subject to the applicable requirements. Thus, aliens adjusting status under S. 1545 would not have been eligible for Pell Grants. H.R. 84 , H.R. 1684 , H.R. 3271 , and S. 8 , as introduced, did not contain restrictions on eligibility for federal student financial aid. An alien who adjusted to LPR status under any of these bills would have been eligible, as an LPR, for federal financial aid under Title IV. H.R. 84 and H.R. 1684 additionally would have extended this eligibility to unauthorized students who had applied for, but not yet been granted, cancellation of removal/adjustment of status. Appendix A. Comparison of Major Provisions of Bills in the 107 th Congress on Unauthorized Alien Students Appendix B. Comparison of Major Provisions of Bills in the 108 th Congress on Unauthorized Alien Students

Unauthorized alien students constitute a subpopulation of the total U.S. unauthorized alien population that is of particular congressional interest. These students receive free public primary and secondary education, but often find it difficult to attend college for financial reasons. A provision enacted as part of a 1996 immigration law prohibits states from granting unauthorized aliens certain postsecondary educational benefits on the basis of state residence, unless equal benefits are made available to all U.S. citizens. This prohibition is commonly understood to apply to the granting of "in-state" residency status for tuition purposes. In addition, unauthorized aliens are not eligible for federal student financial aid. More generally, as unauthorized aliens, they are not legally allowed to work in the United States and are subject to being removed from the country at any time. Bills were introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses to address the educational and immigration circumstances of unauthorized alien students. Most of these bills had two key components. They would have repealed the 1996 provision. They also would have provided immigration relief to certain unauthorized alien students by enabling them to become legal permanent residents of the United States. In both Congresses, bills known as the DREAM Act (S. 1291 in the 107th Congress; S. 1545 in the 108th Congress) containing both types of provisions were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This report will not be updated.

In June 1997, we reported on the results of our interviews with state WIC officials in 8 states that had unspent federal funds in fiscal year 1995 and 2 states that did not have unspent funds that year. These state officials identified a variety of reasons for having unspent federal WIC funds that were returned to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) for reallocation. In fiscal year 1996, the states returned about $121.6 million, or about 3.3 percent, of that year’s $3.7 billion WIC grant for reallocation to the states in the next fiscal year. Some of the reasons cited by the WIC directors for not spending all available funds related to the structure of the WIC program. For example, the federal grant is the only source of funds for the program in most states. Some of these states prohibit agency expenditures that exceed their available funding. As a result, WIC directors reported that they must be cautious not to overspend their WIC grant. Because WIC grants made to some states are so large, even a low underspending rate can result in millions of returned grant dollars. For example, in fiscal year 1995, California returned almost $16 million in unspent WIC funds, which represented about 3 percent of its $528 million federal grant. Unlike California, New York State had no unspent grant funds in fiscal year 1995. New York was one of 12 states that supplemented its federal WIC grant with state funds that year and hence did not have to be as cautious in protecting against overspending its federal grant. Overall, the group of states that supplemented their WIC grants in fiscal year 1995 returned a smaller percentage of their combined WIC funds than did the states that did not supplement their federal grants. States also had unspent federal funds because the use of vouchers to distribute benefits made it difficult for states to determine program costs until the vouchers were redeemed and processed. Two features of the voucher distribution method can contribute to the states’ difficulty in determining program costs. First, some portion of the benefits issued as vouchers may not be used, thereby reducing projected food costs. Participants may not purchase all of the food items specified on the voucher or not redeem the voucher at all. Second, because of the time it takes to process vouchers, states may find after the end of the fiscal year that their actual food costs were lower than projected. For example, most states do not know the cost of the vouchers issued for August and September benefits until after the fiscal year ends because program regulations require states to give participants 30 days to use a voucher and retailers 60 days after receiving the voucher to submit it for payment. The difficulty in projecting food costs in a timely manner can be exacerbated in some states that issue participants 3 months of vouchers at a time to reduce crowded clinic conditions. In such states, vouchers for August benefits could be provided as early as June but not submitted for payment until the end of October. Other reasons for states having unspent WIC funds related to specific circumstances that affect program operations within individual states. For example, in Texas the installation of a new computer system used to certify WIC eligibility and issue WIC food vouchers contributed to the state’s having unspent funds of about $6.8 million in fiscal year 1996. According to the state WIC director, the computer installation temporarily reduced the amount of time that clinic staff had to certify and serve new clients because they had to spend time instead learning new software and operating procedures. As a result, they were unable to certify and serve a number of eligible individuals and did not spend the associated grant funds. In Florida, a hiring freeze contributed to the state’s having unspent funds of about $7.7 million in fiscal year 1995. According to the state WIC director, although federal WIC funds were available to increase the number of WIC staff at the state and local agency level, state programs were under a hiring freeze that affected all programs, including WIC. The hiring freeze hindered the state’s ability to hire the staff needed to serve the program’s expanding caseload. Having unspent federal WIC funds did not necessarily indicate a lack of need for program benefits. WIC directors in some states with fiscal year 1995 unspent funds reported that more eligible individuals could have been served by WIC had it not been for the reasons related to the program’s structure and/or state-specific situations or circumstances. On the basis of our nationwide survey of randomly selected local WIC agencies, we reported in October 1997 that these agencies have implemented a variety of strategies to increase the accessibility of their clinics for working women. The most frequently cited strategies—used by every agency—are scheduling appointments instead of taking participants on a first-come, first-served basis and allowing other persons to pick up participants’ WIC vouchers. Scheduling appointments reduces participants’ waiting time at the clinic and makes more efficient use of the agency staff’s time. Allowing other persons, such as baby-sitters and family members, to pick up the food vouchers for participants can reduce the number of visits to the clinic by working women. Another strategy to increase participation by working women used by almost 90 percent of local agencies was issuing food vouchers for 2 or 3 months. As California state officials pointed out, issuing vouchers every 2 months, instead of monthly, to participants who are not at medical risk reduces the number of visits to the clinic. Three-fourths of the local WIC agencies had some provision for lunch hour appointments, which allows some working women to take care of their visit during their lunch break. Other actions to increase WIC participation by working women included reducing the time spent at clinic visits. We estimated that about 66 percent of local WIC agencies have taken steps to expedite clinic visits for working women. For example, a local agency in New York State allows working women who must return to work to go ahead of others in the clinic. The director of a local WIC agency in Pennsylvania allows working women to send in their paperwork before they visit, thereby reducing the time spent at the clinic. The Kansas state WIC agency generally requires women to participate in the program in the county where they reside, but it will allow working women to participate in the county where they work when it is more convenient for them. Other strategies adopted by some local WIC agencies include mailing vouchers to working women under special circumstances, thereby eliminating the need for them to visit the clinic (about 60 percent of local agencies); offering extended clinic hours of operation beyond the routine workday (about 20 percent of local agencies offer early morning hours); and locating clinics at or near work sites, including various military installations (about 5 percent of local agencies). Our survey found that about 76 percent of the local WIC agency directors believed that their clinics are reasonably accessible for working women. In reaching this conclusion, the directors considered their clinic’s hours of operation, the amount of time that participants wait for service, and the ease with which participants are able to get appointments. Despite the widespread use of strategies to increase accessibility, 9 percent of WIC directors believe accessibility is still a problem for working women. In our discussions with these directors, the most frequently cited reason for rating accessibility as moderately or very difficult was the inability to operate during evenings or on Saturday because of lack of staff, staff’s resistance to working schedules beyond the routine workday, and/or the lack of safety in the area around the clinic after dark or on weekends. Our survey also identified several factors not directly related to the accessibility of clinic services that serve to limit participation by working women. The factors most frequently cited related to how working women view the program. Specifically, directors reported that some working women do not participate because they (1) lose interest in the program’s benefits as their income increases, (2) perceive a stigma attached to receiving WIC benefits, or (3) think the program is limited to those women who do not work. With respect to the first issue, 65 percent of the directors reported that working women lose interest in WIC benefits as their income rises. For example, one agency director reported that women gain a sense of pride when their income rises and they no longer want to participate in the program. Concerning the second issue, the stigma some women associate with WIC—how their participation in the program makes them appear to their friends and co-workers—is another significant factor limiting participation, according to about 57 percent of the local agency directors. Another aspect of the perceived stigma associated with WIC participation is related to the so-called “grocery store experience.” The use of WIC vouchers to purchase food in grocery stores can cause confusion and delays for both the participant-shopper and the store clerk at the check-out counter. For example, Texas requires its WIC participants to buy the cheapest brand of milk, evaporated milk, and cheese available in the store. Texas also requires participants to buy the lowest-cost 46-ounce fluid or 12-ounce frozen fruit juices from an approved list of types (orange, grapefruit, orange/grapefruit, purple grape, pineapple, orange/pineapple, and apple) and/or specific brands. In comparing the cost of WIC-approved items, participants must also consider such things as weekly store specials and cost per ounce in order to purchase the lowest-priced items. While these restrictions may lower the dollar amount that the state pays for WIC foods, it may also make food selections more confusing for participants. According to Texas WIC officials, participants and cashiers often have difficulty determining which products have the lowest price. Consequently, a delay in the check-out process may result in unwanted attention for the WIC participant. Finally, more than half of the directors indicated that a major factor limiting participation is that working women are not aware that they are eligible to participate in WIC. Furthermore, local agency officials in California and Texas said that WIC participants who were not working when they entered the program but who later go to work often assume that they are then no longer eligible for WIC and therefore drop out of the program. In September 1997, we reported that the states have used a variety of initiatives to control WIC costs. According to the WIC agency directors in the 50 states and the District of Columbia we surveyed, two practices in particular are saving millions of dollars. These two practices are (1) contracting with manufacturers to obtain rebates on WIC foods in addition to infant formula and (2) limiting authorized food selections by, for example, requiring participants to select brands of foods that have the lowest cost. With respect to rebates, nine state agencies received $6.2 million in rebates in fiscal year 1996 through individual or multistate contracts for two WIC-approved foods—infant cereal and/or infant fruit juices. Four of these state agencies and seven other state agencies—a total of 11 states—reported that they were considering, or were in the process of, expanding their use of rebates to foods other than infant formula. In May 1997, Delaware, one of the 11 states, joined the District of Columbia, Maryland, and West Virginia in a multistate rebate contract for infant cereal and juices. Another state, California, was the first state to expand its rebate program in March 1997 to include adult juices. California spends about $65 million annually on adult juice purchases. California’s WIC director told us that the state expects to collect about $12 million in annual rebates on the adult juices, thereby allowing approximately 30,000 more people to participate in the program each month. With respect to placing limits on food selections, all of the 48 state WIC directors responding to our survey reported that their agencies imposed limits on one or more of the food items eligible for program reimbursement. The states may specify certain brands; limit certain types of foods, such as allowing the purchase of block but not sliced cheese; restrict container sizes; and require the selection of only the lowest-cost brands. However, some types of restrictions are more widely used than others. For example, 47 WIC directors reported that their states’ participants are allowed to choose only certain container or package sizes of one or more food items, but only 20 directors reported that their states require participants to purchase the lowest-cost brand for one or more food items. While all states have one or more food selection restrictions, 17 of the 48 WIC directors responding to our questionnaire reported that their states are considering the use of additional limits on food selection to contain or reduce WIC costs. Separately or in conjunction with measures to contain food costs, we found that 39 state agencies have placed restrictions on their authorized retail outlets (food stores and pharmacies allowed to redeem WIC vouchers—commonly referred to as vendors) to hold down costs. For example, the prices for WIC food items charged by WIC vendors in Texas must not exceed by more than 8 percent the average prices charged by vendors doing a comparable dollar volume of business in the same area. Once selected, authorized WIC vendors must maintain competitive prices. According to Texas WIC officials, the state does not limit the number of vendors that can participate in WIC. However, Texas’ selection criteria for approving a vendor excludes many stores from the program. In addition, 18 WIC directors reported that their states restrict the number of vendors allowed to participate in the program by using ratios of participants to vendors. For example, Delaware used a ratio of 200 participants per store in fiscal year 1997 to determine the total number of vendors that could participate in the program in each WIC service area. By limiting the number of vendors, states can more frequently monitor vendors and conduct compliance investigations to detect and remove vendors from the program who commit fraud or other serious program violations, according to federal and state WIC officials. A July 1995 report by USDA’s Office of Inspector General found that the annual loss to WIC as a result of vendor fraud in one state could exceed $3 million. The WIC directors in 2 of the 39 states that reported limiting the number of vendors indicated that they are planning to introduce additional vendor initiatives, such as selecting vendors on the basis of competitive food pricing. We also found that opportunities exist to substantially lower the cost of special infant formula. Special formula, unlike the regular formula provided by WIC, is provided to infants with special dietary needs or medical conditions. Cost savings may be achieved if the states purchase special infant formula at wholesale instead of retail prices. The monthly retail cost of these special formulas can be high—ranging in one state we surveyed from $540 to $900 for each infant. These high costs occur in part because vendors’ retail prices are much higher than the wholesale cost. Twenty-one states avoid paying retail prices by purchasing the special formula directly from the manufacturers and distributing it to participants. For example, Pennsylvania turned to the direct purchase of special infant formula to address the lack of availability and high cost of vendor-provided formulas. It established a central distribution warehouse for special formulas in August 1996 to serve the less than 1 percent of WIC infants in the state—about 400—who needed special formula in fiscal year 1996. The program is expected to save about $100,000 annually. Additional savings may be possible if these 21 states are able to reduce or eliminate the authorization and monitoring costs of retail vendors and pharmacies that distribute only special infant formula. For example, by establishing its own central distribution warehouse, Pennsylvania plans to remove over 200 pharmacies from the program, resulting in significant administrative cost savings, according to the state WIC director. While the use of these cost containment practices could be expanded, our work found that a number of obstacles may discourage the states from adopting or expanding these practices. These obstacles include problems that states have with existing program restrictions on how additional funds made available through cost containment initiatives can be used and resistance from the retail community when states attempt to establish selection requirements or limit retail stores participating in the program. First, FNS policy requires that during the grant year, any savings from cost containment accrue to the food portion of the WIC grant, thereby allowing the states to provide food benefits to additional WIC applicants. None of the cost savings are automatically available to the states for support services, such as staffing, clinic facilities, voucher issuance sites, outreach, and other activities that are funded by WIC’s NSA (Nutrition Services and Administration) grants. These various support activities are needed to increase participation in the program, according to WIC directors. As a result, the states may not be able to serve more eligible persons or they may have to carry a substantial portion of the program’s support costs until the federal NSA grant is adjusted for the increased participation level—a process that can take up to 2 years, according to the National Association of WIC Directors. FNS officials pointed out that provisions in the federal regulations allow the states that have increased participation to use a limited amount of their food grant funds for support activities. However, some states may be reluctant to use this option because, as one director told us, doing so may be perceived as taking food away from babies. FNS and some state WIC officials told us that limiting the number of vendors in the program is an important aspect of containing WIC costs. However, they told us the retail community does not favor limits on the number of vendors that qualify to participate. Instead, the retail community favors the easing of restrictions on vendor eligibility thereby allowing more vendors that qualify to accept WIC vouchers. According to FNS officials, the amount that WIC spends for food would be substantially higher if stores with higher prices were authorized to participate in the program. To encourage the further implementation of WIC cost containment practices, we recommended in our September 1997 report that FNS work with the states to identify and implement strategies to reduce or eliminate such obstacles. These strategies could include modifying the policies and procedures that allow the states to use cost containment savings for the program’s support services and establishing regulatory guidelines for selecting vendors to participate in the program. FNS concurred with our findings and recommendations. We will continue to monitor the agency’s progress made in implementing strategies to reduce or eliminate obstacles to cost containment. Our survey also collected information on the practices that the states are using to ensure that program participants meet the program’s income and residency requirements. The states’ requirements for obtaining income documentation vary. Of the 48 WIC directors responding to our survey, 32 reported that their state agencies generally require applicants to provide documentation of income eligibility; 14 reported that their states did not require documentation and allowed applicants to self-declare their income; and 2 reported that income documentation procedures are determined by local WIC agencies. Of the 32 states requiring income documentation, 30 reported that their documentation requirement could be waived under certain conditions. Our review of state income documentation polices found that waiving an income documentation requirement can be routine. For example, we found that some states requiring documentation of income will waive the requirement and permit self-declaration of income if the applicants do not bring income documents to their certification meeting. While existing federal regulations allow the states to establish their own income documentation requirements for applicants, we are concerned that basing income eligibility on the applicants’ self-declarations of income may permit ineligible applicants to participate in WIC. However, the extent of this problem is unknown because there has not been a recent study of the number of program participants who are not eligible because of income. Information from a study that FNS has begun should enable that agency to determine whether changes in states’ requirements for income documentation are needed. Regarding residency requirements, we found that some states have not been requiring proof of residency and personal identification for program certification, as required by federal regulations. In our September 1997 report, we recommended that FNS take the necessary steps to ensure that state agencies require participants to provide identification and evidence that they reside in the states where they receive benefits. In February 1998, FNS issued a draft policy memorandum to its regional offices that is intended to stress the continuing importance of participant identification, residency, and income requirements and procedures to ensure integrity in the certification and food instrument issuance processes. Also, at the request of FNS, we presented our review’s findings and recommendations at the EBT and Program Integrity Conference jointly sponsored by the National Association of WIC Directors and FNS in December 1997. The conference highlighted the need to reduce ineligible participation and explored improved strategies to validate participants’ income and residency eligibility. FNS requires the states to operate a rebate program for infant formula. By negotiating rebates with manufacturers of infant formula purchased through WIC, the states greatly reduce their average per person food costs so that more people can be served. At the request of the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, we are currently reviewing the impacts that these rebates have had on non-WIC consumers of infant formula. Specifically, we will report on (1) how prices in the infant formula market changed for non-WIC purchasers and WIC agencies after the introduction of sole-source rebates, (2) whether there is any evidence indicating that non-WIC purchasers of infant formula subsidized WIC purchases through the prices they paid, and (3) whether the significant cost savings for WIC agencies under sole source rebates for infant formula have implications for the use of rebates for other WIC products. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed its completed reviews of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), focusing on the: (1) reasons that states had for not spending all of their federal grant funds; (2) efforts of WIC agencies to improve access to WIC benefits for working women; and (3) various practices states use to lower the costs of WIC and ensure that the incomes of WIC applicants' meet the program's eligibility requirements for participation. GAO noted that: (1) states had unspent WIC funds for a variety of reasons; (2) in fiscal year 1996, these funds totalled about $121.6 million, or about 3.3 percent of that year's $3.7 billion WIC grant; (2) some of these reasons were associated with the way WIC is structured; (3) virtually all the directors of local WIC agencies report that their clinics have taken steps to improve access to WIC benefits for working women; (4) the two most frequently cited strategies are: (a) scheduling appointments instead of taking participants on a first-come, first-served basis; and (b) allowing a person other than the participant to pick up food vouchers or checks, as well as nutrition information, and to pass these benefits on to the participant; (5) the states are using a variety of cost containment initiatives that have saved millions of dollars annually for WIC and enabled more individuals to participate in the program; and (6) some of these initiatives include obtaining rebates on WIC foods, limiting participants' food choices to lowest-cost items, and limiting the number of stores that participate in WIC.

With a few exceptions, the volume of salvage timber the Forest Service has offered for sale has remained fairly constant over the years. However, as the green (or nonsalvage) timber sale program has decreased in size, the salvage sale program has increased as a percentage of the total volume offered for sale. For example, even though the actual salvage timber offered for sale declined from about 2.9 billion board feet to 1.9 billion board feet in 1990 through 1996, it actually increased as a percent of total timber offered for sale from about 26 percent to 48 percent during this same period. The National Forest Management Act of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 472a), established the Salvage Sale Fund as a permanent appropriation, and the Congress appropriated $3 million in fiscal year 1977 to get it started. The act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to require timber purchasers to make deposits into the Salvage Sale Fund as part of the payment for the timber. Such deposits are then available to replenish the fund and pay for the costs of preparing and administering future salvage sales. As appropriations to fund the overall timber program have decreased, the importance of the Salvage Sale Fund as a source of funding has increased. For example, in fiscal year 1990, moneys from the Salvage Sale Fund represented 20 percent of all funds needed for the green and salvage timber programs, but by fiscal year 1996, the amount had risen to 45 percent. The Salvage Sale Fund is not the only fund in which salvage sale timber receipts are deposited. Salvage sale receipts not used to recover costs may be deposited into (1) the Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) Fund, where they are used to reforest harvested timberlands, and (2) the National Forest Fund, where they can be used to make required payments to the states, the Roads and Trails Fund, and other obligations. Under federal law, at the end of each fiscal year, 25 percent of all moneys received at each national forest, including moneys received from salvage sales, is to be paid to the state in which the forest is located. These funds are to be expended for public roads and schools. Federal law also requires that at the end of the fiscal year, 10 percent of all moneys received is to be deposited into the Roads and Trails Fund. These funds are to be expended for roads and trails in the forests from which the moneys were derived. The Forest Service’s guidelines require that a plan be prepared for each salvage sale or group of small sales. This plan determines the amount of receipts to be deposited into the Salvage Sale Fund to recover the sale’s costs. Specifically, the salvage sale plan identifies the sale’s volume, the sale’s direct and indirect costs, and any additional amount that may be collected to meet future program needs. The salvage sale plan is the only document in which these costs are estimated and identified on a sale-by-sale basis. The Forest Service’s accounting systems do not track actual sale-by-sale costs. The history of the Salvage Sale Fund has been one of a growing balance through fiscal year 1993 and then a declining balance for the next 3 years. From the start of fiscal year 1990 through the end of fiscal year 1993, the Salvage Sale Fund’s balance more than doubled, from $111 million to a high of $247 million (see table 1). Declines through fiscal year 1996 lowered the balance to $186 million, a drop of 25 percent. The fund’s ending balance declined from fiscal years 1994 through 1996 for the following reasons: In fiscal year 1994, $40.2 million of the fund’s balance was considered excess to the salvage sale program’s anticipated needs and was used for other authorized purposes. During fiscal year 1994, salvage timber offered for sale declined to its lowest level in almost 10 years. As a result, less salvage sale receipts were collected from these sales in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. In fiscal year 1995, the emergency salvage timber sale program was implemented and additional costs were incurred to prepare and administer sales that would generate receipts largely in future years. In fiscal year 1996, as costs for the emergency salvage timber sale program continued to rise, the Forest Service deposited $35.6 million originally intended for the Salvage Sale Fund into the National Forest Fund to cover a shortage in the funds needed to make the payment to the states and other obligations. In addition, Forest Service officials stated that lowered receipts resulted from the volume offered under the emergency salvage program because the salvage timber was of lower quality. Because the fund’s balance had declined for 3 years and because the salvage sale program’s obligations for the last 2 years exceeded deposits to the Salvage Sale Fund by more than $30 million, we asked Forest Service officials to provide us with information about the agency’s ability to meet the salvage sale program’s future needs with available funding levels. They told us that the Salvage Sale Fund’s obligations for fiscal year 1997 and 1998 will be much lower than those in fiscal year 1996 because they expect a lower volume of salvage timber to be offered for sale. In addition, the Forest Service projects that in fiscal year 1997, about $167 million in salvage sale receipts will be deposited into the fund to cover an estimated $172 million in obligations. Forest Service officials expect the fund’s fiscal year 1997 ending balance to be about $182 million, an amount they consider sufficient to meet expected needs of $153 million in fiscal year 1998. Several management practices that affect the flow of salvage sale receipts into the fund need to be improved to ensure more consistency in the salvage sale program. Specifically, these practices include how regions and forests (1) establish priorities for distributing salvage sale receipts, (2) establish estimates of costs to be recovered, (3) review salvage sale plans for completeness and accuracy, and (4) satisfactorily correct deficiencies. When timber sale receipts were at much higher levels, Forest Service regional and forest-level officials decided how to distribute receipts. As a result, none of the four forests we visited distributed salvage sale receipts in the same order or complied with the legislative distribution priorities. Recently, however, declining timber receipts, combined with concerns about meeting all required obligations, resulted in headquarters actions to clarify how receipts should be distributed. It is not yet clear whether these clarifications will ensure that regions and forests handle the distributions of receipts in keeping with the different legislative priorities applicable to salvage and green sale receipts. If the separate legislative priorities are not applied, salvage sale receipts could be used for other purposes before the fund is replenished to cover costs. The first legislative priority for the distribution of timber sale receipts is the required 25-percent payment to the states. Even though the 25-percent requirement applies to receipts from both salvage and green sales, it does not require that the payment be made from the same source that generated the receipts. For example, if the receipts from green sales are sufficient, then they may be used to make the payment to the states that are attributable to salvage sales. There is one basic difference in how salvage sale receipts and green sale receipts are to be handled once the 25-percent requirement is met: Salvage sale receipts must be deposited into the Salvage Sale Fund until the sale’s preparation and administration costs are recovered. This deposit must occur from salvage sale receipts because receipts from the sale of green timber may not be deposited to the Salvage Sale Fund. Once salvage sale costs are recovered, any remaining salvage sale receipts may then be deposited in accordance with the priorities attributable to green sales. Since September 1996, the Forest Service has made several attempts to clarify how timber sale receipts should be distributed. These include amendments to the manual and the handbook as well as both interim and draft guidelines. The Forest Service issued interim guidelines in January 1997 to provide guidance until a task force developed and completed national guidelines. This task force issued its first draft in June 1997, a second draft in August, and a final report on August 28, 1997. However, none of these documents—the amendments, the interim or draft guidelines, or the final task force report—clearly illustrated the separate priorities existing for the distribution of salvage and green timber sale receipts. In its report, the task force recommended establishing priority groups to distribute timber receipts. For example, the first priority group includes required commitments for the payments to the states, the payment to roads and trails, the payments for the next year’s planned purchaser-elect road program, and the recovery of required K-V reforestation costs. The second priority group includes the regional and local needs of the Salvage Sale Fund and other reforestation activities. However, the priority groupings do not show that, unlike green sale receipts, deposits to the Salvage Sale Fund must be made to recover costs before the identified K-V reforestation requirements are satisfied. If receipts are set aside for other activities before salvage sale costs are recovered, the amount remaining may be insufficient to adequately replenish the fund. The task force’s report has been sent to the regions for implementation. How it will be implemented and interpreted remains to be determined. The four regions we reviewed were all responding in different ways to the interim guidance they had received: Officials in the Southern Region stated that because the region has always met the payments to the states and the other required payments, they saw no reason to change their established priorities as a result of the interim guidance. The region and the forests will monitor the situation to ensure that the National Forest Fund can meet all of its obligations, but the forests will continue to decide how to distribute timber sale receipts. The Pacific Northwest Region and the Northern Region have adopted regional policies similar to those in the task force’s June draft, except that the priorities within the first category have been reordered. For example, required reforestation is listed before the payments to the states. The Pacific Southwest Region is following the January interim guidance. We reviewed the task force’s final report, including the new guidance, which clearly identifies the 25-percent payment to the states as the first priority and the appropriate source of funding for the Roads and Trails Fund, both of which were not always clear in earlier guidance. However, the relative priority of distributing receipts from salvage sales to the Salvage Sale Fund and to the K-V Fund remains unclear. For example, the guidance states that the Salvage Sale Fund takes priority over the K-V Fund for salvage sale receipts but later states that if insufficient value is received on a salvage sale to fund the needs of both the Salvage Sale Fund and the K-V Fund, then a decision must be made as to which fund will take priority. In addition, the transmittal letter leaves the relative priority between the Salvage Sale Fund and K-V Fund to the discretion of the responsible line officer. These statements could easily lead to continued confusion. Consequently, we remain concerned about whether the final version of the guidance will be clear enough to be correctly interpreted or consistently implemented by those who must use it. Our concern stems in part from the variety of regional practices we found for the interpretation and implementation of the interim and draft guidelines as well as for the other problems discussed below. A critical step in replenishing the Salvage Sale Fund is accurately estimating the amounts necessary to reimburse the fund for direct and indirect sale costs. Because the Forest Service does not account for actual costs on a sale-by-sale basis, these costs must be estimated using cost information from previous years. While these estimates are used to determine what can be deposited into the Salvage Sale Fund, the Forest Service has not provided detailed guidance on how these costs should be determined. The method used to estimate costs is left to the regions, which, in turn, often pass this decision along to the individual forests. This practice has led to a variety of cost development methods. At the four forests we reviewed, four different cost development methods were used. For salvage sales awarded in fiscal year 1995, the Clearwater National Forest developed costs using a 3-year average of cost data taken from the accrual-based Timber Sale Program Information and Reporting System; the Umatilla National Forest used fiscal year 1992 expenditure data taken from the cash-based Central Accounting System; the Stanislaus National Forest used a 3-year average of the Central Accounting System expenditure data; and the Homochitto National Forest developed its own cost estimates on the basis of its experience. The Forest Service does not account for costs on a sale-by-sale basis, and as a result, the method chosen to estimate these costs can have a substantial impact on the amount to be deposited in the fund. As the size of the salvage sale program changes, the costs associated with it rise and fall. Thus, the costs selected and the period chosen can have a significant effect on the amount identified as needed to replenish the fund. For example, if the Umatilla National Forest had used the 3-year average method utilized by the Stanislaus National Forest, its identified costs would have been $1.3 million instead of the $367,223 actually claimed. By selecting a method that incorrectly estimates the program’s cost, a forest runs the risk of not setting aside the amount necessary to finance the program in the future. (For a table showing the total costs for the sales examined in the four forests we reviewed, see app. II.) Forests need to accurately prepare salvage sale plans because these documents serve as the basis for depositing available receipts to the Salvage Sale Fund. At the four forests we reviewed, however, we found numerous errors. For example, (1) regional and headquarters overhead had not been included in the indirect costs, (2) overhead was calculated on overhead, (3) incorrect volumes were listed, (4) excessive allowable surcharges were calculated, and (5) basic computational errors were made. These errors and omissions point to a lack of adequate review of the salvage sale plans by managers at the forest and regional levels. The effect of these errors varied, understating costs in some places and overstating them in others. For example, of the 16 sales reviewed at the Umatilla National Forest, 6 overstated indirect costs and 7 understated them. The overall impact was an overstatement of about $21,000. At the Stanislaus National Forest, the program’s future needs were based on 150 percent of direct and indirect costs instead of the 50 percent permitted by the Forest Service’s handbook; this calculation overstated the amounts to be collected for the nine sales reviewed by almost $150,000. Furthermore, this incorrect calculation method has been in effect since at least 1991. We also found instances in which salvage sale plans were never prepared. At the Homochitto National Forest, 3 of the 19 sales we reviewed had no plan. Without a plan, there is no basis for distributing any receipts to the Salvage Sale Fund. This omission at the Homochitto National Forest cost the Salvage Sale Fund about $19,000 in deposits. Over the past 5 years, both the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General and various regional and headquarters teams within the Forest Service have reviewed the salvage sale program. These reviews have reported many management weaknesses similar to those we identified. However, many of these management weaknesses persist because the Forest Service has not communicated the results of these reviews to all regions or adequately followed up to ensure that corrective actions are taken. In 1992, the Office of Inspector General audited three Forest Service regions to determine whether the salvage sale program complied with the applicable laws and regulations and whether collections and receipts were appropriate. Among other things, the Inspector General found that the guidelines and monitoring of the salvage sale program were inadequate, improvements were needed in the management and in the collection of salvage sale funds, and controls over expenditures charged to the salvage sale program were inadequate. To correct these problems, the Inspector General recommended that the Forest Service provide detailed instructions to its field offices on the management of the salvage sale program and that the program be monitored on a regular basis. The Inspector General also recommended that detailed and specific instructions be established for the preparation of salvage sale plans in addressing allowable direct costs, the calculation of indirect costs, and permissible excess collections. In response to these recommendations, the Forest Service updated and clarified its manual and handbook and agreed to schedule additional reviews of its salvage sale program. However, at the four forests and regions that we reviewed, neither the guidance nor the monitoring is specific enough to address the problems we found. For example, while the guidance requires that estimated costs be included in salvage sale plans, it does not state how estimates should be calculated. The guidance also requires that costs be updated, but it does not state how or on what basis. The monitoring system put in place does not include provisions requiring follow-up to ensure that problems are corrected or that the weaknesses, problems, or best practices identified in one office are communicated throughout the agency so that changes can be made everywhere they are needed. The Forest Service conducts its own reviews of the salvage sale program by annually selecting one or two regional offices for in-depth analysis. During these reviews, headquarters and regional officials visit selected forests and examine guidelines, program direction, and accounting procedures. However, the problems or best practices identified during these reviews are not communicated throughout the agency so that changes can be made where needed. Consequently, the problems identified during a 1992 review were also identified as problems 3 years later in another region. Since 1992, each region that we visited had been selected for review. The Forest Service review teams found many of the same problems we identified, including incorrect calculation and updating of direct and indirect costs, inconsistent priorities in distributing salvage sale funds, failure to update salvage sale plans, and failure to collect the correct amount for the program’s future needs. Action plans were prepared to address the problems uncovered by the reviews, but the Forest Service did not share this information with other regions or do the follow-up necessary to ensure that the weaknesses were actually corrected. For example, when we asked Southern Region officials about the status of the action items in their September 1995 review, we were told that many of the items in the review that were targeted for completion by June 1996 were still open in June 1997. Headquarters officials said that because of limited staff, they seldom follow up to ensure that the problems are corrected, and they also do not report the results of their reviews to other regions. They said that they rely on regional officials to report on the status of corrective actions and that they would follow up on specific weaknesses during their next review. The Forest Service has established two task forces whose work may help improve some of the management practices affecting Salvage Sale Fund replenishment. The first task force, dealing with funding priorities, has already been discussed. The other task force is developing directions for calculating indirect costs, improving internal management controls over indirect costs, and identifying ways to best manage the K-V Fund. Forest Service officials expect, however, that some of these findings will be applicable to the management of the Salvage Sale Fund. Forest Service officials stated that the issuance date for the task force’s report is uncertain at this time. Over the years, the Forest Service has often used task forces to identify problems and recommend solutions. The results of these task forces’ studies, like those of activity reviews, are often thorough and constructive, and they could do much to correct identified problems if the recommendations were communicated and implemented. As we have pointed out, however, regions and forests do not always carry out suggestions or recommendations for change. As we stated in our testimony of July 31, 1997, the highly decentralized management structure of the Forest Service gives managers considerable autonomy and discretion for interpreting and applying the agency’s policies and directions. As a result, it will be a significant challenge for the Forest Service to ensure that the recommendations made by the two task forces will be fully and consistently implemented throughout the agency. The actions taken by the Forest Service in the past year to improve the management of the Salvage Sale Fund show a willingness to correct identified weaknesses. Task forces have completed the new guidance for the distribution of timber sale receipts and are identifying ways in which the management of the Salvage Sale Fund can be improved. Substantial progress has been made. The guidance on priorities, however, needs additional clarification to ensure compliance with the legislative priorities for the distribution of salvage sale receipts. In addition, concerns about management practices affecting fund replenishment still need to be resolved and corrective action implemented. The need for consistent action requires that the guidance include the identification of appropriate data sources, cost calculation methods, and specific monitoring and feedback activities. In addition, the correction of individual mistakes or errors may not result in solving systemic problems. When reviews identify best practices or mistakes, some mechanism is needed to communicate this information throughout the agency so that all locations benefit. To help ensure that appropriate and consistent practices are in place to manage the Salvage Sale Fund, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take the following actions: Clarify the agency’s guidance to emphasize that the Salvage Sale Fund takes priority over the K-V Fund for the distribution of salvage sale receipts until preparation and administration costs have been recovered. Establish national guidance that identifies acceptable data sources and methods for calculating the cost estimates that determine the fund’s replenishment requirements. Establish national procedures to ensure that salvage sale plans will be adequately reviewed to detect errors. Develop national follow-up procedures to ensure that errors, problems, or best practices found in one location are communicated, corrected, or implemented everywhere. We provided a draft of this report to the Forest Service for review and comment. The Forest Service said that the report accurately and fairly presented the information about the fund’s balance and the management practices affecting the replenishment of the fund. The Forest Service agreed with the recommendations for corrective action. To respond to the assignment objectives, we reviewed pertinent legislation, the agency’s guidance, the agency’s financial records, monitoring reports, and selected salvage sales. We spoke with representatives from Forest Service headquarters, four regional offices, and four national forest offices to discuss how the Forest Service manages the Salvage Sale Fund. We conducted our work from September 1996 through September 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I provides a detailed discussion of our scope and methodology. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Chief of the Forest Service, the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and appropriate congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at (206) 287-4810. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Sales of salvage timber represented nearly half of all timber offered for sale in fiscal year 1996. Because of this increase in salvage sales, the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations, asked us to provide information on the status of the fund’s balance and the management practices used by the Forest Service to replenish the Salvage Sale Fund. We agreed to provide this information in two phases. In phase one, we provided information on the uses and status of the fund and compared the timber sales receipts deposited in the Salvage Sale Fund to the outlays from the fund on a national, regional, and forest-level basis for fiscal years 1991 through 1995. The second phase provides a more in-depth assessment of the current status of the fund’s balance and the adequacy of the Forest Service’s efforts to replenish and manage the fund. To obtain information on the current status of the Salvage Sale Fund’s balance, we requested information on fiscal year 1996 receipts, expenditures, and the fund’s ending balance and reviewed the Forest Service’s fiscal year 1997 projections for salvage sale deposits and obligations. In addition, we spoke with the Department of Agriculture’s Office of General Counsel to establish the legislative distribution priorities for salvage sale receipts. To obtain information on the adequacy of management practices affecting the replenishment of the fund, we spoke with agency officials at all organizational levels. We also reviewed the agency’s guidance, financial records, and monitoring reports along with applicable laws and their legislative history. Specifically, we interviewed representatives from the Forest Management, Budgeting, and Financial Management offices at Forest Service headquarters, four regional offices, and four forest offices. The four regions we selected were chosen because they had large salvage sale programs, provided wide geographic coverage, and had a variety of salvage conditions ranging from fires to insect infestation. Within each region, one forest was selected for detailed review. Two of the forests—the Clearwater and Stanislaus—were chosen because they were included in our recent review of the emergency salvage sale program. We selected the Homochitto National Forest, within the National Forests in Mississippi, because of the extensive Southern Pine Beetle epidemic in fiscal year 1995 and the resulting large salvage sale program. Finally, we selected the Umatilla National Forest in Oregon because it had a large salvage sale program and had not been reviewed by GAO in recent years. Table I.1 provides the forests’ names, locations, and regions. We examined the Forest Service’s handbooks and manuals for guidance on how to develop direct and indirect salvage sale cost rates, distribute salvage sales receipts, develop salvage sale program budgets, and prepare individual salvage sale plans. To ascertain how this guidance was used, we performed a detailed review of the salvage sales awarded at the four forests in fiscal year 1995. Fiscal year 1995 was selected because most sales were prepared before the major impact of the emergency salvage sale program and because enough time had elapsed for many of the sales to be completed. For the Clearwater, Stanislaus, and Umatilla National Forests, we selected all salvage sales awarded in fiscal year 1995. Because of the extensive beetle epidemic in 1995, the Homochitto awarded more than 800 timber sale contracts and permits to sell the timber volume necessary to accomplish its salvage sale program. Because we were testing the system rather than extrapolating our findings to the whole, we randomly selected 13 contracts and 6 permits for detailed review. Our review of the salvage sale files also included examining pertinent data on sales volumes, the salvage sales’ collection plans, the sale areas’ improvement plans, and financial documents showing how the receipts were distributed among the various Forest Service funds. Because the Forest Service does not have a sale-by-sale accounting system, we used data on forest-level obligations as the basis for determining the charges to the Salvage Sale Fund. We did not perform a financial audit of these data, nor did we independently verify or test the reliability of the deposits, the fund’s balance, or other Forest Service-supplied data. However, the Forest Service’s financial statement audit reports for fiscal years 1992 through 1995 revealed significant internal control weaknesses in various accounting subsystems that resulted in unreliable accounting data, including timber-related data. Even with these weaknesses, we used the data because they were the only data available. We reviewed the agency-conducted activity reviews completed since fiscal year 1992 to determine whether the deficiencies we noted were similar to those identified internally. We then determined whether corrective action plans were developed and implemented. Finally, we reviewed the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General’s report issued in 1993 on the Forest Service’s Salvage Sale Fund and reviewed the documents provided by the Inspector General that explain the corrective actions taken by the Forest Service in response to the Inspector General’s recommendations. We conducted our review from September 1996 through September 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Clearwater (5 sales) Stanislaus (13 sales) Umatilla (16 sales) Alan R. Kasdan The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the status of the Salvage Sale Fund's balance and the management practices affecting the replenishment of the fund. GAO noted that: (1) after reaching a high of $247 million at the end of fiscal year (FY) 1993, the Salvage Sale Fund's balance declined 25 percent to $186 million at the end of FY 1996; (2) the decline occurred for a variety of reasons, and the fund's balance appears to be stabilizing in FY 1997; (3) if the Forest Service's estimates are correct, the Salvage Sale Fund's balance will total about $182 million at the end of FY 1997, a balance the Forest Service believes is sufficient to meet the estimated obligations for FY 1998; (4) several management practices that affect the flow of salvage sale receipts into the Salvage Sale Fund need to be improved; and (5) specifically, these practices include how regions and forests: (a) establish priorities for distributing salvage timber sale receipts; (b) establish estimates of the costs to recovered; (c) review salvage sale plans for completeness and accuracy; and (d) satisfactorily correct deficiencies.

37 2311 S 35th St Fort Pierce , FL 34981 (772) 466-8303 I used to frequent the Big Apple pizza in North Palm Beach, so when we were looking for a midpoint place to meet family, we chose this Big Apple Pizza location. When we arrived, it was empty, but there is ample seating available. Their tv's are tuned to sports, and many pictures are on the walls, including one of President Obama visiting there. We got garlic knots which are good, but there are the harder ones, I prefer soft, but they were still good. The salad and dressing was also good. We got a loaded pizza and a plain cheese pizza, both were huge and very good. While this location is off the beaten path, it is worth the drive. Great service and a great lunch for a good price. For $9 I got two slices of pizza, a drink, and a large salad. It's about five to ten minutes off the turnpike. They've also got a nice draft beer selection if that's something you're interested in. I got to this one because it's close to home. I like the owners and the employees there are very hospitable. No complaints here! We ordered takeout from here last night When I placed my order we were disappointed because we were told they did not have any soups at that location nor did they have the wedge salad Both were on their internet menu ... We got the sampler dinner... It was very good Spaghetti and sausage.... Not much sauce kind of plain tasting however the sausage was good but nothing exceptional Two slices of pizza... Was ok again not much sauce and the crust was very tough and chewy Their garlic knots were tasty but again very tough and chewy... Fed them to the dogs Side salads were good Canoili was good and the cheesecake was average Maybe it would have been much better at the restaurant but not so much delivery If in the area again I know we would not order takeout again but might give it a second chance and eat dine in Was disappointed but will give a second try My husband and I were new to the area and were looking for a good sandwich and pizza restaurant. And we found Big Apple..... great subs and great pizza. Fresh ingredients. Clean. Definitely will go again!!! Yes! It is worth it! So a funny thing happened while on another Ocala to Miami drive - Yup, I got hungry!! Was in a rush but just not in the mood for crappy food. -- Yelp-- Benchmarks -- I honestly did not remember why I tagged this pizza shop. I'm not a aficionado, heck, I don't even eat pizza that often. But trusting there had to be a good reason I took a sizable detour from the Turnpike. And IT WAS WORTH IT! Yep. I was very happy with my 2 slices mushrooms, roasted peppers and sausage. Plus a draft of 312 (don't judge me) So while waiting for the order, I went back through the reviews and quickly remember why I wanted to make a visit here. The social brouhaha after the POTUS hugged the owner, the subsequent dirty responses from (XXXXXX) people who have issue with the POTUS, and the noble response from the owner really demonstrated the depth of character of this man. As I pondered the reason why POTUS would "randomly" select here (did the secret service rely on Yelp also?), I also started to notice many of the pictures, T-shirts and letters of Thank you. Very near and dear to my heart, was the letter of from the Local Fire Chief asking patrons to consider supporting MDA and the "Fill the Boot" drive. What is clear, is the person who owns this restaurant has deep relationship with his community from what appears to be a generous heart. The pizza arrived, with these thoughts contemplating in my head. The first bite in and I was rewarded. Of special note, the crust has a special springy lightness, that I have found in only one other pizza shop, who owner comes from Philly. Coincidence? Not sure, but I suspect that when I finally get to Philly, I will be seeking out this special type of crust. In short - just go and enjoy!! Wonderful pizza tastes like home! Meatballs were awesome too. Little pricy but wonderful and worth the stop. Came in and sat down and waited. Never been here before and I was the only person in here. It took some type before someone asked if I needed something. Wasn't the best pizza just ok. This is a great place to go for a quick bite while at the school or in the area. Awesome decor, the employees are very friendly. Food is great and easy . Highly recommend this place It's pizza - no pizazz - pizza maker was yelling and using profanity to another person in the kitchen about another worker. Not very professional. Garlic knots gave the worst indigestion that I have had in years. We stopped by yesterday, on Labor Day, and were pleased to learn that the Monday-Tuesday special (a large pie for $8.49) was in effect even on a holiday. We added artichokes as a topping for $1.75, and between the two of us we very nearly finished the 16-inch pie. That's especially impressive considering that my wife doesn't usually like pizza. This one she liked. She remembered the place from the early 2000s, back when the restaurant's most famous guest was still in the Illinois State Senate, when she was going to IRCC. (Kids, that's what your mother called IRSC back in the day. She pronounced it 'irk'.) Since then, the Big Apple has gotten bigger, and has completely redecorated. We weren't quite sure whether to expect table service or counter service, since there was an 'order here' sign above the register but we were invited to choose a table and our server brought menus and took our order. Later, I refilled my own diet Pepsi from the fountain, but we also had refills brought to us. Maybe that's because it was dinnertime; maybe it's because my wife was using her crutches. When the pizza arrived, we dug in. The crust was thin and crackled a little bit, like you'd expect from a New York style pie. Artichokes were scattered lightly around, but as my wife pointed out, the amount of artichokes you'd hope for is charged in most other places as a double topping -- so we got a reasonable value for the money. If you want lots of artichoke, you can always order your 16" pizza with double artichokes for an extra $3.50 instead of $1.75. Easy enough. We were saddened that there was no lemon for the freshly brewed iced tea, not even packets of lemon juice. And when it was time to pile back into our car (which we just bought this weekend, and have not yet ruined), we hoped to have a plastic grocery sack to put our clamshell of leftovers into. A place that serves garlic knots really should have a leakproof takeout solution. But even missing those two things, we enjoyed ourselves and heard a great retelling of Big Apple's big day. Our server told the story well for someone who had just barely missed coming in on the day the Secret Service arrived to secure the place. She says the owner himself had even scolded the employee for interrupting his golf game, until he realized he really *did* need to get back to the store within an hour for the photo op of his life. I might not come in off the links just for Big Apple Pizza, especially if I was only shooting 10 above par (per hole -- hey, everyone starts somewhere). But I sure would return the next time I'm hungry in Fort Pierce. I have been traveling a lot, so I have been eating out a lot. Usually I am looking for something simple, quick and tasty. This place was recommended by a person at the place I was auditing and they were not wrong. Coming from Chicago, my expectations are high and I was not disappointed. Lovely, lovely food. Got the Big Apple White Pizza...very nice balance of cheeses and tomatoes. Also ordered some Sicilian slices with sausage that was amazing. I love a good sauce and this place does it right. My co-worker got the Big Apple Sampler Meatball Sliders. Sliders and wings were nice but the garlic knots were too much for me but I am not big on mega garlic. Co-worker thought they were great. What I will say though they were tasty with a nice buttery flavor. Will be my go to place when I return in 4 months for a follow up audit. Coming back from a weekend road trip Fort Pierce was the right distance in which to stop to get some grub. Kinda of in the mood for some tasty pizza, we launched Yelp and it pointed us to Big Apple Pizza. It was just ok. Here's the run down... We ordered a large pizza, 1/2 mushroom and 1/2 sausage. We ordered a small Antipasto salad. 1) 2 garlic rolls came with the salad. They weren't fully baked and in fact almost cold. 2) Salad was decent, and we ordered the house dressing (which was good). What threw me for a bit was that it was a pre packaged (ie commercial type) dressing, but it had big apple pizza's name on it. This made sense now that I remember seeing on the menu that you could take a bottle of dressing home. The impression it left me however was that stuff was made a long time ago, not fresh in the kitchen today or yesterday. Just my perception, but not a good one however. 3) They used canned mushrooms. We are a bit of stickler on this. Mushrooms shouldn't be green'ish. 4) I liked the sauce on the pizza. Sauce to me is the most important factor. 5) The cleanliness and upkeep of the restaurant was so so. Bathroom was decently clean, yet no soap. The soda machine was a bit broken. The buffet serving center looked a little run down. Good enough for the pass through. The wings here are amazing. Pizza is fantastic. Screw these negative reviewers. Yelp is not the place for political BS. Really liked this spot...the server was the owners daughter, not sure if she is always there, but I like when family works together at a restaurant. We had just got done moving to PSL, and after a week of hell, we were hungry and stumbled into this pizza joint... Very friendly server, and after ordering, the owner came and introduced himself, asking if we would like to try the vodka sauce over some penne...umm, cha...and so happy we did...best I have ever had. Then, the food came...wedding soup was top notch...garlic knots were right on...spag and meatball were very good, might have been a box pasta but very good sauce and meatball...and the cheese pizza was tasty as hell, very thin and foldable, just like a New York pie should be... Then, the owner came over and invited us to meet up and ride sometimes, I think because he knew we were new in town, and it was a very genuine offer...which we are going to take him up on... Our one regret, is that we did not save room for the cannolli...this time...I mean, since we will be back! Pizza was absolutely delicious. Just like I get in NY. Great antipasto salad and calzone was delicious. Highly recommend. I have been here several times. The canoles and strombolis are very good. The pizza is okay. One of the young ladies (I am not the best at descriptions) that works there has a bad attitude and seems indifferent, like she could care less whether you were there or not. When I go there, I always hope she isn't there so I will have a better dining experience. The owner seems to have the opposite attitude, I wish he could see she is not good for business. I stopped by on my summer family vacation this year. I was surprised to find a pizza joint that actually has the new york flavor and being from the Bronx, I know what am taking about... Pizza was good, staff equally and prices were affordable. A family of 4 bill came to $25 and we were all stuff... Will definitely recommend it and return next time am in town.. Decent food with a typical pizza shoppe look. Maybe it's because of the time we came to eat or the dishes that we ordered, but it wasn't exactly what we expected when going by the yelp reviews. The egg plant was definitely fresh but it was not cooked all the way through and my girlfriends chicken was somewhat chewy. Aside from the food, I respect what the owner is doing for his local community! I give him two thumbs up for that! ||||| A pizza shop owner lifted President Obama about a foot off the ground in a giant bearhug. Obama arrived at the Big Apple Pizza & Pasta Restaurant in Fort Pierce, Fla., at 2:55 p.m. There were only 10 customers at the time, but the owner, Scott Van Duzer, made up for the relatively empty shop. "Scott, what's going on man?" Obama shouted as he came through the door. "Scott, let me tell you, you are like the biggest pizza shop owner I've ever seen." He approached Van Duzer, 46, of Port St. Lucie, who stands 6-foot-3 and weighs 260 pounds. "Everybody look at these guns," Obama said, pointing to Van Duzer's monstrous pectoral muscles. "If I eat your pizza, will I look like that?" The two men laughed. They embraced. Van Duzer lifted the president a good foot off the ground. "Look at that!" Obama exclaimed once back on firm ground. "Man, are you a powerlifter or what?" Indeed, Van Duzer said later that he can bench-press 350 pounds. Van Duzer then gave Obama a tour of the restaurant. After their brief tour, Obama approached reporters and told why we stopped at Van Duzer's shop. "One of the reasons that we wanted to stop by is that Scott has been doing unbelievable work out of this pizza shop in promoting the importance of donating blood," Potus said. "And so he has set some records here in Florida. He has received commendations from the White House, the surgeon general, he has galvanized and mobilized the local community and he's educating kids and folks all across the country on this issue. "So here's an example of somebody who is doing well but he's also giving back. So, we just want to say how proud we are of him. I still wonder how he got these biceps, but what we know is that the guy's just got a big heart along with big pecs. So, we're very proud of him and we just want to say thank you for all the great work." Van Duzer, who said he played basketball, football and baseball in high school, said he is a registered Republican, yet voted for Obama in 2008 and plans to do so again in November. "I don't vote party line, I vote who I feel comfortable with, and I do feel extremely comfortable with him," Van Duzer said. Of the Secret Service agents possibly flipping out over Van Duzer lifting the president of the United States, he said: "He said I was all right as long as I didn’t take him away." Read more about: Barack Obama, Florida 2012, Scott Van Duzer ||||| Vice President Joe Biden was looking to cozy up with voters as he toured Ohio this weekend, but he did not imagine that an Ohio woman would nearly end up in his lap. Vice President Joe Biden's talks to customers during a stop at Cruisers Diner, Sunday, Sept. 9, 2012, in Seaman, Ohio. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) (Associated Press) Vice President Joe Biden visits with patrons over lunch at Cruisers Diner, Sunday, Sept. 9, 2012, in Seaman, Ohio. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) (Associated Press) Biden was chatting up customers in the Cruisers Diner in southern Ohio Sunday when he met a group of motorcycle riders in black leather vests and bandanas. A female group member was watching, and Biden waved her over, telling her, "I know who runs the show." The woman had no place to sit, so Biden pulled a chair in front of himself and pulled her nearly into his lap. He put his hands on her shoulders and leaned in for a conversation as photographers snapped away.

In a weird day on the trail, President Obama was picked up and Joe Biden nearly picked up a biker gal—at least judging by the photographs. Obama visited a pizza joint in Florida yesterday where owner Scott Van Duzer hugged him so hard that the president was lifted right off his feet, Politico reports. Even weirder: Van Duzer is a registered Republican who voted for Obama in 2008 and plans to vote for him again. Sadly, Obama's airlift triggered a war of comments on the restaurant's Yelp page, with reviewers trading politically charged one-star and five-star reviews, CBS News reports. As for Biden, he was pressing the flesh at a diner in southern Ohio when he encountered a group of motorbike riders. Saying “I know who runs the show," he called over a female biker and pulled up a chair so close that the two practically snuggled, reports the AP. Note how nervous her biker buddies are watching her have fun with the VP.

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction governs how international parental child abduction disputes are adjudicated. It requires that party states identify a lead government agency (called a “central authority”) to serve as a central point of contact and to initiate or facilitate judicial or administrative proceedings. The State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, is the central authority for the United States. Germany has identified the Federal Prosecutor General as its central authority. The United States and other countries, especially France and the United Kingdom, have expressed concerns about German authorities’ handling of Hague Convention cases. In May 1999, State reported to Congress that the German administrative and judicial processing of abduction cases took 18 months or longer, a period State considered unacceptable. In October 2000, State further reported that the systemic failure of German courts to enforce contempt sanctions allowed abducting parents to resist enforcement of visitation orders indefinitely. In addition, a May 2000 congressional resolution cited Germany, along with other countries, for not meeting their commitments under the Hague Convention. Also, media in both the United States and Germany have actively reported on this issue, focusing on a number of high-profile, controversial cases. We reported that between January 1, 1995, and May 15, 2000, there were 257 cases where U.S. parents sought the return of, or visitation with, their children in Germany. According to the State Department, there were 17 cases pending German judicial action as of March 1, 2001. In June 2000, for the first time since both countries signed (and became states party to) the Hague Convention, discussion of specific cases was elevated to the presidential level. At that time, President Clinton and Chancellor Schroeder, the German head of Government, met in Berlin and, according to the State Department, discussed a number of high-profile abduction cases among other bilateral issues. Their meeting resulted in the establishment of a U.S.-German working group on international parental child abductions. The working group met on June 27, July 24 and 25, September 25 and 26, 2000, and January 8 and 9, 2001, to discuss the concerns of each country and to seek solutions. Since July 1999, Germany has taken steps designed to improve its handling of parental child abduction cases under the 1980 Hague Convention. The most significant actions are summarized in table 1. Our analysis of information obtained in Germany and case data in Washington, D.C., indicates that these changes may have a positive effect on current and future cases. Because most German actions are very recent, however, it will take time for case outcomes to fully reflect their effect. These changes may not affect cases already decided by German courts. Although the task force is working to find acceptable solutions on some closed cases, German authorities said they will not revisit prior court rulings. State Department officials accepted this position even though they disagreed with some past decisions. Germany established a special task force in October 2000 to lead German efforts to improve its handling of Hague Convention cases. The task force has five members, including a family court judge, a family law specialist, and two senior-level Ministry of Justice officials who joined the task force for bilateral discussions on parental child abduction cases with the United States. Based on our discussions with members of the task force, they appear to understand Germany’s obligations under the Hague Convention and the areas in which German reforms may be needed. The task force has been funded for 3 years, until September 2003. The task force director explained that improvements in Germany’s handling of these cases should increase over the life of the task force and that, as a result, there should be no need to extend the task force beyond that time. The task force has two primary responsibilities: assisting in the resolution of difficult cases and facilitating and monitoring reforms in German institutions. The task force’s influence over difficult cases is limited because German courts, which enjoy substantial independence under Germany’s constitution, make the final decisions on abduction cases. Nevertheless, the director said that there were a number of actions that the task force planned to take to help facilitate consistent case outcomes. For example, the task force plans to provide information to the German youth authority on Hague Convention provisions and to left-behind parents and their lawyers regarding German legal processes and institutions. The task force director indicated that it also plans to promote out-of-court, nonjudicial mediation, especially for long-standing, difficult cases, including cases in which a court has ruled against a left-behind parent. Because the German task force had been active for only a few months without having concluded any of its initiatives, we could not determine whether it could affect the outcome of U.S. cases. As of March 1, 2001, the task force told us that they were actively involved with six high-profile cases already decided by German courts. Regarding the reform process, the task force is monitoring court proceedings and decisions and collecting data on observations by other governments and left-behind parents regarding how German authorities are handling these cases. Using this information, the task force will determine whether and to what extent it needs to get involved to facilitate the resolution of specific cases or encourage systemic change. The task force also serves as a facilitator for the German reforms discussed below. According to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Secretariat, which monitors treaties on private international law, a well-trained and experienced judiciary is key to effectively implementing the Hague Convention. German government officials and judges told us that lack of judicial familiarity with the application of Hague Convention provisions has been a major problem affecting case decisions. German judges told us that a judge might not be familiar with the Hague Convention because he or she may not have previously presided over a Convention case. The Hague Convention requires that, barring extreme circumstances, children be returned to their country of habitual residence. Once returned, a court in that country will decide custody. However, German officials and lawyers indicated that because of limited experience with Hague Convention requirements, some German judges may view their role differently. In these cases, German judges may believe that they are expected to decide the child’s custody, applying German family law, rather than applying Hague Convention provisions. This could result in a judge ruling in favor of the abducting parent and denying return. To enhance Hague Convention expertise, German authorities have limited the number of courts and judges hearing such cases and have begun training them on the Hague Convention provisions. To promote judicial expertise in handling Hague Convention cases, the German parliament enacted legislation in July 1999, limiting the number of courts with jurisdiction to hear Hague Convention cases from 600 to 24. This resulted in a reduction in the number of judges with jurisdiction to hear such cases from approximately 2,000 to 200 judges. This legislative initiative, supported by the United States, was largely in response to criticism and pressure from France and the United Kingdom, two Hague Convention party states with long-standing concerns about German courts’ decisions on Hague Convention cases. In September 2000, in addition to the nationwide reductions, the German State Secretary encouraged further reductions in the number of judges hearing Hague Convention cases. According to a judge with the task force, the Ministry of Justice cannot order a reduction; it can only be reached and made effective by the judges themselves. Family courts in Munich and Dusseldorf have decided to reduce the number of judges hearing such cases to two—a primary and secondary judge. Other family courts in Germany have expressed interest in following the Munich and Dusseldorf courts but have not yet acted. According to German lawyers handling Hague Convention cases, the concentration of Hague cases among fewer judges should improve case handling. For example, they said that the reduction in the number of judges hearing cases should result in fewer applications of the Article 13b exception to the Hague Convention. Under this exception, a party state can deny the return of a child if the return, in the court’s opinion, would pose a grave risk to the child’s mental or physical well-being. According to officials from the Hague Secretariat and the U.S. and German governments, this exception should be narrowly applied and not liberally used as a vehicle for denying a child’s return. However, according to the State Department, some German judges have interpreted the exception too liberally and made “unconscionably broad” use of the Hague Convention exception in a number of cases. The German task force acknowledged that German judges used this exception too liberally in some past cases. In our September 2000 report on the status of U.S. parental child abductions to Germany, we reported that, for the 172 closed cases where the child was not returned to the United States, German courts used the Article 13b exception 14 times (or 8 percent). Since September, German courts under the new 24-court system used the Article 13b exception once. That is, for cases handled under the new court structure, German courts used the Article 13b exception once in 30 (3 percent) cases, compared with 14 instances in 172 (8 percent) decided cases under the old structure. To further familiarize judges with Hague Convention standards and procedures, the Ministry of Justice coordinated two 3-day training conferences in January and February 2001. The training conferences were an effort to enhance common knowledge and expertise about the goals of the Hague Convention among German judges with jurisdiction over these cases. These conferences focused on the (1) creation and goals of the Hague Convention, (2) legal jurisdiction and provisions under the Convention, and (3) return and access rights and their enforcement under the Convention. Ministry of Justice officials told us that their role was limited to facilitating and coordinating the conferences while knowledgeable and experienced judges and lawyers conducted conference sessions for participating judges. In addition, Germany, the United States, and the Hague Secretariat have discussed plans to convene a conference among a number of Hague Convention party states in late 2001 to promote consistency in Convention interpretation and foster closer relationships. This conference would cover such topics as the intent of the Hague Convention, restricted use of Convention exception provisions, and enforcement of return and access decisions. According to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Secretariat, prompt access to the courts is a key factor to the effective implementation of the Hague Convention. The longer a child remains in his environment, and bonds with the abducting parent, the less willing a court may be to order the child’s return. In its May 1999 report, State cited Germany for lengthy case processing. We reported in September 2000 that German authorities took a median of 288 days to process Hague Convention abduction and access cases. Although Germany has not established a specific time limit for case adjudication, the German task force acknowledged that German courts have taken too long to adjudicate abduction cases in the past. Officials from the central authority in Bonn told us that they have changed their administrative procedures to expedite case application filing and court notification. In October 2000, the central authority established a policy to fully process and forward applications to the competent court within 7 days of receipt of a complete application. Before October 2000, the central authority took about 30 days. Only one of the cases we reviewed was opened after October 2000, when the new administrative procedures were put in place. This case was originally sent to the German central authority, which promptly transferred the case to French authorities upon learning from the U.S. left-behind parent that the abducting parent had fled to France. In addition to lengthy administrative procedures, German Ministry of Justice officials conceded that German proceedings can be too lengthy, citing some judges’ desire to hear the child’s opinion and to request lengthy psychological reports from German youth authorities. Obtaining a child’s testimony and youth reports are standard practices for deciding domestic custody cases. Collecting and analyzing all of this evidence before making a decision takes considerable time. According to one Ministry official, judges will depend less on psychological reports, which are geared more for domestic child custody cases, as they become more knowledgeable of Hague Convention procedures and requirements, which do not require such evidence. According to U.S. and German central authority officials, Hague Convention cases in Germany are being processed more expeditiously than before. Of the 43 U.S. cases opened since July 1999, when the number of courts and judges was reduced, 30 were closed by January 31, 2001. The median duration of cases was 147 days. For cases closed from January 1, 1995, through June 30, 1999, the median duration case was 304 days. Despite international criticism, some German courts are still reluctant to enforce court-ordered visitation rights of left-behind parents. German Ministry of Justice officials conceded that enforcement remains a problem and acknowledged that their ministry needs to work with the courts to change existing practices. The State Department indicated that it is seeking comprehensive information about German judicial enforcement practices and exploring options to encourage reforms. State officials told us that failure to enforce court-ordered visitation undermines the Hague Convention. We believe that, if this problem persists, the impact of the reforms being implemented could be undermined. In its October 6, 2000, compliance report to Congress, the State Department reported that German courts systematically fail to enforce court-ordered visitation, thus allowing abducting parents to resist enforcement of orders indefinitely. We identified two cases where left- behind parents in the United States were seeking the enforcement of their German court-ordered visitation rights. In both cases, German judges failed to enforce the orders when the abducting parent refused to cooperate. According to German judges, domestic law does not permit the use of physical force to enforce visitation orders. In addition, they told us that they are reluctant to employ existing sanctions because they fear that such actions would have a detrimental affect on the child. For example, incarcerating an abducting parent, which is one of the enforcement tools available to German judges, will separate the child from the parent. According to German judges, this could impact the child psychologically. State officials are seeking detailed information about Germany’s judicial enforcement mechanisms and exploring ways to encourage German courts to change existing practices. They indicated that they have raised this issue at each of the working group meetings since June 2000. Although enforcement of visitation orders was not on the agenda for Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 20, 2001, meeting in the United States with Germany’s Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, the topic was discussed during a U.S.-German bilateral meeting in the Netherlands on March 29, 2001. State indicated that it plans to continue raising the issue at all future meetings with German officials on the task force and at the central authority. State also plans to reserve positions in the International Visitor Program for German judges to discuss enforcement of visitation orders, among other issues. According to State, although the United States can attempt to influence German actions, only German authorities can make the decision to act. Germany’s initiatives to enhance judicial expertise and accelerate case processing are steps that have potential to (1) positively affect German application of the provisions of the Hague Convention and (2) reduce the time taken to adjudicate cases. Because the reforms are recent, there are only a limited number of cases to demonstrate the actual effect of the initiatives. Germany has not acted, however, to improve its enforcement of visitation orders. This is a key concern of the State Department. Moreover, we believe that the failure to address the German courts’ reluctance to enforce visitation orders could undermine Germany’s efforts to improve its handling of Hague Convention cases. We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, which agreed with the report’s conclusion and provided us with technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Colin L. Powell, the Secretary of State, and interested congressional committees. We will make copies available to others upon request. Please contact me on (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Another GAO contact and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix III. The State Department’s consulate offices can provide a variety of in- country assistance to left-behind parents involved in child custody conflicts. The State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues in Washington, D.C., can request consular officers to locate and report on the child’s welfare, conduct home visits, and assist in obtaining case status information. In addition, the U.S. embassy and consulate offices can provide left-behind parents with information on attorneys who handle Hague Convention cases and can contact or refer a left-behind parent to German agencies that can provide assistance. According to U.S. consular officials in Germany, a common request from left-behind parents is to obtain the telephone number where the child can be reached. In more complicated cases where a left-behind parent has had no contact with the child, consular officials may be asked to write letters to various registration offices in Germany to locate the child’s relatives. Consular officials can also perform home visits with the child when requested by a left-behind parent and consented to by the foreign parent. According to State, consular officers conduct most home visits unless (1) the foreign parent refuses a visit, (2) a child lives a great distance from the consular office, or (3) the workload of the consular official prohibits a personal visit. In addition, U.S. consular officials can obtain from German authorities information about the status of cases and report this information to both parents. They can also seek clarification as to how a particular aspect of a case is proceeding. According to U.S. consular officials in Germany, 97 inquiries about child welfare and location and 23 home visits were conducted in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 (see table 2). In addition to citing specific services they provide to left-behind parents, U.S. consular officials told us that they have been more closely involved in helping the Office of Children’s Issues to monitor the resolution of U.S. Hague Convention cases since U.S. government attention on U.S. children abducted to Germany heightened in 2000. During our fieldwork in November 2000, we found that these officials were involved in organizing meetings and maintaining communication with the German central authority and Ministry of Justice on the status of U.S. cases. For example, consular officials in Berlin provided logistical support for U.S.-German working group meetings held in July and September 2000. Our review focused on congressional concerns about Germany’s handling of U.S. parental child abduction cases under the Hague Convention. To gather information for our analysis, we interviewed more than 40 key officials and representatives from the State Department, the German government, the Hague Secretariat in the Netherlands, and organizations dedicated to researching and understanding issues associated with international parental child abduction. To identify what actions Germany has taken or plans it has under way to address U.S. concerns about Germany’s handling of parental child abduction cases, we reviewed State Department reports from May 1999 to January 2001 that documented systemic problems with Germany’s implementation of the Hague Convention and identified German actions taken or planned. These reports also identified State’s goals and timetables for Germany to take remedial measures. To confirm and expand our understanding of information in these reports, we conducted fieldwork in Berlin, Bonn, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Munich, and Potsdam, Germany. We interviewed senior German justice ministry officials, local family court judges, social workers, and private attorneys in those cities. We also interviewed officials from the German central authority, U.S. officials in Germany supporting State Department efforts to resolve abduction cases, and a French judge, seconded to the German Ministry of Justice to work on difficult German-French Hague Convention cases. To determine how Germany’s actions have affected the handling and outcome of U.S. cases, we reviewed the status, outcome, and other characteristics of cases adjudicated after German authorities began taking actions. We reviewed files that State’s Office of Children’s Issues maintains on cases initiated by left-behind parents from July 1999, when Germany began to concentrate the number of family courts hearing international abduction cases under the Hague Convention, through January 2001. These files included administrative, judicial, and communicative information related to each case. We recorded the results of our analysis of State’s files in a database and subsequently performed independent checks to ensure that data for each case were accurate. We compared the outcomes of cases opened and closed from July 1999 through January 2001 with those outcomes from cases opened and closed from January 1995 through June 1999. We performed our work from October 2000 through March 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In addition to the contact named above, Michael Zola, Janice Villar Morrison, and Mark Dowling made key contributions to this report.

During the last several years, the United States has criticized Germany's handling of international parental child abduction cases that have been filed by U.S. parents. Both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government have criticized Germany for not fully and consistently following the criteria and procedures established under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which governs such cases. The primary criticisms include the inappropriate use by German courts of certain provisions of the Hague Convention to justify retaining abducted children in Germany, the length of time it has taken to adjudicate cases, and the failure to enforce left-behind parents' visitation rights. GAO examined the actions that Germany has taken or plans to take to reform its handling of international parental child abduction cases and how these actions may affect U.S. cases. GAO found that German authorities have pledged their commitment to take steps to improve the handling of Hague Convention cases and Germany has taken action to address two of the three primary criticisms. Germany has established a task force to monitor German reforms and active cases, initiated efforts to build expertise among judges deciding Hague Convention cases, and changed its processes to accelerate case handling. Despite these reforms, Germany has not acted to improve enforcement of visitation rights granted by German courts. The German courts' reluctance to enforce visitation orders is hampering Germany's efforts to improve its handling of Hague Convention cases.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a grants and civil rights statute which provides federal funding to the states to help provide education for children with disabilities. If a state receives funds under IDEA, it must make available a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children with disabilities in the state. Another key requirement of IDEA is "child find" which requires that all children with disabilities be located, identified, and evaluated. Education for children with disabilities in private schools is included in IDEA, but the requirements of the statute for children in private schools are not always the same as the requirements for children with disabilities in public schools. For example, there are specific requirements delineated regarding private schools. Issues concerning what services are required for children with disabilities placed in private schools, and who is to pay for these services, have been a continuing source of controversy under IDEA. Under the law prior to the enactment of P.L. 105-17 in 1997, states were required to set forth policies and procedures to ensure that provision was made for the participation of children with disabilities who are enrolled in private schools by their parents consistent with the number and location of these children. These requirements were further detailed in regulations which required that local education agencies (LEAs) provide private school students an opportunity for equitable participation in program benefits and that these benefits had to be "comparable in quality, scope, and opportunity for participation to the program benefits" provided to students in the public schools. The vagueness of the statute and the "equitable participation" standard led to differences among the states and localities and to differences among the courts. Prior to P.L. 105-17 , the courts of appeals that had considered these issues had sharply divergent views. Some courts gave local authorities broad discretion to decide whether to provide services for children with disabilities in private schools, which generally resulted in fewer services to such children, while others attempted to equalize the costs for public and private school children. The Supreme Court had granted certiorari in several of these cases, but when Congress rewrote the law in 1997, the Court vacated and remanded these cases. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 rejected the "equitable participation" standard and provided that to the extent consistent with the number and location of children with disabilities in the state who were enrolled in private schools by their parents, provision was made for the participation of these children in programs assisted by Part B by providing them with special education and related services. The amounts expended for these services by an LEA were to be equal to a proportionate amount of federal funds made available to the local educational agency under Part B of IDEA. These services could be provided to children with disabilities on the premises of private schools, including parochial, elementary, and secondary schools. There was also a requirement that the statutory provisions relating to "child find," identifying children with disabilities, are applicable to children enrolled in private schools, including parochial schools. Much of the 1997 language regarding private schools was kept in the 2004 reauthorization, but changes to these provisions were made, and these are discussed in more detail in the subsequent discussion of current law. Generally, the Senate report observed that "the intent of these changes is to clarify the responsibilities of LEAs to ensure that services to these children are provided in a fair and equitable manner." In addition, the Senate report stated that "many of the changes reflect current policy enumerated either in existing IDEA regulations or the No Child Left Behind Act." The House report noted that "the bill makes a number of changes to clarify the responsibilities of local educational agencies to children with disabilities who are placed by their parents in private schools. The Committee feels that these are important changes that will resolve a number of issues that have been the subject of an increasing amount of contention in the last few years." Under current law, there are several ways a child with a disability may be placed in a private school, and the LEA's responsibilities under IDEA vary depending on the type of placement. A child with a disability may be placed in a private school by the LEA or state educational agency (SEA) as a means of fulfilling the FAPE requirement for the child. In this situation, the full cost is paid for by the LEA or the SEA. A child with a disability may also be unilaterally placed in a private school by his or her parents. In this situation, the cost of the private school placement is not paid by the LEA unless a hearing officer or a court makes certain findings. IDEA states in part, (ii) REIMBURSEMENT FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL PLACEMENT.—If the parents of a child with a disability, who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency, enroll the child in a private elementary school or secondary school without the consent of or referral by the public agency, a court or a hearing officer may require the agency to reimburse the parents for the cost of the enrollment if the court or hearing officer finds that the agency had not made a free appropriate public education available to the child in a timely manner prior to that enrollment. However, IDEA does require some services for children in private schools, even if they are unilaterally placed there by their parents, and there is no finding that FAPE was not made available to the child. In this situation, IDEA requires that a proportionate amount of the federal funds shall be made available. As noted previously, sometimes parents place their child in a private school when they disagree with the LEA concerning whether the LEA can provide FAPE. In School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts , the Supreme Court held that the statutory provision granting courts the right to grant such relief as the court deems appropriate includes the power to order school authorities to reimburse parents for private school expenditures. However, this reimbursement is permitted only if a court ultimately determines that the private school placement, rather than a proposed individualized education program (IEP), is proper under the act. The reimbursement may be reduced or denied if the child's parents did not give certain notice, if the parents did not make the child available for an evaluation by the LEA, or if a court finds the parents' actions unreasonable. The cost of reimbursement is not to be reduced or denied for the failure to provide notice if the school prevented the parent from providing such notice, the parents had not received notice of the notice requirement, or compliance would likely result in physical harm to the child. In addition, at the discretion of a court or hearing officer , the reimbursement may not be reduced or denied if the parent is illiterate or cannot write in English or compliance with the notice requirement would likely result in serious emotional harm to the child (§612(a)(10)(C)(iv)). The issue of whether FAPE has been or will be provided is a complex one that has been at the crux of many judicial decisions, including those concerning reimbursement for parental private school placement. The first IDEA case to reach the Supreme Court, Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, remains a seminal decision on the requirements of FAPE. The Court held in Rowley that the requirement of FAPE is met when a child is provided with personalized instruction with sufficient support services to benefit educationally from that instruction. This instruction must be provided at public expense, meet the state's educational standards. approximate the grade levels used in the state's regular education, and comport with the child's IEP. Rowley's application to particular fact patterns remains a much-litigated issue. The Supreme Court has also addressed the issue of whether parents can receive reimbursement from an LEA for unilaterally placing their child in a private school even if the child has never received IDEA services. In the Supreme Court's most recent IDEA decision, Forest Grove School District v. T.A., the Court held that IDEA authorized reimbursement for private special education services when a public school fails to provide FAPE and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special education services through the public school. The Court emphasized that "[i]t would be particularly strange for the Act to provide a remedy ... when a school district offers a child inadequate ... [special education] services but to leave parents without relief in the more egregious situation in which the school district unreasonably denies a child access to such services altogether." Recent lower court decisions have held that if the child is making some educational progress and the public school has provided an IEP calculated to provide for continued progress, the requirements of FAPE are met and the child is not entitled to a private school placement. For example, in M.H. and J.H. v. Monroe-Woodbury Central School District , the court found that the child's IEP was adequate and, therefore, the parents were not entitled to tuition reimbursement for a private school placement. These same standards have been applied when parents seek to place their child in a private school different from the private school where the school district has placed the child. In addition, if a private school does not adequately address the child's educational needs, the court may not require private school tuition reimbursement. Courts have held that reimbursement for private school tuition is barred if parents arrange for private school educational services without notifying the LEA of their problems with their child's IDEA services. Reimbursement is also barred if the parents act unreasonably in their relations with the school or if the allegation concerns procedural violations that do not rise to a level of substantive harm. Children with disabilities may be unilaterally placed in a private school by their parents in situations where the parents do not argue for tuition reimbursement. Generally, children with disabilities enrolled by their parents in private schools are to be provided special education and related services to the extent consistent with the number and location of such children in the school district served by a LEA pursuant to several requirements. This general provision was changed in 2004 from previous law by the addition of the requirement that the children be located in the school district served by the LEA. In other words, the LEA responsible for implementing IDEA is the LEA in the area where the private school is located. The Senate report described this change as protecting "LEAs from having to work with private schools located in multiple jurisdictions when students attend private schools across district lines." Although the intent was to protect LEAs from working with private schools in multiple jurisdictions, this provision has generated considerable controversy. A detailed discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this report; however, several of the issues raised include the disproportional effect on LEAs with large concentrations of private schools, the lack of change in the funding formula to reflect the change, and potential conflicts with state laws. In addition to the general LEA responsibility discussed above, there are also five specific requirements regarding parentally placed children: Funds expended by the LEA, including direct services to parentally placed private school children, shall be equal to a proportionate amount of federal funds made available under part B of IDEA. The LEA, after timely and meaningful consultation with representatives of private schools, shall conduct a thorough and complete child find process to determine the number of children with disabilities who are parentally placed in private schools. Services may be provided to children on the premises of private, including religious, schools, to the extent consistent with law. State and local funds may supplement, but not supplant, the proportionate amount of federal funds required to be expended. Each LEA must maintain records and provide to the SEA the number of children evaluated, the number of children determined to have disabilities, and the number of children served under the private school provisions. However, although IDEA does require services to parentally placed children, it should be emphasized that no parentally placed child has an individual right to receive the services that child would receive if enrolled in the public school. IDEA contains requirements concerning LEA consultation with private school officials and representatives of the parents of parentally placed private school children with disabilities. This consultation is to include the child find process and how parentally placed private school children with disabilities can participate equitably; the determination of the proportionate amount of federal funds available to serve parentally placed private school children with disabilities, including how that amount was calculated; the consultation process among the LEA, private school officials, and representatives of parents of parentally placed private school children with disabilities, including how the process will operate; how, where, and by whom special education and related services will be provided for parentally placed private school children with disabilities, including a discussion of the types of services (including direct services and alternate service delivery mechanisms), how the services will be apportioned if there are insufficient funds to serve all children, and how and when these decisions will be made; and how the LEA shall provide a written explanation to private school officials of the reasons why the LEA chose not to provide services if the LEA and private school officials disagree. A written affirmation of the consultation signed by the representatives of the participating private schools is required by the law. If the private school representatives do not sign within a reasonable period of time, the LEA shall forward the documentation to the SEA. A private school official has the right to submit a complaint to the SEA alleging that the LEA did not engage in meaningful and timely consultation or did not give due consideration to the views of the private school official. If a private school official submits a complaint, he or she must provide the basis of the noncompliance to the SEA, and the LEA must forward the appropriate documentation. If the private school official is dissatisfied with the SEA's determination, he or she may submit a complaint to the Secretary of Education, and the SEA shall forward the appropriate documentation to the Secretary. The general IDEA due process procedures are not applicable for children parentally placed in private schools where FAPE is not an issue except where the complaint concerns child find.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a grants and civil rights statute which provides federal funding to the states to help provide education for children with disabilities. If a state receives funds under IDEA, it must make available a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children with disabilities in the state. Education for children with disabilities in private schools is included in IDEA, but the requirements of the statute for children in private schools are not always the same as the requirements for children with disabilities in public schools. Under current law, there are several ways a child with a disability may be placed in a private school, and the LEA's responsibilities under IDEA vary depending on the type of placement. A child with a disability may be placed in a private school by the local education agency (LEA) or state educational agency (SEA) as a means of fulfilling the FAPE requirement for the child. In this situation, the full cost is paid for by the LEA or the SEA. A child with a disability may also be unilaterally placed in a private school by his or her parents. In this situation, the cost of the private school placement is not paid by the LEA unless a hearing officer or a court makes certain findings. However, IDEA does require some services for children in private schools, even if they are unilaterally placed there by their parents, and there is no finding that FAPE was not made available to the child. In this situation, IDEA requires that a proportionate amount of the federal funds shall be made available.

WHAT: The violent animals of MS-13 have committed heinous, violent attacks in communities across America. Too many innocent Americans have fallen victim to the unthinkable violence of MS-13’s animals. At the State of the Union in January 2018, President Trump brought as his guests Elizabeth Alvarado, Robert Mickens, Evelyn Rodriguez, and Freddy Cuevas, the parents of Nisa Mickens and Kayla Cuevas. Police believe these young girls were chased down and brutally murdered by MS-13 gang members on Long Island, New York, in 2016. Suffolk County Police Commissioner stated that the “murders show a level of brutality that is close to unmatched.” In Maryland, MS-13’s animals are accused of stabbing a man more than 100 times and then decapitating him, dismembering him, and ripping his heart out of his body. Police believe MS-13 members in Maryland also savagely beat a 15-year-old human trafficking victim. The MS-13 animals used a bat and took turns beating her nearly 30 times in total. In Houston, Texas, two MS-13 members were charged after kidnapping and sexually assaulting one girl and murdering another. The two MS-13 animals laughed, smiled, and waved for cameras in court as they faced the charges. New York communities have suffered tremendously from the abhorrent violence of MS-13. Nearly 40 percent of all murders in Suffolk County, New York between January 2016 and June 2017 were tied to MS-13. In January 2017, MS-13 members were charged with killing and hacking up a teenager in Nassau County. MS-13’s animals reportedly saw the murder as a way to boost their standing in the gang. In April 2017, police believe four young men were brutally murdered by MS-13 animals on Long Island. One victim was a young man in town visiting family during an Easter week vacation. Just last month, in April 2018, MS-13 reportedly called for its members on Long Island to kill a cop for the sake of making a statement. WHY: MS-13 is a transnational gang which follows the motto of “kill, rape, control” by committing shocking acts of violence in an attempt to instill fear and gain control. MS-13 is a transnational gang that has brought violence, fear, and suffering to American communities. MS-13, short for Mara Salvatrucha, commits shocking acts of violence to instill fear, including machete attacks, executions, gang rape, human trafficking, and more. In their motto, the animals of MS-13 make clear their goal is to “kill, rape, control.” The gang has more than 10,000 members in the United States spreading violence and suffering. Recent investigations have revealed MS-13 gang leaders based in El Salvador have been sending representatives into the United States illegally to connect the leaders with local gang members. These foreign-based gang leaders direct local members to become even more violent in an effort to control more territory. President Trump’s entire Administration is working tirelessly to bring these violent animals to justice. ||||| President Trump called some people “animals” during an immigration roundtable with California sheriffs on May 16. Who you believe he was referring to probably depends on how you feel about President Trump. Trump and the White House claim it’s clear as day: Trump was obviously referring to MS-13 gang members who commit heinous crimes. Trump’s called MS-13 “animals” before, but after this controversy the White House has embraced the term: a Monday press release was titled “What You Need To Know About The Animals Of MS-13.” MS-13 “animals” has gone from a presidential utterance to White House doctrine. This WH press release on “what you need to know about the violent animals of MS-13” calls them animals 8 times. pic.twitter.com/ZAfOlYjaDB — Todd Zwillich (@toddzwillich) May 21, 2018 But in the eyes of Trump’s critics, the justification for “animals” wasn’t obvious at all. Some believe that the president simply had an obligation to be more careful with his words, while others point to a long history of using a few criminals to smear entire groups of people — or simply claim that it’s inhumane to refer to any human being as an animal. At this point, both sides think they’ve won. Trump and the White House are messaging the idea that MS-13 is a bunch of animals in the aggressive manner they use when they think they’ve found a winning culture-war argument (see also: “Merry Christmas”). Meanwhile, Democrats and advocates appear to believe that they have another remark on their hands that will pay political dividends by revealing the president’s true animosity toward people of color (see also: “shithole countries”). Both sides believe that the other is missing, or deliberately blocking out, the context of Trump’s remark. It’s an intractable disagreement not because the immediate context is unknowable — the whole event was broadcast live — but because Donald Trump has spent his entire three years in national politics saying things that sound racist to a lot of people, and America has spent three years arguing about whether that’s the fault of the person speaking those words or the people hearing them. The context of Trump’s “animals” comment: a statement that isn’t as clear as most people think The original wave of progressive outrage over Trump’s comments, on Wednesday, was spurred by tweets like this one, which quoted Trump’s “animals” comment but not the comment from the sheriff that preceded it: Trump: "We're taking people out of the country — you wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals." He says the U.S. has "the dumbest laws on immigration in the world." — Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) May 16, 2018 That outrage spurred characterization of Trump’s comments as being about all deportees or even about all unauthorized immigrants. Trump’s defenders immediately claimed the media was getting the story wrong — that Trump had been answering a question about MS-13, so he clearly meant only that violent MS-13 gang members were “criminals.” Both of those characterizations were wrong. This is a pasted selection from the transcript sent out by the White House Press Office after the roundtable Wednesday: SHERIFF (Margaret) MIMS (Fresno County, CA): Now ICE is the only law enforcement agency that cannot use our databases to find the bad guys. They cannot come in and talk to people in our jail, unless they reach a certain threshold. They can’t do all kinds of things that other law enforcement agencies can do. And it’s really put us in a very bad position. THE PRESIDENT: It’s a disgrace. Okay? It’s a disgrace. SHERIFF MIMS: It’s a disgrace. THE PRESIDENT: And we’re suing on that, and we’re working hard, and I think it will all come together, because people want it to come together. It’s so ridiculous. The concept that we’re even talking about is ridiculous. We’ll take care of it, Margaret. We’ll win. SHERIFF MIMS: Thank you. There could be an MS-13 member I know about — if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it. THE PRESIDENT: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It’s crazy. This context makes a few things clear. First of all, Trump was not asked a question about MS-13. He was not asked a question at all. He was commiserating with Sheriff Mims about the restrictions that the California “sanctuary” law puts on the ability of local law enforcement officers to make decisions about when someone should be flagged to ICE. Second of all, the context in which MS-13 was mentioned was itself very specific: someone identified by the sheriff’s department as a “known” gang member but who doesn’t meet the “threshold” of being charged with or convicted of a serious crime. Third, Trump’s response to Mims’s comment wasn’t actually a response to the point she was making. It wasn’t about people in local jails in the US. He first referred to people “trying to come in” to the country and then to people who are being “taken out of the country.” He then launched into a complaint about bad US laws that allow people to reenter the country repeatedly — something that also has nothing to do with the complaint Mims was making. In context, Trump’s “animals” comment was simply part of a riff; something at best tangentially related to the conversation that he and Mims had been having up to that point. That riff may well have been inspired by Mims’s reference to MS-13 in her previous remark. At the same time, though, Trump manifestly wasn’t talking about the same people Mims was talking about: MS-13 members in American jails without serious criminal records. The president often does this. His comments in unscripted settings often fail to follow any obvious train of thought; he often goes off on tangents and rehashes old riffs; he often fails to demonstrate an understanding of the actual policies being discussed. This is why “what did he mean” is so often an open question. But because he’s the president of the United States, ambiguous statements can’t be left ambiguous — they’re going to acquire whatever meaning people can make from them, based on their existing understanding of what kind of person the president is. The context of Trump’s “animals” comment: a three-year political career of talking about immigrant criminals To people who are more skeptical of the “mainstream media” than they are of the president, the coverage of the president’s remarks seemed like a clear-cut case of “fake news” — reporters taking Trump’s words out of context to make him sound like a racist when he was in fact talking about violent criminals. “I don’t think the term the president used was strong enough,” press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters. “It took an animal to stab a man 100 times and decapitate him and cut his heart out.” And it inspired a wave of fact-checking and finger-wagging from media reporters themselves. The Trump critics who were initially outraged about Trump’s “animals” comment, however, see this entire conversation about the context of Wednesday’s exchange as more or less missing the point. They believe that Trump has shown a willingness to use racist language in the past and has demonstrated that he believes some people of color aren’t really human. Those facts, they believe, are more relevant context than what Sheriff Mims said at the roundtable. And they believe that in that context, it is foolish or even dangerous to present the “animals” remark as if there’s any ambiguity. This is the debate that has defined Donald Trump’s political career. His very first speech as a presidential candidate made a riffing reference to rapists and murderers crossing into the US, spurring outrage from immigrants and progressives that the president had called Mexicans and immigrants “criminals.” Trump gleefully exploited the outrage and parlayed it into a surge in the primary polls. Ever since, his most frequent and enthusiastic rhetorical theme has been that Americans are in danger from criminals coming into the US, and that his particular immigration agenda is the best way to stop them. This is why he keeps talking about MS-13; this is why he keeps dwelling on a few particularly gory crimes and calling the gang “animals.” Trump critics accuse him of labeling all immigrants (or all Latinos) criminals; his critics’ critics counter that he isn’t explicitly talking about all immigrants or all Latinos and that it’s liberals who think nonracial comments are about race. Every iteration of this fight encourages both sides’ viewpoints. It encourages Trump’s defenders — and those who are anti-anti-Trump — to believe that Trump’s words are being taken out of context to suit a preexisting narrative. It encourages Trump’s critics to believe that the president is deliberately engaging in dog-whistle politics because he knows exactly where the line is and how to tiptoe over it without admitting to doing so. The context of Trump’s “animals” comments: all people are people — but “violent gang members are people too” may not be a winning political message The Trump administration won the public argument about whether Trump was, at least ostensibly, referring to MS-13 members. But that doesn’t resolve the argument over whether it was morally okay for him to do that. Indeed, to those who believe the most important point is that no one should ever be described as subhuman, attempts to explain the context of Trump’s remarks were seen as attempts to justify the dehumanization of some people as long as they’re accused of being in a gang. It feels pretty weird watching folks on this website debate who should and shouldn't be described as less than human by the president. — Matt Ford (@fordm) May 17, 2018 On one level, this is a sheer argument of deontological ethics: All people are possessed of innate human dignity, and no act they commit can strip that of them or justify other people acting toward them as if they do not possess it. Most codes of ethics don’t allow people to treat others badly just because they have done bad things. Christianity makes a virtue of mercy and has its messiah tell a mob they are morally unfit to stone an adulteress (a violator of one of the Ten Commandments!) unless they are wholly without sin. On another level, though, this is an instrumental argument that dehumanizing anyone leads to bad outcomes. An entire academic literature is dedicated to the pernicious effects of dehumanizing language; an oversimplified version of that literature, often expressed during the “animals” debate, is that dehumanization of a particular scapegoat group is a necessary component of totalitarian rhetoric. (The implication was often that comments like Trump’s are always a precursor to genocidal violence, which doesn’t hold logically.) More specifically, as criminologist John Pfaff pointed out, a willingness to accept criminals as subhuman encourages law enforcement officers to treat them accordingly, with often horrific results. The people making this argument weren’t primarily Democratic politicians. But after a day or so of the animals debate, Republicans had shifted to the idea that they had jiujitsued liberals into defending MS-13, and that that would help them in November. This, too, is a fixture of dialogue in the age of Trump: even people who wouldn’t defend his statements on the merits believe that they create an advantageous political situation for his party by inspiring the other side to do something politically counterproductive. It seems logical that MS-13 is inherently a winning issue for Trump and a losing one for Democrats (though it’s worth noting that in the one post-Trump race where the tie between immigration and crime was central to the campaign, the Virginia gubernatorial election, the Democrat won). But it’s another example of people talking past each other. No one is saying that it is politically useful to adopt the message of “Trump was just talking about violent MS-13 criminals, but they are people too.” Trump’s critics are either emphasizing that it is true that MS-13 members are also human beings or making the argument that Trump doesn’t really just mean MS-13 members when he says “animals.” The context: an immigration and criminal justice system that does not actually focus on the “worst of the worst” The problem with fighting about whom Trump meant when he said what he said is that, on a policy level, what he said does not actually matter. His administration is not focusing on deporting people who have committed particularly heinous crimes, gang members, or people with criminal records. From Trump’s inauguration to the end of 2017, ICE arrested 45,436 immigrants without criminal records. On Thursday, in the midst of the furor over the “animals” comments, ICE released new data for the first three months of 2018 — showing that an additional 13,300 immigrants without criminal records were arrested from January to March. To be sure, ICE arrests of immigrants with criminal records ticked up slightly from the last year of the Obama administration (in which immigration enforcement was subdued compared to previous years) to the Trump administration. But arrests of immigrants without criminal records have also spiked. During President Obama’s last year, about 16 percent of ICE arrests were of noncriminal immigrants; each month since July 2017, between 32 and 40 percent of arrestees have been noncriminals. The Trump administration is still deporting fewer noncriminal immigrants than the Obama administration did circa 2011, and the proportion of deportees who are noncriminals is usually smaller than the proportion of arrestees who are. But the Trump administration is aiming to not just ramp back up to the deportation peak of Obama’s first term but surpass it, and that’s going to require arresting and deporting a lot of immigrants without criminal records. If Trump understands his own administration’s policy, he’s never acknowledged it in public. He sticks to the same rhetorical move every time: refer to some specific criminals, call them horrible people and animals, say that their evil justifies his immigration policy, and allow the conflation of all immigrants and all Latinos with criminals and animals to remain subtext. This isn’t unique to Trump. An entire era of American criminal justice policy was defined by this rhetorical move: Politicians attacked each other over horrific cases of leniency gone wrong, or with the threat of child “superpredators” roaming the streets, and the fear of those “worst of the worst” criminals led to policies that swept millions of people into the criminal justice system. As Trump has amped up his rhetoric about MS-13, local and federal law enforcement officials have started rounding up immigrant teens on the basis of suspected gang membership — no matter how dubious those claims are. In a 2017 feature about MS-13 and Long Island’s immigrant community, Jonathan Blitzer of the New Yorker says that one Long Island teen was arrested in a gang sweep for having a Salvadoran flag as his profile picture (whose dominant color, bright blue, is also used by MS-13). One ex-girlfriend of a gang member told Blitzer that when they needed to lie low, “Carlos and his friends from MS-13 would change their style of dress” — like swapping out their shoes — and then “mocked the police for being slow to catch on” to the fact that they weren’t wearing their “characteristic” gang attire. “Immigrant teens without ties to the gang,” meanwhile, were at risk: They “didn’t necessarily know which clothes were off limits.” In one high-profile case from 2017, ICE agents made several attempts to strip protections from an immigrant covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program by claiming he was a gang member; the immigrant, however, claims that the ICE agents falsified a document to make it look like he admitted to being in a gang (and federal judges have believed him). These things don’t just happen because Donald Trump uses the word “animals.” But they don’t get the attention that Trump’s words do. And while plenty of people are willing to defend calling gang members “animals,” few are interested in looking at whether the immigration enforcement system as it exists draws the clear distinction they claim to have heard from Trump. ||||| Cabinet Room 3:19 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I’m greatly honored to be here with the courageous mayors and sheriffs and local leaders from across the state of California. A great state. Each of you has bravely resisted California’s deadly and unconstitutional sanctuary state laws. You’ve gone through a lot, too, although it’s becoming quite popular what you’re doing. A law that forces the release of illegal immigrant criminals, drug dealers, gang members, and violent predators into your communities. California’s law provides safe harbor to some of the most vicious and violent offenders on Earth, like MS-13 gang members putting innocent men, women, and children at the mercy of these sadistic criminals. But we’re moving them out of this country by the thousands. MS-13, we’re grabbing them by the thousands and we’re getting them out, Kevin. We’re also joined by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Jeff, thank you. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen. Secretary, thank you very much. I know you folks are keeping busy, right? Keeping busy at those borders. And Deputy ICE Director, Tom Homan, who’s going to be leaving us soon for a life of retirement. But there’s no such thing as retirement for Tom. (Applause.) You’ve done a fantastic job, and we appreciate it very much, Tom. Incredible job. HOMAN: I’m not leaving the fight, sir. THE PRESIDENT: I know that. Oh, you’ll never leave the fight. No, you’ll always be in. Also with us is House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who’s been a special friend of mine. He represents California’s 23rd Congressional District, and he is very, very popular. And I just recently saw a poll of Kevin. I think the opposition might as well just go home, because Kevin, they love him out there and he’s done an incredible job. He’s brought it home. And we appreciate it, Kevin, the great job you’ve done for the country. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, Congress — and I’d have to say, congressional Democrats — you take a look at what has been going on and what’s going on with the laws, whether it’s catch and release, whether it’s any of the things that we’re fighting for so hard. Now, we have started the wall. We’re spending $1.6 billion between fixing and starting. You know, Melissa, what’s been going on. We’re getting it up. We have a lot of folks in California, they don’t talk about it, but they want the wall up, and they’re very happy. That’s one of the reasons we started in California. But we made a lot of progress on it, and now we’re going for the full funding for the wall, and we’re going to try and get that as soon as possible. But it’s become a very popular issue. In January, the Los Angeles Police Department arrested an illegal immigrant from Mexico for drug possession. Instead of honoring the ICE detainer, they set him free. Just a few weeks later, he was arrested again, this time for murder. So they arrested him, they had him, they let him go. Tom, you’ve seen this. They let him go, and he killed somebody. And it’s happening more and more. And we get them out as fast as we can. We have the worst laws anywhere in the world for illegal immigration. There’s no place in the world that has laws like we do. Catch and release — think of it. We catch somebody, we find out they’re criminals. We end up having to release them, and they go into our society. Now, we do the best we can, I’ll tell you. We do better than anybody. And our numbers are much better than in the past, but they’re not nearly acceptable and not nearly as good as what we could have. We’re down 40 percent from those other standards, so that’s really good — meaning 40 percent crossings. So that’s good. But we can do — we can do much better. Part of the problem that we have is our economy is so strong that people are pouring up to get into our economy. They want a piece of our economy. And that makes the job even tougher. But we want to keep — we want people based on merit. We want people to come into our country based on merit. We’re not looking to keep them out. We’re looking to bring them in. We need them. We have companies moving back into the United States like never before. Chrysler is opening up now in Michigan. We have so many companies actually coming from Mexico, even, and coming back in. So we want people coming in based on merit. We all remember the tragic case of Marilyn Farris who was murdered by an illegal immigrant who had been arrested six times prior to breaking into Marilyn’s home, raping her and savagely beating her to death with a hammer. And this is one example, but there are many examples. I’ve been saying it for a long time. We cannot let this butchery happen in America. The state of California’s attempts to nullify federal law have sparked a rebellion by patriotic citizens who want their families protected and their borders secured. They want border security. They want protection. That’s what we’re all about. We’re about protection, both from international and from, frankly, people crossing our border illegally. I will now go around the room and ask these incredible mayors and officials to discuss their brave stand on behalf of their constituents. They are very popular, they are very well respected. These are the top people. And they are people that other people listen to, and they listen to them from around the country. So I’ll begin by asking California Assemblywoman, Melissa Melendez. And you have been an inspiration to a lot of people, Melissa. So maybe you could say a few words, and we’ll go right around the room, okay? MELENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. MELENDEZ: I just want to start off by saying, on behalf of everyone here, thank you for inviting us. There are more people in California, I think, that you know who support what you’re doing, who believe in your agenda in securing our borders. Everywhere in between, from San Francisco to Los Angeles, you have millions of people who want to see that our borders are secure and that our neighborhoods are safe. So we want to thank you for what you’re doing. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. MELENDEZ: I have been in office in California for five years now, and it’s interesting to me that you’ve been in office for a year almost? THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Seventeen. Seventeen months. Seventeen years would be nice. Seventeen. (Laughter.) MELENDEZ: But you have invited us here to talk about this issue. I’ve been in office in California for five years. Not once has Governor Brown invited any Republican to discuss this issue in California. And it is a crisis. That’s the point we’re at in California. It’s a crisis. So for me and my constituents — and those are Democrats and Republicans and independents, alike, because I get emails from all of them — they don’t want to see another Kate Steinle. That’s what I hear every single week. They don’t want to see another Kate Steinle. So when my husband and I talk about this issue, we have 37 years of service between the two of us. We both served in the Navy. That’s where we met. We know a lot about what it takes to protect our way of life, what it means to protect other people. But we want to make sure that our citizens are protected. And I think the resistance that started in the Democrat Party, this is your Republican resistance right here against what they’re doing in California. THE PRESIDENT: And beyond Republican. I mean, this has really become a Democrat issue, a Republican issue. I think a lot of the Democrat politicians don’t understand what’s going on. Because it’s actually good politically. People want safety. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MELENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: Sam, go ahead. MAYOR ABED: Thank you, Mr. President. I am a proud immigrant here from Lebanon. Thirty years ago, I came here to live the American Dream, and we did well. Jerry Brown wants to take this American Dream from us. I see myself — THE PRESIDENT: He’ll going to be retired pretty soon, won’t he? MAYOR ABED: I hope so. MELENDEZ: End of the year. End of the year. THE PRESIDENT: Somebody said he’s going to run for President. I said, “Please. Please run.” (Laughter.) But no, I think he’s going to be retired, from what I understand, pretty soon. MAYOR ABED: I see myself fighting for these values that made our country great, Mr. President. We are aligned with your goals. Here’s the success story of Escondido. When I was elected mayor in 2010, I made the agreement with ICE. We brought eight ICE agents to Escondido, to our police station. Since then, we deported over 2,700 illegal criminals from our city, and made Escondido as safe as it was in 1980. This is a great success story, and our cooperation with ICE and the San Diego ICE is a very compelling model for the nation to follow. In our city, more immigrant people report crime. And this narrative that sanctuary city will allow more immigrants to report crime is fake news, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: Fake news. Fake news. MAYOR ABED: We are going — California is going down the drain. It’s going to be — sorry, Congressman McCarthy. But California is the least business friendly, is the poorest city in the nation, the highest poverty rate, the highest taxes, you name it. Instead of fixing the Golden State and making it the American Dream for everyone, they are dealing with illegal criminals. When Jerry Brown cares more about illegal criminals than he cares about the Hispanic community and the American citizens, this is insanity, and this is unconstitutional. When I swore to be a citizen, and again as mayor, I swore to defend the Constitution and to keep my community safe. This is personal to me. I’m going to work hard to make sure our community is safe. Escondido is a great example of our success. As a result of making Escondido safe, we brought $2 billion in investment to our city, and we outperformed San Diego County in economic growth. I am passionate about it. When I go back to California, I’m going to start a PAC. And we’re going to fight the fight. We want to make sure if the Supreme Court does not repeal the sanctuary state, we’re going to make sure the grassroot team like you see today, we will repeal that. We are with you. We need to build that wall. We need to end the sanctuary state. We had 11 sanctuary cities not too long ago. Now we have 560. Ten-thousand illegal criminals have been released under the sanctuary cities — THE PRESIDENT: But now it’s reversing, Sam. And it really got bad, and now it’s reversing. There’s a big change of heart, of mind, of people don’t want sanctuary cities. They’re dangerous; they don’t want them anymore. So thank you, Sam. MAYOR ABED: Most of the people support us, Mr. President. Sixty-five percent of the Hispanics support us. The liberal, the Democrat, everybody is supporting our — in my city, 90 percent are with us. Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: And I’ll tell you what, I had a lot more support in the state of California than people understand. (Laughter.) MELENDEZ: That’s right. THE PRESIDENT: Check the voting records, folks. Please. MAYOR RUIZ: I’m Crystal from the city of San Jacinto. Can I speak frankly? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. MAYOR RUIZ: I’m sitting here in this room in awe of God’s power; how He can take someone who was homeless in a tent, make them the mayor in the city, and bring them before the President of the United States of America who wants to hear the cry of our people. And that’s what’s going on. Our people are the ones hurting. Sacramento is angry because they lost an election. For God’s sake, get over it. They’re angry. And you know what? Now we’re more angry. They’re releasing these criminals, not by their houses. They’re not releasing them by their houses. They’re releasing them by our houses. Our children are at risk. My community is my family. You’re putting my family at risk. Every day we’re getting more and more reports from the police department about how they can’t arrest these people. They arrest them — everything is a misdemeanor. Because it’s not near Jerry Brown’s house. It’s not near the elected official’s house. It’s in our communities, and we’re tired of it. We need help, Mr. President. We need help protecting the city of San Jacinto, Escondido, the state of California. All of us need help getting this solved. I was just at a church the other day. I was at my church, and I went over to another one — a Hispanic church — and all the people from the Hispanic church were out there, and they all came up to me: “Would you tell Mr. Trump that we have a message for him: We want help.” You see, every one of us came from somewhere else. We all came from different countries. My husband is from Mexico. My family came way back from before the Revolutionary War, and we’ve been fighting for this country ever since. Fighting for the constitutional rights of our country. I’m not going to stop fighting for those rights. THE PRESIDENT: Don’t fight — look, it’s coming back and it’s coming back fast. Faster than even the people in this room understand. Kevin understands what’s happening. You see it, maybe, better than anybody. But it’s coming back. People are tired of this nonsense, and it’s happening. So don’t give up the fight. Don’t give up the fight. MAYOR RUIZ: I’m not, Mr. President. You are our leader. And thank God for you. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. MAYOR RUIZ: So bless you. THE PRESIDENT: And yours is an amazing story. MAYOR RUIZ: Thank you, God. Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Sheriff? SHERIFF D’AGOSTINI: Thank you, Mr. President. John D’Agostini. I’m the elected Sherriff of El Dorado County, California. And the bottom line from sheriffs — and you’ll hear from my peers, as well — is we just want to do our jobs. We want to do what the people elected us to do, and that is respect our Constitution and keep our communities safe. When this bill was being heard in legislature and it was going through — we have in California what we call “leg days,” where the state sheriffs go and meet with the legislators moving this bill through. And what literally disgusted me was a common term that we heard throughout the discussion of SB 54 from different legislators. And the quote was, “We know this is bad policy but it’s great politics.” That’s wrong. Because this bill absolutely jeopardizes public safety in our communities. We’re not immigration officers; we never have been, and we’re never going to be. We just want to be able to cooperate with our federal partners so that these folks that end up in our custody and need to be deported, get deported. THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sheriff, I’ll tell you what — it’s not bad politics anymore. You know, if you look at what’s going on — because I think, maybe, more than anyplace else right now, there’s a revolution going on in California. They want safety. You know, you had the Mayor of Oakland that I read where you had 1,000 people — Tom, you know this because it was your deal — it had 1,000 people together. Many of these were illegals. They were criminals. They were all sorts of — it was work. And she informed them and they all fled, or most of them fled. And that whole operation that took a long time to put together — I mean, you talk about obstruction of justice; I would recommend that you look into obstruction of justice for the Mayor of Oakland, California, Jeff. She advises a thousand people. They told, “Get out of here, the law enforcement is coming.” And you worked on that long and hard. And you got there, and there were very few people there. To me, that’s obstruction of justice. And perhaps the Department of Justice can look into that with respect to the mayor, because it’s a big deal out there and a lot of people are very angry about what happened. There’s a lot of hard work and a lot of danger involved. And that was a terrible thing. Yes, ma’am. MAYOR JOHNSON: Mr. President, Natasha Johnson, from the city of Lake Elsinore. As the mayor, April 24th, we took a formal position and adopted a resolution opposing SB 54. It was based on our constitutional duty to serve. I think everyone in this room that is elected knows that public safety is their number-one priority. But we can’t say that we are public safety driven and also turn a blind eye to what is happening. There was courage and maybe a little risk. We were not risk-averse to step out as one of the first cities to take a position. I think I’m more proud of the fact that we were just listening to what our community wanted — and they don’t want it. They clearly don’t want to have an overreach of their rights. And that’s what really this stands for. So as far as the city of Lake Elsinore, I think that this is a siloed approach. I think SB 54 is a very — is a great representation, and I think maybe some have forgotten, maybe especially Sacramento, about a siloed approach right before 9/11. And some of the things that we really can look back in history and see — it’s going to take a multi-agency approach. It’s going to take coalition, a revolution, whatever you want to call it. But I’m completely impressed with the room and what we stand for. This isn’t a fight. This is a battle. This is a war. And I know that we have a lot of work to do. This is just the beginning. THE PRESIDENT: We’ll get it done. Thank you very much. MAYOR JOHNSON: Secretary Nielsen? Would you like to say something? SECRETARY NIELSEN: Just — mostly just thanks. I’m want to thank you for your leadership, sir, in bringing us all together but in also recognizing what a very important issue this is. And this week, as many of you know, we celebrate police week and we celebrate law enforcement. Everyone in this room is an enforcer of the law, and I thank you for that and I thank you for your leadership. When states are turning their back on the U.S. Constitution and their communities, you are standing up. And we greatly, greatly appreciate your partnership. I know Director Homan will give us more details on the dangers of sanctuary cities, which you’re living, as do our officers and folks who work at ICE and other parts of the federal family. But I just want to hear from you and just thank you. Thank you for your partnership and for standing up for your communities. Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. And you’re doing a good job, and it’s not an easy job. I know what you’re going through right now with families is very tough. But those are the bad laws that the Democrats gave us. We have to break up families. The Democrats gave us that law. It’s a horrible thing. We have to break up families. The Democrats gave us that law and they don’t want to do anything about it. They’ll leave it like that because they don’t want to make any changes. And now you’re breaking up families because of the Democrats. It’s terrible. MAYOR EDGAR: Yeah. How are you doing, there, President Trump? I’m Troy Edgar, Los Alamitos Mayor. It’s an honor to be here. You know, I just want to say, thank you for inviting us also to the residence earlier today. You know, as a previous ex-Navy guy, and being able to be on a city council of a small city, it’s people like you that are actually bringing the people back to the People’s House — your house, our house. So we really appreciate it. You know, going through, I also want to say thank you to Secretary Nielsen. There’s a gentleman in our community, Mark Cito (ph), who is on the local ICE officer in charge of Orange County. When we came out, we were the first city. He came, he called right away, he started giving me that bright line between where ICE has problems with local law enforcement. Secretary Nielsen, thank you. SECRETARY NIELSEN: Thanks to Director Homan. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Troy. MAYOR EDGAR: Yeah. And then, Attorney General — you know, coming out first has a price to pay. And the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against us. You know, we would really appreciate any direct or indirect funding there — any sort of fiscal help that you could provide us — (laughter) — for, you know, things like potentially putting some of your Attorney General or Assistant Attorney Generals maybe, if they have the base in our military town, or helping us offset some of the costs. But we really appreciate everything that you’re doing. We also filed the amicus brief to kind of join, and we’re going to plan on intersecting you at the appeals court. One of you guys will appeal, and we think that we’ll have a more substantive amount to offer at that point. THE PRESIDENT: Maybe we could join in with you, though. We could perhaps join in with you. Because we have a lot of cases like that where we’re with you 100 percent but we’re not in paper. So we’ll join in with you. If it’s at all possible, we’d like to do that. ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. THE PRESIDENT: Pam? Thank you very much, Troy. PATTERSON: So thank you, Mr. President. It’s an amazing honor to meet you, and thank you so much for the invitation. I served on San Juan Capistrano City Council for the last three years, but I’ve also served on the community engagement panel of the San Onofre Nuclear Power plant, which is — they call it SONGS. And they, back in 2001, were testifying before Congress that the terrorists were saying, “target the power plants.” So the fact that we have this unsecure border is putting us — THE PRESIDENT: Crazy. PATTERSON: — at great risk because we know that terrorists are coming in. THE PRESIDENT: It’s crazy. PATTERSON: But with respect to the power plant — that is number one — that has the worst safety record in the nation. And one of the questions that I asked — THE PRESIDENT: It’s a nuclear power plant? PATTERSON: Yes. THE PRESIDENT: And the terrorists are coming in alongside of the power plant.PATTERSON: Exactly. And you — THE PRESIDENT: Isn’t that wonderful? (Laughter.) PATTERSON: — can get in to that power plant with really — you can just drive in. And so I asked them, actually, during one of the meetings — I said, “So you have a no-fly zone, right?” — with respect to the power plant — and they said, “Yes.” And I said, “So what would happen if an airplane flew into the no-fly zone? Would you shoot it down?” They said, “No.” And that was on the record. And so I just think that it’s a Fukushima, number one, waiting to happen. It’s on an active earthquake fault, in a Tsunami zone, where they’re storing this radiation which is 124 times that of Chernobyl, and improperly stored, and it’s — there’s no security. So I think that — THE PRESIDENT: We’ll check it out. PATTERSON: Okay. THE PRESIDENT: It doesn’t sound too good. (Laughter.) It doesn’t sound like the greatest, right? PATTERSON: Exactly. THE PRESIDENT: We’ll check it out. Thank you very much. PATTERSON: Okay, thank you. THE PRESIDENT: Okay, Margaret? SHERIFF MIMS: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, sheriffs in California are now in an untenable position when it comes to trying to figure out — now, we have state law, we have federal laws, and here we are stuck in the middle. Sheriffs, especially, because most of us run our county jails. When there became a legal challenge to the 48-hour holds for ICE, it was very frustrating for us. So what I did is I invited ICE to put their officers in my jails so they’re able to do their work. We didn’t have the staffing to be able to help figure out who they wanted to talk to or didn’t. I said, come on in, work with our people to keep our community safe. Two weeks later, Mr. President, Kate Steinle was murdered. Now, I wasn’t the only sheriff to do that. Sheriff Youngblood did, Sheriff Christianson. And it was perfect — because we didn’t have to take our time, with our staff, to do anything. ICE was in there doing their work in a safe, controlled, environment. And then, the initiatives started happening — the TRUST Act, the TRUTH Act, and finally, SB 54, the Values Act. And that is causing us all kinds of turmoil. So here we are, stuck in the middle, trying to decide. We have federal law, we have state law. And that’s why I welcomed Attorney General Sessions’s lawsuit, because that will provide us the clarity that we need and direction that we need. What do we do? Because here we are. And I appreciated Mr. Homan and ICE. We had a great relationship; we still do. But now ICE is the only law enforcement agency that cannot use our databases to find the bad guys. They cannot come in and talk to people in our jail, unless they reach a certain threshold. They can’t do all kinds of things that other law enforcement agencies can do. And it’s really put us in a very bad position. THE PRESIDENT: It’s a disgrace. Okay? It’s a disgrace. SHERIFF MIMS: It’s a disgrace. THE PRESIDENT: And we’re suing on that, and we’re working hard, and I think it will all come together, because people want it to come together. It’s so ridiculous. The concept that we’re even talking about is ridiculous. We’ll take care of it, Margaret. We’ll win. SHERIFF MIMS: Thank you. There could be an MS-13 member I know about — if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it. THE PRESIDENT: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It’s crazy. The dumbest laws — as I said before, the dumbest laws on immigration in the world. So we’re going to take care of it, Margaret. We’ll get it done. We’re going to ask that man right there, because that man can do it. (Laughter.) Right now he’s the most important man in the room. Kevin can do it. Kevin? Please. MAJORITY LEADER MCCARTHY: Well, first of all, I want to thank all of you, because most people around the country do not realize how your hands are tied behind your back. The only thing you want to do is to have safe streets, safe neighborhoods, and protect your communities. And for California legislature to go against the Constitution — one of the greatest strengths of this nation, and we’re fortunate to be in this room, is the rule of law. They are breaking down society by breaking down the rule of law; that you have a known criminal that you can’t communicate with ICE about. We know how bad this is. But from one aspect, we should be excited because we have a new President that understands this problem. Since he has taken office, we have lowered the illegal crossings across this border. That stops gang members from coming across. He has started building the wall — $1.6 billion. And you know where that wall is starting to be built? In California. He has pushed a number of bills through — one, to try to stop sanctuary cities; to reward those who uphold the Constitution. Second, to stop the MS-13 gang members. And you know what’s interesting, after you moved that bill? A Governor of New York, Mr. Cuomo, who thought that wasn’t a problem, I saw him sign one similar just the other day because he watched what was happening, as well. So, collectively, it was city councils and sheriffs — city council is not your full-time job, but you listened to your community, you saw the problem that was going on. So things are improving, and that’s why I’m so thankful for this President to call us together, because collectively we’ll be stronger. The Secretary is doing an amazing job. I’ll tell you, the number of times we meet or call at all hours of night, trying to make sure she can protect it. The Attorney General just talked to me last night, around 10 o’clock. And so, from that perspective, we are in this together, but we are in it for the Constitution. We’re in it for the security and the safety of our streets, and I thank you for leading the charge. THE PRESIDENT: Well, we want to thank you, Kevin. You have done an incredible job. You’re sort of going against the tide, but now the tide is sort of with us because you see it in the room. I mean, a year ago, two years ago, this would have been unthinkable to have you all in the room talking the way we’re talking. But you’re fed up with what’s happening. And, Kevin, thank you very much. You’re doing really great Stacey. MONTGOMERY: Thank you very much. I just want to say thank you for your leadership in your office and on this issue. I am delighted and privileged to be here. And it is so wonderful to be here among all of you as well, because you’re all on the frontlines in your own communities fighting this fight. I was born and raised in California, been an attorney there for 24 years. Got my start in the law when Three Strikes was starting out in California, and developed a real passion for prosecution. I was the appointed district attorney, and I’ve been the elected district attorney now for four years. And in the last four years, I have seen California become a disaster. It’s been tragic to watch my state pass laws that basically have sent our communities into a very dangerous place. In Lassen County, we’re a very small community. But I’m pleased to say, when you’re talking about voting, that you have supporters in California. Lassen County voted overwhelmingly for you in California. I believe we had the highest margin in all the 58 counties in California. You are loved in Lassen County. And I believe that, to a certain extent, we are sort of a forgotten part of California. We are rural California, and we do not stand for the policies in Sacramento. We have a horrible problem in our public lands, in our forests. We’ve got illegals, marijuana — excuse me, drug cartels that have come up to grow on our public lands and in our forests, and they are decimating it. They are killing wildlife. THE PRESIDENT: And you can’t really do anything about it. MONTGOMERY: There’s not a thing we can do. We work with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, who file charges that do the best that they can. But these people are coming into our forests, they’re endangering our citizens. They are armed. They’re setting up camps, and they’re growing mass amounts of marijuana on our public lands. They are killing wildlife. They’re diverting streams. The damage that they’re causing, both to the economy and to our public lands, is going to be generational. A large portion of these people that are coming in to do this are illegal immigrants. Because of the legalization of marijuana in California, now we’re seeing those same individuals working with other criminal groups — the Asian groups, the Russian groups, the motorcycle groups, all kinds of organized crime. It’s bringing into rural — THE PRESIDENT: So legalization made it worse? MONTGOMERY: The legalization made it worse. Yes. I believe the legalization made it worse. I’ve been appalled, as a district attorney, someone who’s sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the state, that we have fallen so far in California. We also have other issues. We are prosecuting an illegal immigrant right now who has been deported several times and has had a violent criminal history, who hit and killed a 16-year-old kid — a boy in our community — and fled the scene. So his case is pending right now. After I brought the suit, I was promptly served with a gag order to prevent me from talking about the case. It’s been very frustrating. Also, I have received correspondence — and I know that every DA’s office in California has received correspondence from the ACLU and their affiliate organizations, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and the California Public Information Act wanting to know what policies — “We want to see what policies your office is implementing. What have you done to ensure compliance with SB 54?” Well, the response from my office was very simple: We have nothing. Because this office will stand for the rule of law. Lassen County stands for the rule of law. And we have no policies to give you because we will not issue such policies from this desk and from this office. THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Good job. MONTGOMERY: We stand with you. We are delighted with the actions that you have taken, Mr. Sessions. The people of Lassen County stand with you, I stand with you, and we appreciate everything that you’re doing. THE PRESIDENT: Yep. Thank you, Stacey. MONTGOMERY: You’re welcome. THE PRESIDENT: Beautifully said. Thank you very much. Tom? HOMAN: First of all, Mr. President, I want to thank you for having this meeting today — this roundtable. We appreciate your leadership on this issue. The Secretary, I appreciate your leadership and how you support law enforcement and the rule of law. And the AG, I can’t say enough good things about what you’ve done for law enforcement. You know, I hear a lot of things today about sanctuary cities and the wall. I’m not the smartest guy at this table by any means, but in sanctuary cities. they want to take the Attorney General on to get their funding. Even though they violate federal law to keep criminal aliens in, they don’t want a wall to keep them out. To me, that’s just backwards. And I want to talk — I just want to spend a minute to say — separating fact from fiction, please. I hope the American people can understand the fight about sanctuary cities. And I appreciate the American patriots in this room that have joined this fight, which is the good fight, it’s the right fight. The intentional mis-messaging of sanctuary cities and what they do — I hear, “They protect the immigrant communities.” And they don’t. It’s the complete opposite. When you release a criminal alien from a jail, they’re going to go to the very communities in which they live and reoffend. Anybody can Google recidivism rates. Over half reoffend the first year against the very immigrant communities in which they live. So you’re not protecting the immigrant community. You’re putting them at greater risk of crime. And when you force an ICE agent, where he can take someone — the custody of somebody in the safety and security of a county jail and force them into neighborhoods, you put our officers at risk. You’re already putting the public at risk. And we’re going to find others who weren’t even on our radar. So you put the community at greater risk of crime, you put them at greater risk of ICE arrest, and you put the heroes — the law enforcement officers — at great risk. This is National Police Week, as said earlier. And I want to talk about the messaging — the mis-messaging from some of these groups and some of these politicians about what ICE does. When you read that sanctuary cities protect the immigrant communities, but also, we don’t want to be commandeered, we don’t have the ICE agents — we have never asked anybody to be an ICE agent. We don’t want any law enforcement officer to be an ICE agent. What we want is access to a county jail to talk to somebody that we know is here illegally, in violation of federal law, that committed yet another crime. You can’t tell ICE to prioritize criminal aliens and not give me access to the jail. It just don’t make sense. And the final point I want to make in defense of the brave men and women of the Border Patrol and ICE: I’m sick and tired of the constant vilification of these men and women who leave their home every day and strap a gun to their hip; leave the safety and security of their families to defend this nation and to defend their neighborhoods. When you have a congressman standing in front of the ICE office in New York City and call us the Gestapo, comparing what we do to war crimes. When you got a congressman who said, quote, “The cowardly acts of ICE officers that terrorize innocent immigrant communities.” ICE does more to protect the immigrant than any politician ever has done. We arrested several hundred-thousand criminals removed from the streets. For all these people who want to keep vilifying the men and women who took a sworn oath, who are enforcing laws enacted by you, Congress, the next time you think about vilifying the men and women of ICE, I want you to do what I did this week. I want you to go to our National Law Enforcement wall, I want you to walk that wall, and read the names on that wall: over 400 Border Patrol agents and ICE officers whose hearts stopped beating defending this nation. It’s a dishonor to these men and women who gave the ultimate sacrifice to vilify the men and women that carry the badge and gun. So think twice before you do it. And as far as the hate that I take for defending the men and women of ICE and the Border Patrol, that will stop the day my heart stops to beat. And it won’t end. And even though I may be retiring soon, this fight doesn’t end with me. I will stay engaged, and I will keep fighting for you, sir. So thank you very much. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. HOMAN: I’ve worked for six Presidents, and I respect them all. But no President has done more than you for border security and for law enforcement. I think every law enforcement officer at this table would agree with me. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. No, that’s very nice. That’s a great compliment, believe me — because you have, indeed, worked for six. And all six respected you greatly. None more than me. Thank you very much. I just wish you could have said that to the press, but — (laughter) — here’s the good news: You have such a beautiful, full head of hair, you look good even from that angle. (Laughter.) I appreciate it, Tom. That’s really nice. Thank you very much. Elaine? MAYOR GENNAWEY: Good afternoon, Mr. President. And thank you for inviting us here to share our thoughts with you. I’m Elaine Gennawey, Mayor of the city of Laguna Niguel in Orange County, California. And so, really appreciate the opportunity to let you know what our residents are feeling. But first, I’d like to ask Director Homan, please let the men and women of ICE know that they have our gratitude and our deep, deep appreciation for what they do. HOMAN: Thank you. MAYOR GENNAWEY: But, you know, Laguna Niguel took a stance against SB 54 because that is the greatest threat to the safety of all of California residents — all of our residents, all of our communities. And that includes our immigrant communities. The siloing or preventing law enforcement agencies from talking to each other is a threat to our agents and to the communities. And our country learned a very tragic lesson on September 11th — and that’s what happens when law enforcement does not communicate. So isn’t it ironic that in an age of calls for increased transparency, that the California legislature wants to prevent that. So we think that all of our residents deserve to live in a safe community. And also, Mr. President, there is an area where we need your assistance with. We will support you on preventing SB 54 and upholding what ICE does, but in California we need your help with sober living homes. Orange County has become known as the “Rehab Riviera.” So H.R. 5724 is just being introduced, and we would appreciate help with that, because local control is being attacked from Sacramento every single day, and this is one other issue. THE PRESIDENT: We’ll take a look. We’ll take a look. I’ll take a look on that. Thank you very much. MAYOR GENNAWEY: Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. THE PRESIDENT: Steve Miller, would you like to say something? MILLER: Just what an honor it is to be able to work for a President who has the backs of our law enforcement officers. Everything you’re doing every day is saving so many lives all across this country, and it’s just an endless honor to be a part of it, and even in any a small way. So thank you, sir. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Stephen. That’s great. A great job you do, too. GASPAR: Good afternoon, Mr. President. It’s an honor to be here. I’m Kristin Gaspar representing the largest county here today, San Diego County. I have 3.5 million constituents that I’m responsible for their public safety. If you look around this room, your tiny but mighty team, this is what Governor Brown classifies as low-life politicians. Well, here we are. You’ve heard about the problems. You’ve heard about the statistics. And I could have thought of a million things to say to you. I have a stack of 3,000 emails in my office. These are the emails that have come in — thank yous, people supporting what we’re doing. And I have a tiny little stack of less than 50 where people are very upset with what we’re doing in San Diego County. THE PRESIDENT: How is the wall going? How is the wall? (Laughter.) GASPAR: It’s going. It’s going. THE PRESIDENT: We’re getting it built, right? GASPAR: It is being built. THE PRESIDENT: They wanted it so badly — San Diego. They wanted it so badly. And I said, you know, if we build it, we will lose a big constituency, because there won’t be anybody saying, “We want the wall.” But we had to build it. So I know they’re very happy about it. GASPAR: And I’d like to share with you a story, because sometimes humanizing the issue is really important. And a family reached out to me, and I brought with me one single photo on that plane, since the stack of 3,000 emails is a little difficult to carry. But that photo was the last photo taken of 27-year-old Alexander Mazin, who was gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported. Now, as his family picks up the pieces of their lives that have been shattered, his killer lives openly and freely in a Tijuana motel. Now, it’s really interesting what’s happening in San Diego with our borders, because we’ve created a situation where Governor Brown makes San Diego a great place to commit a crime because you have options. You can either be across the border in a matter of minutes and shielded by Mexico, or you have the option of simply staying put, shielded by Governor Moonbeam. So there are options, but there are real consequences for what’s happening. And my heart just broke talking to Mr. Mazin about his son. And he described his son dying like a filthy rat in a parking lot, while this killer gets to just live freely in Mexico, and being robbed of ever having the opportunity to have grandchildren. Now, he said something that stuck with me. He said, “You know, my son, he was a true patriot. He was a wonderful human being, an exemplary citizen, lost because of the problem at our border.” So this case, and so many others, these are the faces — this is what we’re fighting for. And we’re all in, because we’re going to fight to protect our public safety, and we are going to speak freely about this issue until we can look back at our own children and guarantee their safety in our community. Thank you for your advocacy. THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much. And you find Mexico helps or it does nothing for us? GASPAR: Mexico does not help with cases like this because it will take years — THE PRESIDENT: Mexico does nothing for us. They do nothing for us. GASPAR: And this family will — THE PRESIDENT: Mexico talks, but they do nothing for us, especially at the border. Certainly don’t help us much on trade, but especially at the border, they do nothing for us. Jeff, thank you very much. Jeff. ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS: Mr. President, great to be with you. I want you to know that the President has made clear to all of us that we have to do better. We are going to do better in our Department. We’re reviewing everything we’re doing. And we’re going to probably have twice as many prosecutions, add a whole bunch of judges, and do the things that we can to move this agenda forward. But I want to tell you, in my opinion, having been here and a lot of battles over this issue, this year — Kevin, and I know you and I were talking about it — could be the year — this is the year that we have to move Congress. I’ve always said Congress will pass anything as long as it doesn’t work. (Laughter.) If you come up with a bill that will actually improve our sheriffs’ and our ICE officers’ and Border Patrol officers’ ability to do their job, to deport people who have entered illegally, then they object, and we seem to come up short. This time, let’s not come up short. We’ve got a leader. He can articulate this message effectively. And if we all get behind our leader, we’ll get something done this year that’s historic. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jeff. Thank you very much. SHERIFF GRANGOFF: Mr. President, Ray Grangoff, Deputy with the Orange County Sheriffs Department. And thank you so much for fighting for law enforcement. It’s much appreciated. You know, for us, as the Mayor said, the biggest issue with SB 54 is not being able to communicate with law enforcement partners. We need to be able to talk. And since 9/11, we have done a great job of opening up the communication at the local, state, and federal level, and addressing our shared threats. And in communicating with ICE, we were able to address the shared threat of getting criminal offenders off our streets. We had a 287(g) program in Orange County, where we were able to screen all our inmates, and some of those people that we were able to identify were people that weren’t even yet on ICE’s radar because they were just new to the country. And so we were able to put them on ICE’s radar and get them out of here. One of them that stands out, and it was back in October of 2016, a 21-year-old that was in jail on child molestation charges. We screened that person and we were able to alert ICE, and now that person is serving time and will be out of the country. But that goes away with SB 54, and we’re not able to talk, and that is not a good thing. We need to address the shared threats. So we will reap these bad policies that have been sown. But the lawsuit and what your administration is doing to fight that is a huge help. So keep it up, and thank you so much. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sheriff. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MAYOR HACKBARTH-MCINTYRE: Hi. Julie Hackbarth-McIntyre, city of Barstow. We sit — we have the longest cul-de-sac. The National Training Center is 27 miles from the city of Barstow. When we joined the amicus brief, it was — we recognized that — myself and my councilmembers — was that federal law reigns over immigration, not the state. What is happening — in listening around this table of what’s happening in other communities, I haven’t had anything personal from the ICE of illegal immigration yet, but I know it’s coming, because we can’t enforce anything. The crime rate is up in California, and it’s going to continue to rise as long as these policies — THE PRESIDENT: It’s true. MAYOR HACKBARTH-MCINTYRE: — are blanketed across California. And they don’t — they’re not talking to the small communities. We talk to our citizens every day. They’re afraid — THE PRESIDENT: And we have — the crime rate in the nation is way down. But in California, it’s up. Because of the ridiculous laws. Go ahead. MAYOR HACKBARTH-MCINTYRE: Yes. And I just appreciate, Mr. President, for you here, listening to our concerns, listening to — it’s going to take all of us and I think we’re ready to make the fight to California to say, “Enough is enough. We’re done.” The blanketed policies across California aren’t working. So we need help. I’m glad that you’re making this fight known. We appreciate everyone in your staff, in your administration, helping and pushing through to make sure that our communities are safe. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. MAYOR PRO TEM KUSUMOTO: Mr. President, I’m Warren Kusumoto from the tiny town of Los Alamitos. And we were first, and we were boldest — (laughter and applause) — PARTICIPANT: Here, here. MAYOR PRO TEM KUSUMOTO: We’ve done something that no other city has done. We’ve actually passed an ordinance and exposed our city to a lawsuit, as Mayor Edgar said. And in this experience, there’s a silent majority of patriots out there — I’m sorry, I’m getting broken up — that they want this. They want us to do what we’re doing. And that anyone with common sense knows this California Values Act was put in place to protect those that are here breaking the law. And the message I got from this whole experience is, the citizens of our state and our city feel like they have less rights than the entitled illegal aliens, and the entitled attitude is a thing that really just makes me really unhappy. They feel that they’re entitled to something that we don’t even get. So please, sir, we need your help. We appreciate your leadership. And because — THE PRESIDENT: And by the way, you gave us great leadership, too. MAYOR PRO TEM KUSUMOTO: Thank you, sir. THE PRESIDENT: Don’t kid yourself. You did a great job. MAYOR PRO TEM KUSUMOTO: But the state — you know, the double-speak from the politicians in the State of California — the commandeering — they’ve commandeered our police force by tying their hands. And so that’s the double-speak that comes out of the bullies there. We just poked the bully. And I think being the lowlifes that we are, we’re closest to the people. We know what the people want, and we’ve gone forward with that boldly. And I’ve asked other cities to step up and do at least — consider the matter, listen to their constituents, and they’ll know what they’re supposed to do. Thank you, sir, for having us here. THE PRESIDENT: Thanks very much. Great job. Thank you. STEEL: Mr. President, Michelle Steel from Orange County. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. STEEL: Thank you very much by inviting us. And I just want to say, as a Korean-American — first generation Korean-American — went through legal process to coming in here, really appreciate for the release of three Korean-Americans from North Korea. So we really appreciate that. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. We’re very happy about that. STEEL: At the same time that — for SB 54 — that because of City of Los Alamitos, they have 11,700 people living there, and they had the gutsy move and then Orange County led, as of now, the 9 counties of 58 in California that they passed an ordinance — they passed the ordinances or resolutions to go anti-sanctuary state. And then more than 35 cities as of now. This is really an interesting experience because I was never called — I married to — you know, Kevin knows my husband, John Steel, who is a national committeeman from California — THE PRESIDENT: Good. Good. Say hello. STEEL: This is the first time that I was called — because I was going out for anti-sanctuary state — “a racist big ‘B’.” I mean, on the email that you get this — and I said, “Oh my God, first generation. How desperate that the other side are” — (laughter) — “that being called.” But I am very, very excited that Orange County actually filed a lawsuit to join Attorney General’s lawsuit. So June 5th, that court is going to decide we can join them — join the federal government or not. If it’s not, then we’re going to file the lawsuit. THE PRESIDENT: Good STEEL: So we’re going to work together in Orange County. Most of cities that we came from — Laguna Niguel and San Juan Capistrano — Orange County is all with you. And you know what? People — and I got all these emails; mostly positive. And then, actually, Berkeley study came out where 57 percent are against us — so for sanctuary state — and 41 percent against sanctuary state. I don’t think that polling is really right because whatever we get, we got all mostly positive ones except that person called. Yep. THE PRESIDENT: Right. Right. Well, you have done a great job, Michelle. STEEL: Thank you very much. THE PRESIDENT: We appreciate it. Fantastic job. Sheriff? SHERIFF CHRISTIANSON: Well, Mr. President, thank you for having us. And first of all, thank you for being a defender of the rule of law, and for your overwhelming support of public safety and standing with the men and women who put their lives on the line every day. That’s just tremendous. You know, the great part about being last is there’s not much else to say. (Laughter.) So I won’t, in the interest in time and out of respect of your time, I’ll only add one point. And I know this is something that we’ve had conversations with Director Homan and Attorney General Sessions, and that’s the detainer issue. For the sheriffs, that’s a real problem for us. The federal court has said that honoring detainers is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. That puts us in a very precarious position from a point — a liability standpoint. And we really need to be able to do our jobs without all of the interference that’s going on. And certainly, I’m going to reaffirm Director Homan’s comments. We have an outstanding relationship with ICE. We work very closely with them. Since 9/11, sir, we have an unbelievable partnership with our federal law enforcement agencies. And there shouldn’t be anybody interfering with a sheriff’s ability, a chief’s ability, or anybody in this room at this table today from defending people against those who exploit and victimize them. There should be no interference in our ability to protect our communities, to protect our national security. I’m privileged to live in the Central Valley, where agriculture is the number-one economic industry — multi-billion dollar industry. We feed the world. ICE is not out sweeping through those agricultural communities. We’re looking for the people, the criminals. Not the people who are working, seeking a better life in America, sent their kids to school, are out every day in agriculture, whether that’s nuts, fruits, poultry, dairy, you name it. That’s not what we’re doing, sir. We’re focused on those individuals who victimize and exploit the weak and defenseless. And we should be able to do that without interference. Thank you for having us. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Adam. That’s fantastic. I want to thank everybody for being here, very special people. And we are — step by step, we’re bringing it back, and we will bring it back. We will not fail. We’ll bring it back. So thank you very much. Thank you very much. Please. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. END 4:14 P.M. EDT ||||| The White House communications shop issued a press release condemning MS-13 gang criminals as animals after media outcry the previous week. The release was titled “What You Need To Know About The Violent Animals Of MS-13” and followed President Donald Trump’s use of the word “animals” to describe the gang members in a Wednesday roundtable. Trump’s comment was quickly portrayed by several members of the national media and other outlets as disparaging of illegal immigrants. (RELATED: Chuck Todd Is Defending Trump Over The ‘Animals’ Comment) A tough take down by the California governor after @realDonaldTrump calls people trying to get into the country “animals” not people. https://t.co/LPKiHPJaWZ — Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) May 16, 2018 Trump lashed out at undocumented immigrants during a White House meeting, calling those trying to breach the country’s borders “animals” https://t.co/aQNeu29T6e pic.twitter.com/ogrFKaWyDZ — The New York Times (@nytimes) May 16, 2018 The President and White House press secretary blasted the media for their reaction saying he would “always” refer to such gang criminals as animals. Sarah Sanders similarly noted that calling MS-13 gang criminals did not even go far enough in describing their depravity. (RELATED: Trump Doubles Down On MS-13 Animals Comment)

To say the White House is doubling down on use of the word "animals" to describe MS-13 gang members is a mathematical understatement. In an official press release Monday, the White House uses the word 10 times, counting the headlines. "What You Need To Know About The Violent Animals Of MS-13" is the main headline of the release. The Daily Caller suggests the White House is trolling the media after the outcry that erupted last week, when Trump used "animals" during a roundtable discussion on immigration. (Here is the transcript.) After the roundtable, the White House said Trump had clearly been referring to MS-13 gang members, not undocumented immigrants in general, and press chief Sarah Huckabee Sanders said later that she didn't think "animals" was strong enough. In Monday's press release, the White House recounts several violent murders linked to the gang and ends by saying that "Trump's entire administration is working tirelessly to bring these violent animals to justice." Vox takes a look at the entire controversy, including the context of the original remarks, noting that "both sides think they've won."

VA’s Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is responsible for administering benefit programs, such as disability compensation and pension. Veterans and their families can apply for benefits at any of VA’s 58 VAROs. Significant differences exist among VAROs; for example, as of September 30, 1994, their claims processing staffs ranged in size from 11 to 219. Likewise, performance varies considerably; for example, the time needed to process initial disability claims ranged from 86 to 367 days in 1994. VA’s ability to process claims for benefits in a timely way has been a major topic of concern for many years. In 1990, VA took steps to fundamentally change the way services are provided to veterans. A key element of those changes is modernization of VBA’s automated information systems, projected to be completed in 1998. Progress on this effort has been slow, and we have raised significant concerns about the adequacy of planning and implementation. In response to our initial work, VA agreed with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to, among other things, increase project oversight, establish outcome-oriented performance measures and document the system’s effect on service, and update the project’s economic analysis. The OMB agreement included timeliness goals to be met by the end of fiscal year 1998—as well as interim goals—for selected types of claims, including initial disability compensation and initial pension claims. In 1990 the Secretary of VA also asked all VAROs to identify and implement innovative changes aimed at speeding up claims processing and reducing the growing backlog. In response, some VAROs undertook major restructuring initiatives, but most continued using the traditional “assembly-line” approach to processing. Under this approach, each claim passes through several individuals, each of whom performs a specific task. One person enters the claim into the computerized system and opens the claims file. Another then determines what information is needed and develops requests for that information. Another communicates with VA hospital staff if a physical examination is needed. These steps continue until an “authorizer” approves the decision. Often, files are centrally located and are sent back and forth from the central files to various claims processors many times before a claim is decided. The claims backlog and processing times did not decrease but grew from 1990 to 1993. The backlog of compensation and pension claims grew from about 378,000 to about 528,000 during that period. Table 1 shows that, during the same period, average processing time increased for the four types of claims specifically included in VA’s agreement with OMB. VA attributed its claims processing difficulties to several factors, including significantly increased workloads resulting from downsizing of the military, increased complexity of claims, and expanded responsibility resulting from decisions by the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals created in 1988. “There is no ownership or accountability associated with the process. The claim physically moves from one location to the next, with each person responsible for a small part of the process and each movement contributing to further delay in the claim.” The panel’s recommendations addressed what it saw as three key problem areas in claims processing: (1) inadequate claims development, (2) excessive response time for obtaining evidence, and (3) an unacceptably long time to rate cases. (See app. I for a list of the panel’s recommendations.) The recommendations were based, in part, on initiatives already implemented in one or more VAROs and on panel members’ judgment. The panel was composed of people from both inside and outside VA with extensive experience and knowledge of VA operations and relied on expertise and judgment to identify root causes and develop recommended changes. Our work and the work of others have also identified these three areas as significant problems for VA. During 1994 some VAROs continued or began making changes intended to improve claims processing, and VA worked to develop guidance and policies for implementing the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations. During that year the number of claims awaiting a decision decreased somewhat, from 528,000 in 1993 to about 485,000 in 1994. However, average processing times increased and VA moved further away from, rather than closer to, the 1998 timeliness goals. Officials told us that processing times increased because, during the later part of the year, VA focused on reducing the backlog of old claims, thus increasing the average age of claims closed. Table 2 shows the average 1994 processing times for the four types of claims included in the OMB agreement compared with the average time in 1993 and the 1998 goals. To determine VA’s plans for implementing change, we examined ongoing and planned efforts to change claims processing structures and procedures in seven VAROs (see app. II). We judgmentally selected VAROs that differed in size and the number and type of changes already made. At these locations we discussed the impact of changes with officials, analyzed pertinent processing data and reports, and observed claims processing activities. We also visited VA’s eastern and western area offices, where we discussed the initiatives that VAROs in each area had implemented and the area offices’ role in implementing and monitoring those and future initiatives.In addition, we analyzed the findings and recommendations of VA’s Blue Ribbon Panel and headquarters’ plan for implementing them. To evaluate VA’s plans for determining the effectiveness of VARO changes, we discussed plans for assessing the impact of changes with officials from VBA’s Compensation and Pension Service and Program Analysis and Evaluation staff. We also discussed how VA plans to ensure that VAROs implement those initiatives that offer the greatest promise for solving their claims processing problems. Our work focused on changes in VAROs’ claims processing structures and procedures and not on VBA’s computer system modernization effort or VBA’s reengineering task force—which is charged with looking beyond compensation and pension issues to improving operations throughout VBA. An ongoing GAO study is addressing VA’s systems modernization efforts and their relationship to the changes in VARO structures and procedures discussed in this report and to VBA’s reengineering task force. Additionally, at VA’s request, the Center for Naval Analyses is conducting an independent assessment of the coordination, control, and integration of key modernization activities, including their relationship to other initiatives aimed at improving claims processing. Our review was conducted between October 1993 and August 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. VA has developed several model claims processing structures that incorporate some key Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations. In addition, VA is working to modify regulations and other claims processing policies to encourage and allow a variety of procedural changes. VAROs will have flexibility in deciding which initiatives to implement, given their individual circumstances. However, our review showed that some VAROs are not likely to implement some initiatives. They may be reluctant to make changes or face logistical obstacles to doing so. Also, they may not have knowledge of the experiences of other VAROs, knowledge that could overcome reluctance or show ways to get past obstacles. The Blue Ribbon Panel concluded that VA’s traditional assembly-line claims processing system should be completely restructured. The goals of the revised structures represented in the models, as described by VA officials, are to put fewer resources into clerical functions and more into decisionmaking—especially rating claims—and to ensure good service as required by the Government Performance and Results Act. To replace the current assembly-line system, VA developed models that reorganize staff along two basic types of team structures, one based on a case management approach and the other on a functional alignment approach. The case management approach organizes staff into small work teams responsible for all claims processing steps for all or most types of claims. This approach reduces the number of staff involved in processing each claim. The functional alignment approach organizes staff into two types of work teams. One team handles the processing of all claims that require a rating decision, thereby allowing some specialization of staff responsible for the most complex claims VA processes. The other team performs all claims-related activities for claims that do not require a rating decision. Implementation of each approach could follow one of two paths. Option one would integrate some of the VAROs’ staff responsible for all direct contact with customers—Veterans Services Division staff—with staff responsible for processing claims—Adjudication Division staff. This would allow a veteran to talk directly, in person or by telephone, to the individuals most knowledgeable about his or her specific claim. Option two would keep the functions of the two divisions separate during a transitional phase, after which the two divisions would be fully integrated. In addition to changing the claims processing structure, VA is planning a variety of other initiatives—not specifically related to any one model—to improve processing procedures. These initiatives include, for example, allowing claims examiners to contact claimants by telephone, developing a system to better track and locate claim files, and having claims examiners specialize by type of claim such as initial disability compensation or pension. Although empirical data were often not available to show a positive impact from these initiatives, VARO officials we spoke to who were implementing them believed the initiatives were improving timeliness or other aspects of service. Four VAROs that we visited allowed claims processors to contact sources of evidence by telephone rather than by the standard practice of sending a letter. Officials at all four VAROs found that using telephones was helpful. Officials at one VARO said that contacting sources by telephone shortens the time required to obtain the evidence and helps ensure that claimants and other sources of evidence understand exactly what VA needs. Officials at another VARO noted that applications frequently come in lacking critical information such as social security numbers. In such instances, processors simply telephone applicants to obtain the missing information. Locating files is a continuing problem in VA, one that regional officials acknowledged takes considerable staff time. One VARO modified VA’s existing computer system to better track claim files. The files at this VARO were well organized, and officials said they have almost eliminated the problem of lost and misplaced files. Two other VAROs planned to modify their systems in a similar manner. In addition, VA is revising existing computer software that uses bar codes to track files. The revisions will allow more VAROs to use the bar code system. Another initiative—specialization—allows processors to become more knowledgeable about complex issues related to a specific type of claim. According to officials, this practice increases processors’ proficiency. Data from one VARO that implemented specialized work teams late in 1993 show that processing times decreased for the four types of claims included in VA’s agreement with OMB. For example, the time to process initial disability compensation claims decreased from 161 days in 1993 to 141 days in 1994. In trying to improve claims processing, VA is allowing VAROs to make the changes they themselves deem necessary. VA has mandated that VAROs choose one of the models for reorganizing staff as a basis for their new claims processing structures. However, VAROs can modify the chosen model. VA disseminated the models to the VAROs in late November 1994. By January 1995, each VARO must submit a proposed claims processing structure for VA approval. In general, VA headquarters’ response to the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations has been to amend policies to allow, but not require, VAROs to implement changes, such as using telephones in claims development or removing the requirement for review and approval of the decision on each claim. VA officials said that regional directors are in the best position to determine whether specific actions will work in their given situation. In their opinion, mandating specific actions nationwide without considering the diversity that exists among VAROs—such as size and local resources—would be counterproductive. Some VAROs may be reluctant to make some changes or may face difficulties in doing so. This reluctance could explain the slow progress many VAROs have made in implementing changes. Early in 1994, more than 3 years after the Secretary called for VAROs to make fundamental and innovative changes, only 35 of 58 VAROs responded positively to VA’s request for information on changes made. On average, the 35 VAROs made fewer than three changes, and some of those changes were minor. For example, one VARO simply displayed graphs showing claims processing goals and target dates in the claims processing work area. Some VAROs we visited were reluctant to implement changes that appear to have considerable advantages. Officials at several VAROs, for example, expressed concern about allowing claims processors to use telephones to contact veterans, although VA officials believe that such contact is helpful. One VARO official said he believed this would lead staff to use the telephones for personal business. An official at another VARO was concerned that staff would spend too much time “on hold” waiting for responses from institutions such as VA hospitals. Furthermore, VAROs that want to change may have difficulty doing so. For example, two VAROs we visited were limited physically in how much they could change. One had recently renovated its space and installed modular furniture, which limited its ability to lay out its space to accommodate work teams. The other had implemented teams but could not store their files in close proximity to the teams because the floor was not strong enough to support the weight of the files. (Colocating files is generally thought to increase the efficiency of teams and improve customer service.) Likewise, regional and headquarters officials noted that some VAROs may encounter physical limitations that would make it difficult to provide all claims processors access to telephones. When we discussed these VARO concerns with officials in VBA’s Compensation and Pension Service, they reiterated that these are the kinds of problems that necessitate flexibility: not all VAROs can implement all changes. They said, however, that in some cases they would negotiate with VARO officials to encourage implementation of specific initiatives, such as using telephones to request information. Some VAROs may not be fully aware of initiatives that have been implemented at other VAROs. Although VA headquarters disseminates information about regional initiatives at periodic headquarters-sponsored meetings of claims processing officials, much of the information sharing among VAROs is informal. There is no reliable mechanism by which VA either collects or disseminates complete information about regional experiences so that VAROs can learn from each other. Much of the information sharing results from informal networking. For example, at one VARO we visited, officials had learned of other VAROs’ examples through informal contacts. Officials at the one VARO took it upon themselves to travel to another to learn about the second VARO’s efforts and results. These informal methods do not guarantee complete information sharing. One official noted that VAROs may not voluntarily share information about initiatives. Likewise, VARO officials who do not make the effort to network may not learn of many initiatives. One area office director noted that VA headquarters needs to do a much better job of compiling and disseminating information about claims processing initiatives. The experience of one VARO demonstrates the usefulness of more formal mechanisms. Officials at that VARO said they learned of an initiative, which they subsequently implemented, during a teleconference the area office set up to discuss ways to reduce claims processing time. Recently, VA has tried to improve information dissemination. VA focused much of its September 1994 meeting of adjudication officers on new initiatives. Much of the discussion concerned new claims processing initiatives that some VAROs have implemented or that VA has proposed—including the new claims processing structures. However, VA’s ability to inform VAROs about initiatives is limited because VA headquarters does not have complete information about regional experiences, either the initiatives that have been tried or their effectiveness. The compensation and pension staff responsible for monitoring VAROs did not have a list showing all initiatives. That staff’s March 1994 data showed that 23 VAROs had implemented 50 initiatives, yet data obtained by the VBA reengineering task force showed that, as of January 1994, 35 VAROs had implemented 86 initiatives. Four VAROs, for example, had implemented some form of claims processing work teams on which the compensation and pension staff had no information. Also, at one VARO we visited, mail clerks processed all death notices received by mail instead of forwarding them to claims processing. This initiative reduced the workload of the claims processors and ensured timely termination of payments but was not included in the data of either the compensation and pension staff or the task force. VA’s current evaluation plans will not provide sufficient information for it to effectively assess VARO initiatives and guide future improvements in VARO operations. This is especially critical because information currently available about the effectiveness of initiatives has been inconclusive. Better evaluation could position VA to react quickly to unsatisfactory results and more effectively disseminate needed information among VAROs. In developing initiatives, VA relied on experience and judgment. The only empirical evidence about initiatives comes from the experience of the VAROs that have already implemented some of the initiatives. However, VA has not required VAROs to evaluate their initiatives and has not provided guidance to those wishing to do so. Not all VAROs have done evaluations, and those done have been inconclusive. An official of VBA’s Program Analysis and Evaluation staff told us that, according to his recent discussions with VARO officials, those officials want headquarters to provide this type of guidance. Some of the VAROs we visited performed weak evaluations. For example, analyses usually considered only the initiatives’ impact on overall processing time or backlog; they did not consider other possible impacts, such as improved communications with veterans. Similarly, some evaluations had technical flaws. One VARO compared the quality of processing for a prototype, team-based unit with that of its unit using the assembly-line approach. Although the comparison showed that the prototype unit was more accurate, the study’s statistical sampling methodology did not allow a valid comparison, raising questions about its conclusion. In other cases, VAROs experienced outcomes that were contradictory or could not clearly be explained by changed procedures. For example, two VAROs of similar size established similar types of specialized claims processing teams but had different results. For unexplained reasons, one’s processing times continued to increase while the other’s decreased. Likewise, where VAROs seemed to be improving, the reasons were unclear. VA identified four VAROs that had recently begun to meet some of the department’s claims processing goals: One used specialization and met processing goals; the other three are among VA’s smallest VAROs, and officials acknowledged that the three were among those that traditionally had the best processing times anyway. In fact, two of those VAROs had reported no changes in their processing structures and procedures. Data are also inconclusive because some initiatives may not have been in place long enough to determine their full impact. It is not clear how long evaluations should continue to accurately assess results. The importance of this issue is demonstrated by dramatically different actions involving three VAROs that have implemented claims processing work teams. Two VAROs disbanded their claims work teams after 7 months or less because processing times or backlog had not been reduced. In contrast, another VARO is continuing to use work teams even though, after nearly 2 years, its processing times and backlog have continued to increase. Additionally, some initiatives can only be implemented fully over the long term so their full impact cannot be evaluated in the short term. For example, the panel’s recommendations included assigning and training additional staff to the rating activity and certifying rating specialists. Revised training materials, performance standards, and a method for certifying rating specialists are not scheduled to be ready until June 1995; then, officials said, it could take 2 years to fully train staff. Therefore, although interim assessments can be made, a full assessment of these initiatives will take several years. VA headquarters plans to continue to routinely assess each VARO’s overall performance in the areas of timeliness, quality, and productivity using national data. Monitoring each VARO’s overall performance in this way is clearly a necessary step. VA needs to know how well regional initiatives, in total, are working. But overall outcome data alone are insufficient. Following its traditional monitoring and evaluation practices, headquarters will evaluate overall outcome data—such as total average time to process each type of claim—for each VARO, semiannually. Each VARO’s progress can be compared with its own past performance and measured against VA’s national goals. Headquarters staff also have a goal of making an on-site visit to each VARO every 2-1/2 years. Additionally, as part of ongoing oversight, area offices will continue their traditional monitoring of VARO operations, including review of outcome data. Using this approach, VA will know which VAROs are improving but will have little sense of what led to the changes or how to help VAROs that are not improving. To guide VAROs, VA will need insight into which initiatives work best under which circumstances and what factors lie behind or obstruct improvement. For example, VA could use information on the following: How individual VAROs implemented their initiatives to help VA interpret why VAROs implementing the same or similar initiatives get different results: For example, several VAROs have created a rating analyst technician position but are using that person differently and may obtain different results.Interim and short-term outcomes to help monitor progress and assess individual initiatives: Because some initiatives address only a part of the process, data related more directly to the initiative itself rather than overall outcomes may be more relevant. For example, for the rating analyst technician who screens claims, the more important measure might be backlogs at the rating board rather than overall backlogs. A variety of factors that could be expected to affect outcomes: These factors might include staff turnover (implementing initiatives may actually increase staff turnover in the near term as job descriptions are changed), workload, and number of cases returned by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals for insufficient evidence. When VA disseminated the new organizational models in November 1994, it mandated that VAROs conduct periodic assessments as part of implementing the models. VA did not, however, specify the nature or scope of those assessments or provide guidance on how they should be conducted. In discussing with us the need for better evaluation of initiatives, officials in the Compensation and Pension Service expressed uncertainty about how to evaluate VARO initiatives to provide headquarters with sufficient information. Although some steps have been taken to determine what information should be collected, VA still needs to (1) determine what information is most critical to interpreting results and (2) develop a plan for obtaining and analyzing the data. VBA’s Program Analysis and Evaluation staff have recognized the need to develop performance measures that are specific to the local environment and the particular initiative. In June and July of 1994, the evaluation staff visited five VAROs to study their work teams and develop ideas for measuring the progress and success of various initiatives. The staff plan to use this information to make suggestions to senior VA management. (These suggestions will incorporate customer satisfaction considerations as required by the Government Performance and Results Act.) This work could be an important first step in developing the information needed to effectively oversee ongoing efforts to improve claims processing. At this point, however, management has not indicated what action it will take. Once VA determines the basic information needed, it can employ a variety of evaluation methods. Ideally, VA would use control groups, possibly setting up separate sections within VAROs, one or more using the revised structure and procedures and others not. Control groups would allow VA to more confidently determine whether changes resulted from the initiatives or from unrelated factors, such as workload or staff turnover. But this method is problematic. Some portion of VARO workload would have to continue to use the existing approach at a time when management sees change as critically needed. Also, VAROs would have to operate for some time using two processing structures, which could significantly strain operations. Though evaluation based on control groups is ideal, it is not absolutely necessary, however. When making management decisions in an organization as diverse as VA, it is not always possible to obtain the definitive information gained from control group methodology. Other evaluation approaches are acceptable. Various statistical methods, for example, would allow VA to compare change over time, using past data to project what the situation would have been—for example, average processing times—if no change in approach had been made and comparing it with the situation under the new approach. Alternatively, qualitative methods could, for example, provide detailed case study information for selected VAROs, focusing on the most important initiatives and choosing VAROs to obtain a mix of approaches and circumstances. Whatever the approach, either VARO staff or headquarters staff could develop the information. Given the urgent need for improving claims processing, the uncertainty about which initiatives will be most effective, and the extent to which some VAROs have already begun making changes, allowing regional flexibility has merit. VAROs can be expected to have different experiences with similar initiatives and therefore need some flexibility. However, if first efforts do not result in sufficient improvement, the VAROs and headquarters need to understand why and to have some basis for determining what other changes have a better chance of success. VA needs information to gain meaningful insight into whether initiatives are working—including whether they are addressing the most significant causes of problems—and how they are affected by regional circumstances. Different results may reflect many factors, not only differences in the types of initiatives undertaken and in VARO size and resources but differences in motivation and commitment to improvement. Without meaningful information to interpret VARO outcome data, headquarters will be hard pressed to ensure improvements as time goes on. Valid VARO assessments of initiatives are critical. Equally important, VA headquarters must understand how results of at least the most significant initiatives were affected by individual VARO circumstances. This broader understanding will better enable VA to disseminate information to VAROs about the pros and cons of various initiatives, provide guidance about what changes to make, and, if necessary, direct VAROs to make specific changes. To better ensure improvement in VARO claims processing, we recommend that the VA Secretary direct the Under Secretary for Benefits to improve plans to evaluate the effectiveness of claims processing initiatives. The improved plans should provide both headquarters and VAROs sufficient information about the effect of initiatives to allow quick response if results are unsatisfactory and to implement even greater improvements if possible. Therefore, the plan should require VAROs to evaluate their major improvement initiatives and provide guidance on how to do so; identify which analytical methods and which data VA headquarters will use to evaluate the various initiatives and make judgments about what changes are most likely to improve claims processing under what circumstances; and describe how VA will disseminate to VAROs information on the experiences, good and bad, that VAROs have in implementing claims processing initiatives. In a letter dated December 13, 1994, commenting on a draft of this report, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs disagreed with our recommendation to develop and implement an evaluation plan. He indicated that VA has in place an evaluation process that includes assessment of performance indicators and that through that process VA reviews, monitors, guides, assesses, and exports initiatives of significance. The Secretary said that the process involves all levels of VBA—from headquarters, including the Compensation and Pension Service; the area offices; and the VAROs themselves. The Secretary also noted that VBA’s project to reorganize claims processing—the major focus of this study—had been in development, testing, and evaluation for at least 2 years. On November 29, 1994, VBA issued organization models to guide VAROs in the future. VA believes its current process—including analysis of outcome data and ongoing monitoring—along with the knowledge and judgment of VA staff, is sufficient to determine the most effective initiatives and provide guidance to VAROs that are not making sufficient progress. In response to the Secretary’s comments, we clarified our recommendation about an evaluation plan to recognize that VA has an evaluation process in place. We continue to believe, however, that the existing process is inadequate. We believe a more thorough evaluation is needed to enable VA to understand not only the outcomes but their causes and to effectively persuade—and, as appropriate, direct—VAROs to adopt the most promising changes. In support of the effectiveness of its improvement efforts to date, VA emphasized that data on average processing times began to show improvement in fiscal year 1995. VA said that processing times for several types of claims for the month of October 1994 were shorter than the times we report for fiscal year 1994 (ended September 1994). It is not clear, however, that these recent data are indicative of an improvement trend. More important, even if they do indicate a trend, VA’s current evaluation process does not allow VA to determine whether changes to the claims processing structure caused the improvement. Interpreting the October 1994 data as the beginning of an improvement trend is questionable because monthly average processing times fluctuate significantly. The national average monthly processing time for original disability compensation claims in fiscal year 1994 ranged from 198 to 227 days while, as we reported, the annual average for that year rose to 212 days from the 1993 average of 198 days. The problem is clearer when viewed at the VARO level. At one VARO, cited by officials as a leader in improving claims processing, the average monthly processing time for original compensation claims fluctuated during fiscal year 1994 from a low of 74 days to a high of 143 days; for 10 months of fiscal year 1994, this VARO’s average was lower than its October 1994 average. More important, whether these data indicate the beginning of a positive trend or not, the VA’s current evaluation process cannot explain with any certainty why these changes are occurring and cannot confidently point to characteristics of VAROs or specific models that have the highest probability of success. For example, VA officials told us that during the later part of fiscal year 1994 VAROs had focused on closing the oldest claims (those over 180 days old). Because, by definition, closing older claims increases average processing times, the reduction in October 1994 may not have resulted from any claims processing initiatives, but, instead, from the 1994 focus on older claims. VARO experiences also demonstrate the difficulty in interpreting outcome data. Although VA points out that its claims processing project has been in development and testing for 2 years, the outcome data—VBA’s key evaluation tool—are inconclusive about the effects of the models. For example, VAROs implementing similar initiatives achieved different results. In fact, the VAROs we visited that had the most experience with changed claims processing structures have not shown a trend toward improved processing times. In the New York VARO—which played a key role in VA’s testing and evaluation of one of the new organization models—data comparing the processing times of staff using the new model with the rest of the staff did not show the new model to be faster. The Secretary also raised a concern about the possible negative impact of our recommendation. He stated that VARO staff were continually seeking ways to improve processing and that it would be “unnecessary and would stifle creativity for all levels of management to know of and to control” each of the many changes until an evaluation showed them to have positive or negative impact. We agree that local creativity should be encouraged. We have not suggested waiting to implement changes in processing structures and procedures until evaluations prove them effective, nor have we suggested that every initiative be evaluated in every VARO. Our report specifically recognizes the urgent need for change in claims processing structures and that some initiatives may be more important than others. However, absent evaluation before widespread implementation, we believe VA should position itself to evaluate at least those initiatives it believes to be the most important, and to do so in a way that allows it to understand the impact different VARO circumstances have on initiatives’ effects. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and other interested parties. This work was performed under the direction of Ruth Ann Heck, Assistant Director. Other major contributors were Richard Wade, Steve Morris, Pamela Scott, and Charles Taylor. Please contact me on (202) 512-7101 if you have questions about this report. 1. Prepare and implement position descriptions to consolidate responsibility for control (i.e., inputting claims into the computer system), development, and award of claims. The consolidated position would be called a rating technician. 2. Create a rating activity responsible for control, development, rating, and authorization of claims requiring a rating. Compile and distribute models for the structure of consolidated rating activities containing both rating specialists and rating technicians. Require all VA regional offices (VARO) to submit for headquarters approval a locally designed plan to restructure their claims processing systems. 3. Elevate to the level of a war effort, the creation, testing, and implementation of the Claims Processing System. This system will be used (1) to help claims processors determine the exact evidence needed to support each claim and (2) to monitor the receipt of that evidence. (VA is developing this computer software package as part of its computer modernization program.) 4. Provide automated on-line access to reference materials (that is, regulations, policy and claims processing manuals, and so forth) through implementation of the Automated Reference Material System. (VA is developing this computer software package as part of its computer modernization program.) 5. Deploy manual development checklists for all aspects of claims processing. 6. Prepare a centralized training program for developing claims. 7. Finish the redesign of the application for disability compensation and pension benefits, and field test the redesigned application. 8. Design a new form to help veterans identify issues and evidence needed to support reopened claims and claims for reevaluation of service-connected disabilities. Convene focus groups to obtain feedback on the design of the new form, and field test the form. 9. Develop, field test, and implement a standard, national package of computer generated letters using input from all VA customers to clarify/improve communications between VA and its customers. 10. Change VA guidelines/procedures to allow claims processors to use other communication modes (telephone, facsimile machine, personal contact, pager, and E-mail). Use these other modes to supplement written communications between claims processors and claimants and other evidence sources. 11. Revise forms/systems to include claimant telephone numbers—both daytime and nighttime. 12. Expand the memoranda of understanding between the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to include examination quality measures. (VHA completes medical examinations for VBA.) 13. Establish a reporting scheme to monitor the quality, local and national, of VHA examinations. 14. Establish physicians’ coordinators at VA headquarters, medical centers, and VAROs to improve the timeliness and quality of examinations. 15. Establish a joint VBA/VHA education and training effort concerning disability compensation and pension examinations. 16. Improve the automated medical information exchange (AMIE) examination process. (AMIE is a computer system through which VBA requests examinations and VHA reports the results.) 17. Transfer responsibility and associated resources for disability compensation and pension examinations from VHA to VBA. 18. Establish a high-level dialogue with the Social Security Administration (SSA) to communicate VA’s evidence and other needs. 19. Update/verify VBA procedural guidance on obtaining SSA records. 20. If possible, establish a VA/SSA computer link to obtain SSA medical records. 21. Expand the current agreement with the Department of the Army branches for obtaining service medical records to all military service. 22. Assign VA personnel to Department of Defense records centers to assist in obtaining service medical records and to perform liaison activities. 23. Change VBA procedures and forward the claims of separating military personnel to the VARO serving their home state immediately, rather than waiting to send claims from the VARO serving the state where the separating personnel were located. 24. Seek guidance from the environmental support group regarding their sources and capabilities. (The environmental support group is a Department of Defense organization that assists VA in adjudicating claims involving service-connected stress.) 25. Provide guidance on use of evidence sources other than the environmental support group for development of claims involving post traumatic stress syndrome. 26. Continue to educate VBA and VHA staff and veterans service organizations regarding developing claims involving post traumatic stress syndrome. 27. Revise VA regulations to allow acceptance of photocopied documents, rather than requiring certified documents. 28. Ensure that the veterans network design incorporates tracking of case status through the appeal process. (VA is developing the veterans network as part of its computer modernization program.) 29. Initiate national VA/Department of Defense dialogue concerning examinations given to separating military personnel to ensure that the examinations meet VA requirements. 30. Educate Department of Defense medical staff concerning requirements for VA examinations. 31. Provide personal computer processing capability for the rating staff to include standardized formats and glossaries. 32. Use specialization selectively to concentrate on certain categories of complex rating cases. 33. Expand and expedite centrally coordinated training for rating staff. 34. Develop formal training programs for rating staff, and require that the staff obtain certification for rating claims. 35. Develop centralized training for rating staff that utilizes videos, video- and teleconferencing, satellite, and interactive personal computer-based programs. 36. Conduct a special review of VA regulations, manuals, and policies to refine them. 37. Reallocate staff resources to the rating activity; and train staff in the areas of rating, development, and authorization. 38. Complete the evaluation of single-signature authority being tested. (This test eliminated the requirement that a second rating specialist review claims.) 39. Establish help teams wherein several rating specialists from one or more VAROs are temporarily assigned to a VARO with a large backlog of cases awaiting a rating. 40. Implement the veterans records control system as soon as possible. (VA is developing this computer software package as part of its computer modernization program.) 41. Develop, test, and implement the rating board automation system. (VA is developing this computer software package as part of its computer modernization program.) Placed all education claims files in one location for easier access and better control. Allowed veterans benefits counselors to execute simple adjudication claims processing tasks for education claims so that adjudicators could perform more complex adjudication tasks. Participated with another VARO in developing a computer software word processing package for preparing rating decision statements. Converted a traditional claims processing unit to a case management team in October 1993, but disbanded the team after about 4 months of operations because processing times and backlog had not decreased. In April 1994, reorganized all staff into specialized claims processing work teams—one to process claims requiring a rating decision and one to process claims that do not require a rating decision. Created a rating analyst technician position to screen each claim before it is sent to the rating board to ensure that the claim has been properly developed and is ready for action by the rating board. Allowed claims examiners to begin using telephones in lieu of letters to contact veterans and others to request evidence needed to expedite adjudication of a claim. Established no new initiatives. Established case management self-directed work teams in May 1993 to process 25 percent of the office’s workload. These work teams consolidated claims processing and veterans assistance functions and created 2 positions to perform tasks that had been performed by up to 10 individuals. Placed all claims processing work under self-directed work teams in August 1994. In June 1993, established claims processing work teams that included both adjudicators and veterans benefits counselors, but the functions of the individual team members were not changed. Created a rating analyst technician position to assist in the initial development of claims. Developed a check list that shows the evidence needed to support the different types of claims, with a goal of more fully developing claims. (continued) In November 1992, established claims processing work teams along the case management approach to process selected types of claims. In April 1994, reorganized the teams to process 50 percent of all types of claims. Allowed claims examiners to begin using telephones in lieu of letters to contact veterans and others to request evidence needed to expedite adjudication of a claim. Created a rating analyst technician position to screen each claim before it is sent to the rating board to ensure that the claim has been properly developed and is ready for action by the rating board. Implemented a practice of conditionally approving claims on the basis of photocopies of certified documents until certified copies are obtained. Tested a practice of finalizing claims without independent review by a second person. Developed a check list that shows the evidence needed to support the different types of claims, with a goal of more fully developing claims. In early 1994, established two specialized claims processing teams—one to process claims requiring a rating decision and one to process claims that do not require a rating decision. The two teams were converted to case management claims processing work teams in June 1994. Modified VA’s computer system to permit tracking of claims files. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) efforts to improve its claims processing operations, focusing on the effectiveness of planned changes to veterans affairs regional offices' (VARO) claims processing structures and procedures. GAO found that: (1) VA has taken steps to ensure that VARO implement the changes necessary to improve overall service to veterans; (2) VA needs to implement the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendations to improve disability claims processing; (3) VA has developed several model claims processing structures designed to reorganize staff so that fewer resources are devoted to clerical functions; (4) the models will serve as a framework for implementing other initiatives such as improving claims folder management and the use of evidence received by telephone or fax; (5) VA is also developing regulations and training materials to encourage VARO to adopt these improvement initiatives; (6) VARO have been given significant flexibility to implement initiatives in ways they believe are appropriate; (7) VA may not have a sound basis for determining what additional changes need to be made for guiding future improvements because it has not developed adequate plans for evaluating the merits of the various initiatives; and (8) VA does not have a formal mechanism to disseminate information about the effectiveness of regional initiatives and other VARO experiences with these initiatives.

American and British diplomats fear Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme could lead to fissile material falling into the hands of terrorists or a devastating nuclear exchange with India. The latest cache of US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks contains warnings that Pakistan is rapidly building its nuclear stockpile despite the country's growing instability and "pending economic catastrophe". Mariot Leslie, a senior British Foreign Office official, told US diplomats in September 2009: "The UK has deep concerns about the safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons," according to one cable classified "secret/noforn [no foreign nationals]". Seven months earlier the US ambassador to Islamabad, Anne Patterson, cabled to Washington: "Our major concern is not having an Islamic militant steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in government of Pakistan facilities could gradually smuggle enough material out to eventually make a weapon." The leak of classified US diplomatic correspondence exposes in detail the deep tensions between Washington and Islamabad over a broad range of issues, including counter-terrorism, Afghanistan and finance, as well as the nuclear question. The cables also revealed that: • Small teams of US special forces have been operating secretly inside Pakistan's tribal areas, with Pakistani government approval, while senior ministers have privately supported US drone attacks. • The ambassador starkly informed Washington that "no amount of money" from the US would stop the Pakistani army backing Islamist militants and the Afghan Taliban insurgency. • The US concluded Pakistani troops were responsible for a spate of extrajudicial killings in the Swat Valley and tribal belt but decided not to comment publicly to allow the army to take action on its own. • Diplomats in Islamabad were asked by the Pentagon to survey refugee camps on the Afghan border, possibly for air strike targeting information. • The president, Asif Ali Zardari – whose wife, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated – has made extensive preparations in case he too is killed, and once told the US vice-president, Joe Biden, that he feared the military "might take me out". Pakistan's rulers are so sensitive about their much-prized nuclear weapons that in July 2009 they stalled on a previously agreed plan for the US to recover and dispose of highly enriched uranium spent fuel from a nuclear research reactor, in the interests of preventing proliferation and theft. They told the US embassy: "If the local media got word of the fuel removal, "they certainly would portray it as the US taking Pakistan's nuclear weapons". US fears over Pakistan were spelled out in an intelligence briefing in 2008. "Despite pending economic catastrophe, Pakistan is producing nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country in the world," the secret cable said. Leslie, director general of defence and intelligence at the Foreign Office, made clear the UK shared these anxieties when she spoke to US diplomats at a London arms control meeting in September 2009. The Pakistanis were worried the US "will drop in and take their nukes", she said, according to a US cable to Washington. Pakistan was now prepared to accept "nuclear safety help" from British technicians, but only under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The cable said Leslie thought nuclear proliferation was the greater danger to the world, but it "ranks lower than terrorism on the public's list of perceived threats". Another senior British official at the meeting, Jon Day, the Ministry of Defence's director general for security policy, said recent intelligence indicated Pakistan was "not going in a good direction". The Russians shared concerns Pakistan was "highly unstable". Yuri Korolev, from the Russian foreign ministry, told US officials: "Islamists are not only seeking power in Pakistan but are also trying to get their hands on nuclear materials." Speaking in February in Washington, he called for the problem of Pakistani nuclear sites to be addressed in ongoing missile control talks, claiming: "Over the last few years extremists have attacked vehicles that carry staff to and from these facilities. Some were killed and a number were abducted and there has been no trace seen of them." Korolev said: "There are 120,000-130,000 people directly involved in Pakistan's nuclear and missile programmes … There is no way to guarantee that all are 100% loyal and reliable." He claimed extremists were now recruiting more easily: "Pakistan has had to hire people to protect nuclear facilities that have especially strict religious beliefs, and recently the general educational and cultural levels in Pakistan has been falling." These fears are expressed in the secret state department files against a backdrop of Pakistani determination to build more nuclear warheads. A Chinese foreign minister, He Yafei, sought to explain to the Americans why Pakistan was blocking fissile material control talks. At a London meeting in 2009, he said: "The underlying problem … is that India and Pakistan view each other as enemies. Nuclear weapons are crucial to Pakistan. Indeed, a Pakistani military leader said his army was no match for the Indian army." US diplomats in Islamabad were told Pakistan was working on producing smaller, tactical nuclear weapons that could be used on the battlefield against Indian troops. "The result of this trend is the need for greater stocks of fissile material … Strategic considerations point Pakistan in the direction of a larger nuclear force that requires a greater amount of fissile material, Pakistani officials argue." The US conducted its own secret analysis of India's military contingency plans, which are codenamed Cold Start. India has said that if sufficiently provoked, it would mount a rapid invasion of Pakistan. The US said in a cable that it doubted the Indian army was capable of doing so: "It is the collective judgment of the mission that India would likely encounter very mixed results. Indian forces could have significant problems consolidating initial gains due to logistical difficulties and slow reinforcement." But the US ambassador to India, Tim Roemer, warned in February that for India to launch Cold Start, would be to "roll the nuclear dice". It could trigger the world's first use of nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Indian leaders no doubt realise that, although Cold Start is designed to punish Pakistan in a limited manner without triggering a nuclear response, they cannot be sure whether Pakistani leaders will in fact refrain from such a response." Pakistan 'in tatters' A senior US intelligence official was "unrelentingly gloomy" about Pakistan, the current safe haven for al-Qaida in the Afghanistan war, during a private briefing of Nato representatives. Peter Lavoy, national intelligence officer for south Asia, concluded in November 2008 that nuclear-armed Pakistan's economy was "in tatters" and the country could "completely lose control of its Pashtun territories over the next few years", according to a leaked US cable. More than a third of people were unemployed or underemployed, he said. "Pakistan's population is becoming less and less educated, the country lacks sufficient energy and clean water resources to serve its population, and there is minimal foreign investment." A few months later, in April 2009, Patterson was slightly less gloomy, saying Pakistan was not a "failed state". "We nonetheless recognise that the challenges it confronts are dire. The government is losing more and more territory every day to foreign and domestic militant groups; deteriorating law and order in turn is undermining economic recovery. The bureaucracy is settling into third-world mediocrity, as demonstrated by some corruption and a limited capacity to implement or articulate policy." She said: "Extremism … is no longer restricted to the border area. We are seeing young Punjabi men turn up in [the tribal areas] and Afghanistan as fighters recruited from areas of southern Punjab where poverty, illiteracy and despair create a breeding ground for extremism." The good news was that President Asif Ali Zardari "while far from perfect", was "pro-American and anti-extremist; we believe he is our best ally in the government", she said. This January, however, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, told Indian government officials in Delhi that: "the army was the key decision-maker while President Zardari was increasingly sidelined". He said the civilian government had a limited capacity to move against groups behind the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008. ||||| wikileaks WikiLeaks Cables: The Matter of Pakistan and the Enriched Uranium Some of the myriad facts that emerged from today's daily dose of WikiLeaks (Subject: Pakistan) are more revelatory than others. Surprise, even President Asif Ali Zardari is scared of his country's real power base — its military and intelligence leadership — telling Vice-President Biden that he worried that Pakistan's military might “take me out.” The cables also confirmed that despite increased cooperation — like letting American special ops soldiers deploy with Pakistani troops along the Afghan border — Pakistan is reluctant to cut ties with some of the region's strongest militant groups. They see it "as insurance for the inevitable day that the United States military withdraws from Afghanistan — and Pakistan wants to exert maximum influence inside Afghanistan and against Indian intervention," says the Times. Then there was the candid cable from former ambassador Anne W. Patterson, who dissented from prevailing sentiment in Washington to warn officials that improving our ties with India “feeds Pakistani establishment paranoia and pushes them closer to both Afghan and Kashmir focused terrorist groups.” A possible upside from the leak: sympathy for Barack Obama. But perhaps the most intriguing thing to come out of the Islamabad cables is the local media's role in sustaining Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. Less than a month after President Obama "testily assured" reporters in 2009 that the country's nuclear materials would "remain out of militant hands," Ambassador Patterson sent a cable concerning a stockpile of highly enriched uranium that had sat for years near an old nuclear reactor in Pakistan. There was enough material to build a number of dirty bombs or, possibly, a nuclear one. In the May 27, 2009, cable, Patterson said that the Pakistani government was taking too long to follow through on an agreement to remove the material made two years earlier. She wrote to senior American officials that the Pakistani government had concluded that “the ‘sensational’ international and local media coverage of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons made it impossible to proceed at this time.” A senior Pakistani official, she said, warned that if word leaked out that Americans were helping remove the fuel, the local press would “certainly portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.” The fuel is still there. Sometimes five little words can say so much. We're just happy it wasn't the liberal media establishment's fault this time. From Pakistan, Diplomats Wrote About a Vexing Ally [NYT] ||||| ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Less than a month after President Obama testily assured reporters in 2009 that Pakistan’s nuclear materials “will remain out of militant hands,” his ambassador here sent a secret message to Washington suggesting that she remained deeply worried. The ambassador’s concern was a stockpile of highly enriched uranium, sitting for years near an aging research nuclear reactor in Pakistan. There was enough to build several “dirty bombs” or, in skilled hands, possibly enough for an actual nuclear bomb. In the cable, dated May 27, 2009, the ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, reported that the Pakistani government was yet again dragging its feet on an agreement reached two years earlier to have the United States remove the material. She wrote to senior American officials that the Pakistani government had concluded that “the ‘sensational’ international and local media coverage of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons made it impossible to proceed at this time.” A senior Pakistani official, she said, warned that if word leaked out that Americans were helping remove the fuel, the local press would certainly “portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.” The fuel is still there. It may be the most unnerving evidence of the complex relationship — sometimes cooperative, often confrontational, always wary — between America and Pakistan nearly 10 years into the American-led war in Afghanistan. The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, make it clear that underneath public reassurances lie deep clashes over strategic goals on issues like Pakistan’s support for the Afghan Taliban and tolerance of Al Qaeda, and Washington’s warmer relations with India, Pakistan’s archenemy. Written from the American Embassy in Islamabad, the cables reveal American maneuvering as diplomats try to support an unpopular elected government that is more sympathetic to American aims than is the real power in Pakistan, the army and intelligence agency so crucial to the fight against militants. The cables show just how weak the civilian government is: President Asif Ali Zardari told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. that he worried that the military might “take me out.” Frustration at American inability to persuade the Pakistani Army and intelligence agency to stop supporting the Afghan Taliban and other militants runs through the reports of meetings between American and Pakistani officials. That frustration preoccupied the Bush administration and became an issue for the incoming Obama administration, the cables document, during a trip in January 2009 that Mr. Biden made to Pakistan 11 days before he was sworn in. In a meeting with Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the army chief of staff, Mr. Biden asked several times whether Pakistan and the United States “had the same enemy as we move forward.” “The United States needs to be able to make an objective assessment of Pakistan’s part of the bargain,” Mr. Biden said, according to a Feb. 6, 2009, cable. General Kayani tried to reassure him, saying, “We are on the same page in Afghanistan, but there might be different tactics.” Mr. Biden replied that “results” would test that. The cables reveal at least one example of increased cooperation, previously undisclosed, under the Obama administration. Last fall, the Pakistani Army secretly allowed 12 American Special Operations soldiers to deploy with Pakistani troops in the violent tribal areas near the Afghan border. The Americans were forbidden to conduct combat missions. Even though their numbers were small, their presence at army headquarters in Bajaur, South Waziristan and North Waziristan was a “sea change in thinking,” the embassy reported. The embassy added its usual caution: The deployments must be kept secret or the “Pakistani military will likely stop making requests for such assistance.” Within the past year, however, Pakistan and the United States have gingerly started to publicly acknowledge the role of American field advisers. Lt. Col. Michael Shavers, an American military spokesman in Islamabad, said in a statement that “at the request of the Pakistanis,” small teams of Special Operations forces “move to various locations with their Pakistani military counterparts throughout Pakistan.” Moreover, last week in a report to Congress on operations in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said that the Pakistani Army had also accepted American and coalition advisers in Quetta. The cables do not deal with the sharp increase under Mr. Obama in drone attacks against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the tribal areas with Pakistan’s tacit approval. That is because the cables are not classified at the highest levels. A Deep Skepticism

The Guardian and the New York Times put the latest WikiLeaks focus on relations with Pakistan and worries—despite official statements to the contrary— that radicals could get their hands on its nuclear arsenal: US ambassador Anne Patterson, May 2009: "Our major concern is not having an Islamic militant steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in government of Pakistan facilities could gradually smuggle enough material out to eventually make a weapon." British Foreign Office official, September 2009: "The UK has deep concerns about the safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons." Russian foreign ministry official: "Islamists are not only seeking power in Pakistan but are also trying to get their hands on nuclear materials." Patterson also complained in a cable that Pakistan was again reneging on a deal to allow the US to remove a stockpile of highly enriched uranium: "The 'sensational' international and local media coverage of Pakistan's nuclear weapons made it impossible to proceed at this time." That might be the "most intriguing" tidbit of all, notes New York's Daily Intel blog—that the media helped sustain the nation's nuclear capabilities. Because as the Times succinctly notes: "The fuel is still there." (Another point that speaks to the nation's instability: President Zardari confided to Joe Biden he was worried the military might "take me out.")

A group of students at the Claremont Colleges are in search of a roommate for next year, but insist that the roommate not be white. Karé Ureña (PZ ’18) posted on Facebook that non-white students in need of housing arrangements should reach out to either her or two other students with whom she plans to live in an off-campus house. The post states that “POC [people of color] only” will be considered for this living opportunity. “I don’t want to live with any white folks,” Ureña added. Dalia Zada (PZ ’18) expressed concerns to the anti-white discrimination. “‘POC only?’ Maybe I’m missing something or misunderstanding your post, but how is that not a racist thing to say?” “This is directed to protect POC, not white people. Don’t see how this is racist at all…” responded AJ León (PZ ’18). Sara Roschdi (PZ ’17), a Pitzer Latino Student Union member, stated, “People of color are allowed to create safe POC only spaces. It is not reverse racism or discriminatory, it is self preservation.” “We don’t want to have to tiptoe around fragile white feelings in a space where we just want to relax and be comfortable,” commented Nina Lee, a Women’s Studies major. “I could live with white people, but I would be far more comfortable living with other poc.” “White people always mad when they don’t feel included but at the end of the day y’all are damaging asf [as f*ck] and if a POC feels they need to protect themselves from that toxic environment THEY CAN! Quick to try to jump on a POC but you won’t call your friends out when they’re being racist asf,” noted Terriyonna Smith (PZ ’18), an Africana Studies major and Resident Assistant (RA) for the 2016-2017 year. “I’m not responding to NO comments and NOPE I don’t wanna have a dialogue.” It is not clear whether or not this refusal of dialogue represents the approaches to conversation on racism with fellow students encouraged by professors of Africana Studies or the Residence Life staff at Pitzer College. Another Resident Assistant and Black Student Union member, Jessica Saint-Fleur (PZ ’18) added to the thread of comments, “White people have cause [sic] so much mf [motherf*cking] trauma on these campuses … why in the world would I want to live with that? Bring that into my home? A place that is supposed to be safe for me?” The Mission and Values section of Pitzer College’s website states, “Intercultural Understanding enables Pitzer students to comprehend issues and events from cultural lenses beyond their own,” and adds that “[Pitzer College] supports the thoughtful exchange of ideas to increase understanding and awareness, and to work across difference without intimidation. We have the right to be heard and the responsibility to listen. Communication, even at its most vigorous, should be respectful and without intent to harm.” Edit: An earlier version of this story stated that AJ León was a member of the Pitzer College Latino Student Union. ______________ Image: Flickr ||||| CLAREMONT, Calif.-- A small liberal arts college near Los Angeles is denouncing a Facebook post made by a black student who was seeking out a non-white roommate. The Claremont Independent reports Pitzer College student Kare Urena asked in the post that only people of color apply to live in her off-campus residence, adding that she didn't "want to live with any white folks." Pitzer President Melvin Oliver, who earlier this year became the first African American to lead a Claremont undergrad campus, calls the post "inconsistent with our mission and values." He says the college wants to engage "complex intercultural issues, not to isolate individuals on the basis of any protected status." Melvin Oliver named Pitzer College president, first African American to lead a Claremont... https://t.co/RgorQKtuWT pic.twitter.com/xmuofpqAvF — L.A. Times: L.A. Now (@LANow) January 13, 2016 The Mission and Values section of Pitzer College's website lists "intercultural understanding" as one of its five core values. "Individual perspective and approach to the world are informed by the culture in which one resides. Intercultural Understanding enables Pitzer students to comprehend issues and events from cultural lenses beyond their own," the website states. The Washington Post reports a roommate was found and the post has been removed, but Urena and another roommate are defending it. They say living with people of color "can be necessary." ||||| Scene from Pitzer College in Southern California (courtesy Pitzer) In most respects, the roommate-wanted notice seemed routine. Three students at the Claremont colleges in Southern California were looking for a fourth this summer to join them in an off-campus house. They added a caveat in parentheses: “POC only,” they said, using a common abbreviation for people of color. Pitzer student Karé Ureña. (Photo courtesy of Karé Ureña) When a classmate challenged that condition, the Pitzer College student who posted the notice on Facebook pushed back. “It’s exclusive [because] I don’t want to live with any white folks,” wrote Karé Ureña, who is black. The online comments touched off a debate this week over race at Pitzer and neighboring colleges, one that flared into national headlines after the Claremont Independent student magazine wrote about it. To some, Ureña’s request was completely understandable following a racially charged year when many students of color had demanded more support from the administration. To others, it was simple racism to exclude potential roommates based on skin color. The thread fit into the heated discussions about race, identity, culture, freedom of speech and campus “safe spaces” that have played out at colleges across the country, from Yale to Missouri and beyond. [A historic number of college freshmen expect to protest this year] President Melvin Oliver of Pitzer College (courtesy Pitzer) Pitzer President Melvin Oliver — a sociologist who is an expert on racial inequality — sent a message to the campus community Wednesday about the housing ad and the debate it sparked. It read, in part: While Pitzer is a community of individuals passionately engaged in establishing intracultural safe spaces for marginalized groups, the Facebook post and several subsequent comments are inconsistent with our Mission and values. … This is but another example to us that social media is not an effective platform to engage in complex dialog on seemingly intractable critical issues that have varied histories and contested understandings. They create more heat than light and invite extreme viewpoints that intentionally obfuscate the nuanced context that surrounds these issues. Pitzer offers its new 2-course Intercultural Understanding requirement and dedicates new curricular and extra curricular programming to address difficult issues of racism, diversity, community discourse and national and international political conflict. The five Claremont colleges — Pitzer, Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd and Scripps — are a community of highly regarded schools east of Los Angeles. As of last fall, 48 percent of the 1,067 undergraduates at Pitzer were identified as white. Fifteen percent were Hispanic, 9 percent Asian American, 9 percent multiracial and 5 percent African American. The rest were either foreign students or of unknown race or ethnicity. The demographic profiles of the other Claremont colleges are fairly similar. Claremont McKenna was swept up last fall in the national debate over the racial climate on college campuses. Student protesters pushed for several measures focused on diversity in student affairs and academics. Amid the protests, Claremont McKenna’s dean of students stepped down in November after writing a much-criticized email to a student about how the college could better serve “those who don’t fit our CMC mold.” But some on campus defended the dean and denounced the protests as uncivil and excessive. [Mizzou’s impact is felt on campuses nationwide, as protests over race spread] Now a roommate solicitation from three black students has become another flashpoint. Ureña, 20, a junior at Pitzer, and one of her roommates, Sajo Jefferson, 19, a sophomore at Pomona, defended their query in a statement to The Washington Post. Ureña describes herself as Afro-Caribbean and Jefferson identifies as a multiracial black person. Minority communities on campus, they said, constantly must deal with issues that arise when they are surrounded by classmates who don’t understand where they are coming from and have little interest in finding out. Pomona student Sajo Jefferson (Photo courtesy of Sajo Jefferson) “When and if you understand this context, it becomes clear that students of color seeking a living space that is all-POC is not only reasonable, but can be necessary,” they wrote to The Post. “We live in a world where the living circumstances of POC are grounded in racist social structures that we can not opt out of. These conditions threaten the minds, bodies and souls of people of color both within and without the realms of higher education. We are fighting to exist.” Asked if the debate that unfolded was a reflection of national events and a glimpse of what the mood on many campuses may be like this coming year, they responded: “Our people are being killed. Every which way, through every which angle. Our people are being killed. Our housing arrangements are not racist. They are not exclusive. We are simply fighting to exist and we are fighting to exist in whatever way we can.” Ureña said Thursday she removed the query from the Pitzer College Class of 2018 Facebook page after the three students found a fourth roommate. But several students who saw the original post described the conversation that unfolded there and shared screen shots of it; the discussion appeared civil and thoughtful, though it elicited strong emotions on both sides. One person questioned the “POC only” condition, and wrote “housing segregation is illegal.” A student who said she is supportive of Ureña’s preference to live with other people of color questioned the wording, wondering if it sounded restrictive to exclude other groups. Another responded: “People of color are allowed to create safe POC only spaces. It is not reverse racism or discriminatory.” That student wrote that it comes down to self-preservation. Later in the thread, a post read: “I think that a POC-only housing policy is about as clear-cut an example of prejudice as one could find. I completely understand the desire not to live with people who could be racist, but excluding all white people is an extremely blunt instrument to achieve that end and a harmful overgeneralization.” Another wrote: “White people have cause[d] so much trauma on these campuses … why in the world would I want to bring that into my home? A place that is supposed to be safe for me?” Dalia Zada, a Pitzer junior who is Kurdish Syrian, questioned an account of the debate that was published Tuesday by the Claremont Independent, calling just a report of a Facebook thread, without the context. “If we really wanted to create something about racism and call it an ‘article,’ we could just copy and paste the comments on the Claremont Independent’s Facebook page of this article,” Zada said. “They’re horrific.” Zada said she also was offended by the Independent’s choice of a photograph to accompany the article. It depicted a black man drinking from a fountain labeled, “FOR COLORED ONLY.” “Their audacity to use that picture as a photo for their article is disgusting in itself.” Elliot Dordick, who wrote the article for the Independent, stands by it. “There was absolutely no spin put into this piece,” he said. “It was made up almost entirely of my classmates’ quotes. … I can’t find a single word of the piece that was my own personal opinion.” He said several people questioned how he, as a white person, could write objectively about racial issues. In a phone interview with The Post and subsequent email follow-up, he said that there were several resident assistants who said outright that they’re not interested in open dialogue about racial issues. “The fact that RAs, who are selected as student leaders, admitted that they are not interested in discussion, that they want instead to simply spew their own opinions without facing any disagreement, is a disgrace to Pitzer College,” Dordick said. Dordick said he wasn’t surprised at the debate because racial tensions have been heightened during the past year. He described last year’s protests on Claremont McKenna College: “Hundreds of students stormed through the center of Claremont McKenna College chanting ‘Black Lives Matter’ slogans. The president of the college came out to a central area of campus and was verbally attacked by many students of color whose emotions were out of control. They shrieked about their experiences on campus and demanded racially segregated ‘safe spaces.’ Two girls even went on a hunger strike. “… The Claremont Colleges are radically liberal and ideologically monolithic.” Paloma Aleman, who graduated this year and describes herself as Mexican-American, saw the online debate and said that with some distance from campus she can see that the community at Pitzer is a bit sheltered. She said last year there was lengthy debate about “safe spaces” on campus, with some saying they were necessary and some calling them exclusionary. “We have a great community in terms of creating safe spaces,” she said, noting that it caught her off-guard that the housing request this week sparked such intense reaction. “I was surprised that people thought it was an extreme request, given certain incidents that happened on campus last year.” [“College is the last space that should be a ‘safe space'": A voice of protest against student protests] The fatal shooting of a black man by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., happened while Aleman was studying abroad in Italy. When she returned to campus she noticed “a huge cleavage between students of color and students who aren’t of color — a dramatic change.” “Once I was back in the U.S., I definitely felt there was a huge shift in the racial climate,” she said. “I felt that racial tensions had definitely increased. Students of color were definitely feeling unsafe.” Josue Pasillas, a senior and president of the Pitzer College Student Senate, said he was aware of the debate before the student magazine story ran and that it wasn’t shocking. “A student of color’s preference to live with students of color only is not racist, and to call this housing segregation is wrong,” he said. “Over time, people of color have been segregated by people with privilege, not vice versa. Students of color face systemic discrimination daily and have a right to live in solidarity with other students of color in spaces where they do not have to experience judgment and racism from others.” He continued, in an email to The Post: “This is no different than having student organizations, such as the Latinx Student Union, the Black Student Union, the Asian Pacific American Coalition, Mixed Identities Exchange and other ethnic support groups on campus. This is not racism.” “Several students directly notified staff of The Claremont Independent their preference to not be quoted in an article and for the publication to still go ahead and use their statements is wrong. That is not right.” Dordick, the article’s author, responded that it was entirely appropriate for him to cite Facebook posts that were visible to the school community: “Much in the same way that Donald Trump does not need to give consent to have his public Tweets quoted, I do not need to ask for students’ consent before quoting their public statements on social media.” Chance Kawar, a senior and the acting secretary of the student senate, said that the college encourages students to live with people with whom they feel comfortable and safe. “For some students, this may mean seeking housing arrangements with those who share a similar racial or gender identity,” Kawar said. “Coming to live and learn at a college is a challenging proposition for many individuals, so we should be doing everything we can to make them feel empowered as students,” Kawar said. “This is especially true for students of color, who continue to face overwhelming and discriminatory obstacles within institutions of higher education.” Ureña said she has no regrets about the Facebook posting. She and Jefferson said they take issue with people who focus on “white people and their ‘exclusion’ in this housing ad.” They said they want to “reframe” the conversation. “This is not about white people,” they wrote. “It never has been. The insistence that it should be only reaffirms [our] understanding of how deeply we are submerged in a white-centric world. Recentering this question so it is about the well being of POC is therefore an act of resistance.”

A want-ad for a new roommate spurred a passionate debate about racism, safe spaces, and what it's like to be a person of color in America this week at a small college in California. The Washington Post reports 20-year-old Pitzer College junior Karé Ureña posted on the Pitzer College Class of 2018 Facebook page looking for a roommate to live with her and two others in an off-campus house. The post specified they were looking for people of color only, according to the Claremont Independent. And Ureña, who is black, specified in a follow-up comment: "I don't want to live with any white folks." The post led to claims of discrimination, segregation, and reverse racism. But Ureña and supporters fired back against those claims. "Seeking a living space that is all-POC is not only reasonable, but can be necessary,” she tells the Post. "Our people are being killed. Our housing arrangements are not racist. They are not exclusive. We are simply fighting to exist." The Independent quotes another student as saying: “We don’t want to have to tiptoe around fragile white feelings in a space where we just want to relax." Pitzer President Melvin Oliver, the first black president at a Claremont college, says Ureña's post and the comments that followed "are inconsistent with our mission and values," CBS News reports. Ureña has since deleted the post. (A study shows a 10-minute in-person chat could reduce prejudice.)

This report discusses proposals to raise the cigarette tax to help pay for reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This report describes current taxes, discusses potential revenue gains, and discusses some of the basic issues surrounding a tax increase. It also briefly discusses the tax increase on cigars. H.R. 2 passed the House on January 14, 2009 and it included the same cigarette tax as proposed in the 110 th Congress, an increase of 61 cents per pack, raising the tax from 39 cents to $1. The estimated revenues in the House bill were $64.7 billion for FY2009-FY2018, with $57.3 billion of the total from cigarettes. The Senate version and the final legislation, P.L. 111-3 includes taxes similar to H.R. 2 (very slightly higher across the board, with a 61.66 cents increase in cigarette taxes). The vast majority of tobacco taxes are on cigarettes, which account for 94% of tobacco sales (totaling $75 billion in 2007). Federal cigarette taxes are $0.39 per pack, accounting for 94% of federal tobacco tax revenue. There is a 4 cent tax on a package of small cigars. Large cigars carry a tax of 20.719% of sales price, not to exceed $48.75 per 1,000 units, leading to a maximum tax of almost 5 cents per cigar. Per ounce, the tax is 7 cents on pipe tobacco; 1 cent on chewing tobacco; 4 cents on snuff; and 7 cents on pipe and roll-your-own tobacco. There are also taxes on cigarette paper and cigarette tubes. The 61-cent cigarette tax increase would lead to a tax about 2.5 times the current tax.; these same proportions are proposed for snuff, chewing, tobacco and pipe tobacco. Roll your own tobacco's tax increases about eight fold and seven fold and the relatively small taxes on small cigars are increased to those on cigarettes. Large cigars are the only tobacco product with a tax based on price, but they also have a cap; the price-based tax rises in proportionally, but the cap increases by much more, from 5 cents per cigar to $0.40 in the House bill ($0.4026 in the Senate Finance bill and the final legislation). Tobacco tax receipts in the United States in FY2007 included $7.5 billion in federal tax, $16.2 billion in state and local taxes, and $8 billion in payments from the Master Tobacco Settlement. State and local taxes, therefore, were roughly 88 cents per pack and the tobacco settlement payment is approximately the same as the federal tax, 43 cents per pack. Although the tobacco settlement payments resulted from negotiations between the tobacco companies and the states to settle state lawsuits, the payments function as if they were a national tobacco excise tax that is allocated to the states, and any changes that alter consumption would affect these payments. Some of the states have securitized their payments (exchanged the stream of payment for a fixed up-front amount). According to estimates, about a quarter of payments are made to private investors, rather than to state and local governments. As a percentage of sales revenues, the federal, state and local, and tobacco settlement payments are respectively 10.0%, 21.6% and 10.7%, for a total of 42.2%. The Joint Committee on Taxation projected an FY2010 revenue gain of $6.4 billion from the 61 cent increase. CRS estimates suggest there will be a loss of revenue to the states approaching $1.5 billion. There are many alternative sources of revenue (or offsetting spending) for funding the child health program. Are tobacco taxes the most desirable source of revenue? Compared to other taxes, the incentive effects may be desirable. At the same time, the burden falls heavily on lower income people, which may be of concern. Thus, there is a trade-off between the objective of discouraging smoking, and particularly discouraging youth smoking, and the distributional effects of the tax. The remaining issue involves an economic efficiency question relating to arguments that have been made that additional taxes are appropriate to cover costs smokers impose on others. A number of economic studies have questioned that proposition. The following sections discuss these issues. A large body of literature has suggested that increases in the price of tobacco reduce smoking. However, this response is not very large (in economists' parlance, the response is relatively "inelastic"). Most of the evidence has found the price elasticity to be between 0.3 and 0.5 in absolute value, meaning that a 10% increase in price would cause a 3% to 5% decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked. For older adult smokers, about half of this effect was due to fewer smokers (a participation response) and about half due a reduction in smoking (a quantity response). For younger smokers, the participation response was more important. There is some evidence that the response declines with age and that it rises with income, and that it is higher for women, African-Americans, and Hispanics. A recent study, however, found no variation with income. Some recent studies suggest that the response may be less, or that the benefits of reducing smoking may be less. There is some evidence that the response has been declining, an unsurprising outcome since, given a decline in smoking, the remaining smokers are more resistant to price signals. In addition, there is evidence that elasticities might be overstated in studies that compare state smoking levels because states with higher taxes may also have populations more hostile to smoking. Also, recent studies found that smokers may respond to price increases by increasing the intensity of smoking by buying cigarettes with more nicotine and tar, inhaling more deeply and smoking closer to the filter, which could have deleterious effects since more intensive smoking can be more harmful. Due to the limited effects on adult smoking, some arguments have been made that the increased taxes on adults are necessary over the interim to discourage teenage smoking. Evidence has suggested that teenage smoking is more responsive to price; the original responses were estimated at elasticities over one, but subsequent analysis led to an estimate of around 0.7 and a number of recent studies have confirmed this general range. Other studies have found smaller responses, or a very small response by younger teenagers. One recent study replicated the 0.7 elasticity using one statistical approach, but in using another the authors consider superior, they found essentially no response of the initiation of smoking to price. Another paper found a weak and insignificant effect after controlling for anti-smoking sentiment. While much evidence suggests that teenagers are more responsive to prices, these recent studies raise some questions about the effectiveness of tax increases on teenage smoking, especially among young teenagers. The evidence on smoking indicates that higher prices will decrease smoking participation and quantity. It is possible, however, that other types of interventions, such as stricter regulations on sales to teenagers, counseling, education, and assistance with smoking cessation might be more effective. It is generally recognized that cigarette taxes are one of the most regressive taxes, that is, a tax that falls more heavily on lower income individuals as a percentage of income. Indeed, it is probably the most regressive of the federal taxes. Smokers tend to smoke a fixed amount of cigarettes, so that they pay a fixed amount of tax. (Since the tax is a fixed amount per pack, lower income individuals who buy cheaper brands still pay the same amount of tax.) In addition, smoking is more prevalent among lower income individuals. To illustrate, in 1998 the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that a 76 cent tax increase (brought about through a proposed federal tobacco settlement) would raise the effective tax rate on average by 0.3% of income, but would increase the burden of those with incomes below $10,000 by 2% of income and the burden of those in the $10,000-$20,000 income by 0.6% of income. Since this rate applies to all families, those families with smokers would pay more. For example, a family with one smoker who smokes 1.5 packs a day would pay, with a 76 cent tax, an additional $417 in taxes, which is 4.2% of a $10,000 income and 8.4% of a $5,000 income. To the extent the burden of the tax falls on low-income families and the individuals in those families continue to smoke, low-income children in some families could be harmed even though the child health care provision helps low-income children in general. A final issue that may arise relevant to cigarette taxes is the argument that higher taxes should be imposed on smokers because they impose costs on others largely through higher health care costs paid for through government and private insurance plans, lost days at work, and some other costs. Some economists have questioned this argument, however, because smokers' premature deaths, while harmful to smokers and their families, reduce costs of certain government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These calculations do not account for more subjective effects such as irritation to others, although such problems might be better addressed through private market mechanisms (provision of smoking and non-smoking commercial establishments) and regulation. Some disputes about the magnitude of environmental tobacco smoke remain. If smokers are not imposing costs on others, or imposing costs that are less than existing taxes, and if they are making rational decisions to engage in an activity which, while damaging to their health, is nevertheless pleasurable, then an additional tax would not increase economic efficiency. It is not clear, however, whether young smokers, where smoking is generally initiated, are able to fully assess the costs of smoking. Although taxes on other products are a small part of total tobacco taxes, there has been some controversy about the increases for cigars in 110 th Congress proposals and their potential disruption of the industry , as reported in the media. Small cigar taxes increase by a factor of 27. They are apparently viewed by some as substitute for cigarettes who argue they should bear the same tax. Small cigars constitute less than 1/10 of 1% of cigarette sales. For large cigar taxes, which are currently a maximum of 5 cents, the tax could rise to as much as $10 in the original Senate Finance Committee proposal in the 110 th Congress. The ceiling was lowered to $3 on the Senate floor in the 2007 legislation and the ceiling in the House bill was $1 in 2007. H.R. 2 has a ceiling of $0.40, which although much lower is eight times the previous maximum. According to tax data, large cigar sales above the current 5 cents cap (premium cigars) account for about half the total. According to the Cigar Association of America, the average manufacturer's price is about $1.90 for these premium cigars; the average tax on these cigars would be almost a dollar (0.5313 times $1.90 minus $.05) in the original 110 th Congress Senate proposal, but much smaller in the House bill because of lower rate and cap and smaller in the final proposal. Most state cigar taxes are based on value and would apply to the federal tax; they are estimated by the Cigar Association of America at about 30%. If retail prices are twice the manufacturer's price the price of large cigars under the cap in the original Senate proposal would have risen by 20.8% and the price of large cigars over the cap, while varying considerably, would have averaged a 33% increase. Prices would rise more if there is also a retailers markup on the tax. The ceiling of $0.4026 would result in much more modest effects. There is less information on the effects of other tobacco products on health or the behavioral response. If the purpose of the tax on cigars is to account for health costs, a per unit rather than a price based tax would seem appropriate. Cigars may differ from cigarettes in that a larger share may be likely to be smoked only occasionally and would therefore be less harmful to health. They may also be less concentrated at lower incomes. The occasional usage (lack of addictiveness) may mean a larger price response, but the usage by higher income consumers may mean a smaller response.

On January 15, the House passed H.R. 2, a bill which included increased tobacco taxes to finance State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). This legislation was similar to that passed in the 110th Congress (H.R. 976 and H.R. 3162) although the initial House proposal had smaller tax increases.. H.R. 2 increases cigarette taxes, the primary source of tobacco tax revenues from 39 cents to $1.00. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the cigarette tax will raise $6.4 billion in federal revenues in FY2010 with all federal tobacco taxes increases raising $7.1 billion. A similar tax increase was contained in the Senate bill, and in the final proposal, P.L. 111-3 (although in both case the tax was increased by an additional two thirds of a cent, to $1.0066.) The analysis suggests that state and local governments will lose about $1 billion in cigarette tax revenues and up to $0.5 billion in lost revenues from the tobacco settlement payments. The legislation is now being considered in the Senate. A justification is to discourage teenage smoking, but this effect is probably small; a reservation is that the burden falls heavily on low-income individuals. Taxes on other tobacco products are also increased, although cigarette taxes account for most tobacco revenues. In the 110th Congress, the President vetoed the 110th Congress SCHIP proposal on October 3, 2008, the House failed to override the veto and a new bill, H.R. 3963 passed the House and Senate, with no changes in the cigarette tax, but changes in spending rules, and the President vetoed that version on December 12, 2008.

The rock musician Patti Smith won the National Book Award for nonfiction on Wednesday night for “Just Kids,” a sweetly evocative memoir of her relationship with the artist Robert Mapplethorpe and life in the bohemian New York of the 1960s and ’70s. Accepting the award to applause and cheers, Ms. Smith — clearly the favorite of the night — choked up as she recalled her days as a clerk in the Scribner’s bookstore in Manhattan. “I dreamed of having a book of my own, of writing one that I could put on a shelf,” she said. “Please, no matter how we advance technologically, please don’t abandon the book. There is nothing in our material world more beautiful than the book.” “Just Kids” was published by Ecco, an imprint of HarperCollins. In the fiction category, Jaimy Gordon won for “Lord of Misrule,” a surprise pick for a book published by McPherson & Company, a small literary publisher in Kingston, N.Y. The novel, about the ruthless world of horse racing in West Virginia, was praised by the judges as a “vivid, memorable and linguistically rich novel.” “I’m totally unprepared, and I’m totally surprised,” a stunned-looking Ms. Gordon said in a brief speech. More than 650 guests, about 10 more than last year, attended the ceremony for the awards, now in their 61st year, at Cipriani Wall Street in Manhattan. Tables cost $12,000. The winners received a check for $10,000 and a bronze statue. An increase in sales often follows. In a well-worn tradition, the list of finalists inspired some grumbling from publishing insiders who objected that the choices were too obscure. Most notably, Jonathan Franzen’s novel “Freedom,” which was a literary sensation and best seller this year, did not make the cut. A new set of judges chooses the finalists each year, meeting as a group for the first time over lunch on the day of the event to pick the winners. This year’s list was notable for its unusually high number of women. Of the 20 finalists, 13 were women, a record. The award for young people’s literature went to Kathryn Erskine, a lawyer-turned-writer, for “Mockingbird,” the story of an 11-year-old girl’s struggle with Asperger syndrome. It was published by Philomel Books, a division of the Penguin Young Readers Group. The award for poetry went to Terrance Hayes for “Lighthead,” a collection published by Viking Penguin. His victory was unanimous, with the judges citing its “dazzling mixture of wisdom and lyric innovation.” For the second year in a row, Andy Borowitz, a writer and comedian, hosted the event, a black-tie dinner. He opened his remarks with the death-of-print jokes that have been a staple at publishing gatherings since the birth of e-books. “I said last year that publishing was a sinking ship,” Mr. Borowitz said. “I believe that publishing is still very much in the process of sinking. Publishing is a Carnival cruise ship. It’s on fire, the toilets don’t work, but we are surviving day to day on Pop-Tarts and Spam.” Tom Wolfe received the 2010 Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters, and gave a long speech about his adventures in newspaper journalism, in the process dropping the names of Leonard Bernstein, Robert Lowell and David Halberstam. Joan Ganz Cooney, a public television producer and founder of the Children’s Television Workshop in 1968, won the 2010 Literarian Award for Outstanding Service to the American Literary Community. Jon Scieszka, a children’s book author, presented the award, praising Ms. Ganz Cooney for having “championed the importance of reaching disadvantaged kids.” In her remarks, Ms. Ganz Cooney said one of the biggest challenges in the book industry was making sure that children can benefit from digital technology. “We’ve worked to make sure that games do not crowd out books for young children,” she said. “So far, so good.” ||||| There is a downside to citing these numbers. "Wait just a minute," you say. "Nobody can read 300 books in the few months the judges have." And you're right. Judges have to sample in the early stages. So in the spirit of putting you in a judge's seat, below are samples from each of the novels, along with some context and description. The passages are short -- bite-size pieces of prose like the chocolates in a Whitman's Sampler -- but should provide a taste of each writer's style, sensibility and, indirectly, his or her approach to fiction. Perhaps the excerpts will take you to the books themselves, and then you can imagine yourself in the hot seat, a chair at the table where the judges have to argue their criteria and decide on the winner. When the five finalists for the National Book Award in fiction were announced last month, the lead in news stories was Jonathan Franzen's "Freedom," the Novel Betrayed. Its absence occasioned the usual attack on awards, judges, critics and literary evaluation in general. But consider the numbers. When I was a judge several years ago, about 300 books were nominated by publishers. If judges ignore authorial reputation and chatter about the books, what are the chances that a book will make it into the final five? Say a hundred works are meretricious and nominated merely to please their authors. Now the possibles are down to 200 books, but if each judge gets to choose a nominee it's still only one chance in 40 that a book will make the cut. You might find distasteful this probabilistic analysis of the process -- "All books are not created equal," you say -- but I hope the numbers will diminish the consternation over Franzen's absence and will encourage readers to give the novels that are finalists a chance. Think of them this way: "Wow, these books beat 40 to 1 odds." In Lionel Shriver's "So Much for That," the irascible middle-aged metalsmith Glynis is married to the usually placid Shepherd Knacker, who observes his wife's combative relation with an old schoolmate: Glynis disparaged Petra's work as safe and cookie-cutter. Unlike Glynis, Petra did not press against the limits of "craft" and yearn to join the art world proper. She made jewelry, period, for people to wear. Another tactless observation? Shep liked that. He liked functionality. He was a handyman. He had always cherished the fact that his wife made objects not only attractive but utile, which should have made them more valuable, not less. Thus he'd no patience for the loopy distinctions between art and craft that put the latter at a commercial disadvantage. If you made a clay pitcher that held water, it was virtually worthless. Bang a hole in the bottom and it was "art": you could charge an arm and a leg. How fucked up was that? Living in expensive Westchester, Shepherd used to complain about Glynis' unprofitable artistic bent. Now that she is dying from Mesothelioma, he praises her aesthetic dedication. Although he can't say so, he still resents it because their one-income family is being bankrupted by the healthcare industry -- co-payments, out-of-network doctors, incredibly expensive experimental drugs. His ambivalence seems to surface in the range of diction: the arty "utile," the cliché "arm and a leg," the vulgar rhetorical question. As Glynis' condition worsens, the good Shepherd finds larger issues than art or craft to resolve: When should one calculate the costs of extending a life of suffering? When might suicide be a plausible decision? For perspective and commentary, Shriver includes Shepherd's best friend Jackson, who is raising a child doomed by Familial Dysautonomia and who supplies amusing libertarian rants. Dictated by incurable disease, the plot is inexorable but surprises with the ways that death can twist the living. As a novelist, Shriver is similar to her expert handyman protagonist: She knows her material, the novel's illnesses; she believes in the utility of fiction, the value of showing ordinary people in extreme situations; and she employs a functional and plain-spoken style occasionally punctuated with rage. Jaimy Gordon's "Lord of Misrule" is a horse-and-human story set at a small-town West Virginia track in 1970. The following passage describes Maggie, the young protagonist, as she rubs down her gelding: She had to slow down time, go into a kind of trance state where sweet electricity pooled at her nerve endings like nectar on the pistil of a honeysuckle. And then by running her fingers over the animal she could find his hidden landing places. Not that there were jungle airstrips, few and hard to find. They were all over the place. But you had to approach the body boundary reduced to this one brooding spark. You dangled from a headland, black empty space rushing by, and suddenly you were across. The key was being tuned down so fine that you felt the crossing. Without that your fingers were just dead prongs on a rake and nothing happened. Gordon "rubs" her characters the same way, using "nerve ending" observation, linguistic fine tuning, extended metaphor, and shifting point of view (third to second) to bring out the "brooding spark" of the sometimes masochistic Maggie, the hidden mania of her boyfriend Tommy, the family sentiment of Maggie's loan shark relative Two-Tie, and the suspicious generosity of Medicine Ed, an aged groom who, no doubt, will be played by Morgan Freeman in the movie. Even horses are massaged into characters with emotional lives: the goofy Little Spinoza, the gutsy Lord of Misrule. The plot is somewhat conventional -- the rookie couple gets entangled in the cynical dishonesty of low-end racing and finally has to confront a violent gangster--but Gordon handles with aplomb the required final Big Race, when the major characters have different stakes. Plot, like a race, is less important to her than the slow time of the "backside" world of stalls and grooms and walkers that prepares horses (and readers) for a few minutes of intense action. Ultimately, it is this now lost world that Gordon "rubs" back into being. In Peter Carey's "Parrot and Olivier in America," the time is the early 19th century, the young aristocratic Olivier resembles Alexis de Tocqueville, and the low-born, middle-aged Parrot is Olivier's British secretary. During their travels, they argue about almost everything. In the following passage, Parrot narrates and Olivier speaks first about art in America: "Art is produced to suit the tastes of the market, which is filled with its own doubt and self-importance and ignorance, its own ability to be tricked and titillated by every bauble. If you are to make a business from catering to those people, the whole of your life will be spent in corrupting whatever public taste might struggle toward the light." "America is new." "Indeed," he said, and I frankly loathed the certainty of his judgment. He might go away and write a book about this, but what could he know from so short a visit? The time it would take to make this nation would be put in centuries and it did not do to come prancing around in your embroidered vests and buckled shoes and even if the "New York Sentinel" reported what you said, it did not mean you knew. Like the excerpt, the novel's chapters alternate point of view, Olivier's formal, structured and often pompous manner, Parrot's more colloquial, loosely organized and mocking speech, both probably modernized a bit by the author. Their subject is personally crucial because Olivier believes himself a connoisseur of beauty, and Parrot, an amateur sketcher, has a painter wife and a business associate whose works resemble Audubon's. For Carey, art represents cultural invention and reinvention as his protagonists struggle to create themselves as Americans: Olivier to marry, Parrot to survive. The novel's first third describes Parrot's outlaw youth in England and Australia and Olivier's royalist upbringing in France. The companions' episodic and mostly comic adventures in the New York City of the 1830s include contact with crooks and officials, resurrected acquaintances and recalcitrant Americans. As an artist, Carey would probably elicit scorn from Olivier, for the novel is a democratic "bauble," designed to satisfy "the tastes of the market" for historical entertainments. One of the five narrators in Nicole Krauss' "Great House" visits a castle in Belgium where she sees a hall full of stored furniture, which reminds her of a photograph of Jews awaiting deportation to Treblinka: The photo had struck me at the time because of the thoughtful composition which the photographer had clearly taken pains over, taking note of the way the pale faces topped with dark hats and scarves were mirrored by the seemingly infinite pattern of light and dark bricks of the wall behind them that trapped them in. Behind that wall was a rectangular building with rows of square windows. The whole gave the sense of a geometric order so powerful that it became inevitable, where each common material -- Jews, bricks, and windows -- had its proper and irrevocable place. As my eyes now adjusted and I began to see, rather than just vaguely feel with some unnameable sense, the tables, chairs, bureaus, trunks, lamps, and desks [were] all standing at attention in the hall as if waiting for a summons. A piece of furniture confiscated by the Nazis connects Krauss's narrators and other characters, most of whom are Jewish. The Israeli antiques dealer Weisz wants to find, five decades after World War II, his father's desk, which has passed from a German novelist in London to a young Chilean poet, who reminds the novelist of her abandoned son, to an American novelist in New York City, who journeys to Jerusalem to find Weisz. This is the basic story that eventually emerges from Krauss's "thoughtful composition," her almost perfectly "mirrored" two-part "geometric order" that begins four narrations in part one and finishes three in part two. The American confesses hidden suffering, a British professor discovers secret suffering, an Israeli lawyer attempts to assuage past suffering, and Weisz causes current suffering, as if the desk that unites them were a curse of the Holocaust. Like the grad student narrator of the sample, the other speakers are monologist interpreters of experience who struggle to overcome self-indulgence. With its 19 drawers, the desk separates and conceals things. Krauss makes her house of fiction a similar construct of deceptions and evasions. The novel is saturated with emotional "common material" and is painstaking in structure but perhaps not, like the photograph, "inevitable" in its resolution and revelations. Karen Tei Yamashita's "I Hotel" is a 613-page novel in the form of 10 free-standing novellas linked by setting, a residence hotel in San Francisco during a decade beginning in 1968. Because the novellas are in wildly different styles -- cinematic and dramatic scripts, collages of literary and political documents, narrative voices inflected by African-American dialect and Chinese and Japanese culture, cartoons and drawings -- only the following sample represents them all: Authors sometimes take strange liberties. -- Charlie Chan The "passage" in a section titled "Analects" is a bald statement set off by itself without any obvious context. Much of Yamashita's prose is active, telegraphic and assertive, yet qualified -- the "sometimes" -- by other direct statements. Her constant subject is liberation -- political, economic, racial and artistic. Perhaps a tenth of the book is composed of quotations from political theorists, poets, popular singers, jazz musicians, revolutionaries and others. The quotes, like the sample, may be authentic or invented by the author. Many of them are concerned with perceptions by or about Asians. Since one of the primary liberties that Yamashita takes is rendering novelistic action in the form of cinematic directions, Charlie Chan is an appropriate "authority." As a detective, he is an ironic model for the Asian-American author's investigations of the criminalized political activists of the period (one of the fictions takes the form of a police "dossier"). And just as a detective explains his reasoning at the end of a case, the novelist articulates her rationale in her final novella, an epilogue that could have been a prologue to welcome readers into her book. Each novella has two or three conflicting characters; several of the most memorable are a Chinese historian and a Chinese saxophonist, a Japanese professor, a member of the Black Panthers, a Filipino activist, an early feminist. Characters from the first novellas sometimes appear briefly in later stories, but Yamashita's most daring liberty is reversing the usual proportion between foreground (continuity of character and action) and background (setting and cultural information). To readers who were conscious adults in the early 1970s, her information about strikes, occupations and riots may seem over-familiar, but to younger readers "I Hotel" offers a thick description of the period in a cut-and-paste structure that resembles contemporary hypertext. The only novel like it that I know is Robert Coover's similarly obsessive and excessive "The Public Burning", which did for politics of the 1950s what Yamashita does for her decade. Since her West Coast novel published by a Midwestern small press went largely unreviewed in East Coast media, "I Hotel" is a true odds-beater as a finalist. And now the hard part. "So Much for That" is a very good mainstream novel with important topical concerns and engaging realistic characters but is rather pedestrian in its handyman style. "Lord of Misrule" is a very good indie press novel with no topical concerns and somewhat stereotyped characters but contains award-worthy sentences. Although a comic novel recently broke through to win the Booker Prize, "Parrot and Olivier in America" is not as amusing as other Carey novels, and it doesn't penetrate America as perceptively as a European buddy book it resembles, Pynchon's "Mason and Dixon." The extensively voiced sufferings of the graduate student, lawyer, novelists and professor in "Great House" actively solicit one's sympathies but are given only an oblique connection to the Holocaust. Although Krauss is possibly more profound than the first three, "Great House" seems "needy" to me, artfully contrived to elicit the admiration of other writers. Of the five, "I Hotel" is the most ambitious in its cultural range, the most diverse in character, the most ingenious in form, and the most idiosyncratic in style. It also has by far the most longueurs. I still think "I Hotel" should win -- as a similar book by a West Coast writer, William Vollmann's "Europe Central," did the year I was a judge. But Yamashita may be too anarchic or too declamatory or too alien -- too off-putting in one way or another -- to get the votes she needs. Krauss and "Great House" will probably receive the award. In this space last year, I picked the winner, Colum McCann's "Let the Great World Spin." But don't bet on "Great House" -- unless you get great odds.

Patti Smith was the darling of last night's National Book Award ceremony, where she won the nonfiction prize for her memoir about her relationship with Robert Mapplethorpe, Just Kids. "I dreamed of having a book of my own, of writing one that I could put on a shelf," she said. "Please, no matter how we advance technologically, please don’t abandon the book." More winners—who walked away with $10,000 and a bronze statue—from the 61st annual awards, via the New York Times: Fiction: Jaimy Gordon's Lord of Misrule, a novel about West Virginia horse racing, was the surprise winner. Young people's literature: Kathryn Erskine's Mockingbird, the story of an 11-year-old girl with Asperger syndrome. Poetry: Terrance Hayes' Lighthead was a unanimous pick. Tom Wolfe: The author received the 2010 Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters. Joan Ganz Cooney: The public television producer, who founded the Children’s Television Workshop in 1968, received the 2010 Literarian Award for Outstanding Service to the American Literary Community. Need holiday reading ideas? Check out the rest of the fiction finalists here.

The EFOG-M is being designed to engage armored combat vehicles, other high value ground targets (such as command, control, and communication centers), and helicopters beyond the line of sight at ranges up to 15 kilometers. The system will consist of a gunner’s station and eight missiles mounted on a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. The missiles are launched toward a target area based upon forward intelligence information. After missile launch, the gunner can intervene at any time to lock on and engage detected targets. The gunner views the flight path and the target via a seeker (located in the missile) that is linked to the gunner’s video console by fiber optic cable. Figures 1 and 2 show the EFOG-M fire unit and missile and the potential EFOG-M deployment concept, respectively. According to an Army official, the EFOG-M uses the same concept and some of the same technology as three previously terminated efforts costing more than $440 million—the Fiber Optic Guided Missile (FOG-M), the Non-Line-of-Sight Missile (NLOS), and the NLOS-Combined Arms (CA). The Army began development work in 1978 to demonstrate fiber optics guidance and conducted flight tests in 1984 to demonstrate the technology as an antitank missile (FOG-M). However, in late 1986, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) approved development not primarily as an antitank weapon but to provide defense against helicopters (NLOS). Although the Army had planned to produce NLOS, OSD decided to terminate the program once its development was completed because other programs had higher priority and other systems could accomplish the intended mission. However, the Army then terminated the program in January 1991 before completing development because of excessive cost growth. The Army restarted the effort as NLOS-CA in mid-1991, performed concept analyses, explored alternative acquisition strategies, and sought approval for engineering and manufacturing development. But its development was not approved. The Army is now developing the EFOG-M and plans to acquire limited quantities under an advanced technology demonstration program designed to demonstrate potential technology enhancements; and the Army will provide the system and support it for the RFPI ACTD. RFPI is exploring new approaches to provide an early entry force that is significantly more capable against a heavy armored threat. The primary objective of an ACTD is to accelerate the application of new technology to solve military problems. ACTDs are to (1) evaluate military utility before committing to acquisition, (2) develop operational concepts, and (3) rapidly provide operational capability. During this process, ACTD programs require much more early user involvement than expected during normal acquisition program phases. Department of Defense (DOD) officials believe ACTD programs will shorten the acquisition process. Under the demonstration program, the Army plans to procure 12 fire units, 3 platoon vehicles, 300 missiles, and associated equipment at an estimated cost of about $280 million. According to Army officials, the development, demonstrations, and evaluations could result in one of the following actions: terminating the effort before building the system hardware (not a likely option); purchasing only the limited quantities and making a decision as to whether to leave the residual quantities in the field; procuring much larger quantities of the EFOG-M currently being developed (3,126 missiles and 120 fire units are being examined from an affordability standpoint); or substantially modifying the system and procuring larger quantities. The Army plans to demonstrate EFOG-M performance and military utility through (1) simulations, (2) contractor-conducted missile performance tests, (3) a force-on-force demonstration along with other early entry systems and potential systems, (4) government check-out missile firings, and (5) a 2-year user fielding and evaluation of a residual force. Table 1 shows the schedule for these events. The Army does not have an agreed-upon requirement for the EFOG-M. It has not completed the documentation nor analyses for the EFOG-M program required for most acquisition programs. For example, the Army has not (1) prepared a mission need statement documenting the mission deficiency, (2) analyzed other alternatives to satisfy the need, (3) defined the system’s operational and performance requirements, nor (4) comprehensively compared EFOG-M’s cost and operational effectiveness to other existing or developmental systems. According to Army officials, that type of documentation, analysis, and evaluation is not required for ACTD programs. They said these changes resulted from defense acquisition reform efforts. However, at the current time, U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (responsible for determining requirements) officials state (1) the system is needed for use with early entry forces and (2) the requirement will be defined during the ACTD. “NLOS-CA has struggled in budget competition within the Army because it is such a revolutionary concept. It simply doesn’t fit well anywhere within the Army’s branch structure and has been passed around among air defense (anti-helicopter version), artillery, and infantry branches.” Because requirements and/or support for predecessor systems have disappeared after considerable effort and expenditure of funds, we believe that the EFOG-M requirement should be agreed upon and formally documented. In addition, we believe the system’s cost and operational effectiveness should be comprehensively compared to other alternatives for satisfying that requirement. In its report (104-131, June 1, 1995) on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, the House National Security Committee expressed concern that the Army is pursuing a weapon system that provides questionable value and possesses known fiscal risk. The committee recommended a provision (sec. 215) that would (1) require the Secretary of the Army to certify by December 1, 1995, that a requirement exists for the EFOG-M and whether there is a cost-effectiveness analysis supporting such requirement and (2) limit the expenditure of funds for the EFOG-M program to that identified in the current program plan only ($280 million, based on fiscal year 1995 constant dollars) and deny continuation of the program beyond fiscal year 1998 if contract obligations are not met. Army guidance for advanced technology demonstration programs require establishment of criteria to be met and the RFPI ACTD management plan recognizes that criteria as the technical goals for the system. A DOD instruction states that, to be effective, the criteria must be specific and quantitative. Since the ACTD’s objective is to judge the military value of the system, it appears reasonable and prudent to establish specific measurable standards as a basis for making the judgment. The Army’s EFOG-M Advanced Technology Demonstration Plan establishes exit criteria for evaluating EFOG-M performance (see app. I). Some of these criteria are specific and easily measurable. For example, the plan establishes specific minimum criteria that must be accomplished by mid-1996 for missile reload time, the number of missiles mounted on each fire unit, and the system response time for missile launch. It also provides specific minimum criteria that must be accomplished by mid-1999 for missile range and set-up time for system operation. However, the criteria for some other operational issues that project officials consider critical do not provide the specific values to be attained—a standard to measure against to determine success. For example, to demonstrate successful identification of targets, the minimum criterion to be accomplished in 1996 is “gunner recognition without diverting the missile and obtain in-flight intelligence.” However, the plan does not identify the minimum required probabilities of correctly identifying the target—a performance issue very critical to the effectiveness of the weapon system—either in 1996 or at the end of the technology demonstration. Another criterion extremely important to the basic role and need for the system is demonstrating that targets can be engaged even though they are not within the gunner’s view. The criterion states that the Army is to demonstrate engaging targets not in the line of sight by mid-1996. But the criterion does not address the required probability for engaging each target correctly identified—a key determinant of the success of the system—either in 1996 or at the end of advanced technology demonstration in 1999. In addition, the minimum criteria for warhead lethality is to “defeat existing threat tanks and helicopters.” But it does not establish and provide for measuring specific minimum required probabilities of defeating the tanks or helicopters with a single shot. However, the probability of killing a target with a single shot is critical to determining whether the system is cost-effective and, consequently, whether it should be procured. We believe that in order to accomplish an evaluation of the system, the criteria for determining a success must be (1) specific and measurable and (2) representative of the capability needed rather than the capability available. In our opinion, if the military value of the program is to be judged, the criteria for measuring that value, including specific performance of the missile, should be established in advance of the tests rather than relying on subjective judgment of success afterward. ACTD programs are designed to shorten the time required to obtain operating capability. But, when asked where EFOG-M would enter the acquisition process if a larger procurement is desired, the Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Technology said that it depends upon the quality of the ACTD—it could enter at production or it could go back to the beginning of engineering and manufacturing development. However, since the ACTD is scheduled for 6 years, it appears to us that, unless engineering and manufacturing development is greatly abbreviated, entering the process at that phase would accomplish little toward shortening the acquisition process. One shortening strategy could involve conducting tests and evaluations during the limited acquisition in such a fashion to prevent duplication during a larger procurement. For normal Army acquisition programs, development testers (Army Test and Evaluation Command) plan and conduct developmental testing and provide safety release of all systems; independent evaluators or assessors (Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity or Test and Evaluation Command) determine the degree to which the technical parameters of the system have been achieved; and operational testers and independent operational evaluators (Army Operational Test and Evaluation Command) conduct operational tests and address the operational effectiveness and suitability of the system. However, the roles of development testers, independent evaluators, and operational testers and evaluators in the RFPI demonstration and EFOG-M tests and evaluations are not well defined at this time. The RFPI ACTD Management Plan is endorsed by the Test and Evaluation Command but the plan does not specify the Command’s role nor the role of other independent testers in the demonstration. More detailed draft plans for conducting EFOG-M tests, conducting the demonstrations, and acquiring the EFOG-M limited quantities also do not identify the specific roles. And discussions with independent testers and evaluators and with EFOG-M management officials provided little additional definitive information about the role of the independent testers and evaluators. According to EFOG-M management officials, the contractor has prepared a draft master test plan for the limited acquisition, and the contractor will be responsible for the tests. Project test officials have sent the plan to the independent testers and evaluators for comment, but their approval is not required. The project manager will approve the test plan, and will consider the independent comments. Project management officials said that the testers and evaluators would be invited to observe the tests, but not control them. However, there are no formal agreements with independent testers and evaluators as to (1) their role in the testing and evaluation of EFOG-M or (2) the amount of testing and independent tester and evaluator involvement required to prevent retesting and reevaluating the system if a larger quantity is desired. All acknowledge receiving the contractor’s master test plan. However, the Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, for example, is only currently attempting to define its role in ACTD programs. Its representatives have participated in RFPI and EFOG-M discussions, and they plan to provide some informal evaluation. Army Test and Evaluation Command representatives have been informed they will be responsible for safety tests, and they are actively attempting to define their involvement. Operational Test and Evaluation Command officials are aware of the RFPI and EFOG-M programs, but they have not yet defined their role in the programs. They believe they will be involved at the appropriate time. One RFPI ACTD manager has begun efforts to provide coordinated evaluation for the virtual prototype evaluation If, in order to accomplish the ACTD objective, the Army initiates strategies to ensure that the ACTD reduces the time required to acquire a larger quantity of systems, we believe there should be assurances that required tests and evaluations of the system are conducted in such a fashion during the ACTD program to preclude the need to repeat the tests and evaluations to support a larger procurement. Because of the early stage of the ACTD program, the Army has not yet planned for the personnel and funds to support, operate, and maintain the EFOG-M beyond the ACTD program. In addition, the Army has not yet determined whether a deployment of the residual equipment would be cost-effective. According to Army officials, the ACTD could result in (1) leaving the EFOG-M residual equipment deployed with a combat unit but not purchasing additional systems or (2) purchasing a much larger quantity of EFOG-Ms—possibly to equip the entire early entry force. Before making decisions regarding retaining the residual deployment or a larger deployment, the Army should ensure that it has the force structure and funding needed to operate, support, and maintain EFOG-M beyond the ACTD program and that the deployment is cost-effective. For the extended user evaluation, the EFOG-M will be assigned to a company consisting of 3 platoons with a total of 58 personnel. Each platoon will have 1 platoon leader vehicle and 4 EFOG-M fire units (12 per company), and the company will be assigned support vehicles for resupply of ammunition and fuel. The EFOG-M contractor will support and maintain the system during the period. Training and Doctrine Command officials informed us that the company will perform its normal activities during the evaluation. For example, if the unit went to training, it would train with the EFOG-M. If the unit were deployed for a military contingency, it would deploy with the EFOG-M as a part of the force. The Army Forces Command will provide the personnel to operate and support the systems during the user evaluation, and the RFPI program management office will fund the supporting contractor. However, Training and Doctrine Command officials informed us that funding or support beyond the 2-year extended user evaluation period has not been planned for the residual quantity or for a larger procurement. They said such plans would be premature since decisions have not been made regarding retaining the residual quantity or procuring a larger amount. In addition, although retaining the residual quantity without a larger procurement is an option, at this time the Army has not examined the cost-effectiveness of such a deployment. For example, we found no evidence the Army has compared (1) the cost of personnel to operate the system and the cost to establish or contract for maintenance and logistics support with (2) the cost to accomplish the mission with other alternatives. An Army official said the Army plans to make these comparisons during the ACTD. We believe the Army should ensure that such cost-effectiveness studies are performed as well as ensure that a supporting/operating force is available before making decisions regarding retaining the residual deployment. In addition, before making decisions regarding a larger deployment, DOD should ensure that the Army has the force structure and funding planned to operate, support, and maintain the larger procurement. We recommend that, before deciding to either acquire more EFOG-Ms or retain the limited quantity beyond the user evaluation, the Secretary of Defense require the Army to prepare (1) a formal EFOG-M requirements document and (2) analyses comparing EFOG-M’s cost and operational effectiveness with other alternatives for satisfying the requirement, including the weapons of other services if appropriate. We recommend that the Secretary of Defense establish measurable exit criteria regarding the most critical EFOG-M performance issues before beginning the tests, demonstrations, and evaluations. We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense evaluate the feasibility and costs of performing the tests and evaluations to be conducted during the limited procurement in such a fashion to preclude the need to repeat them if a larger procurement is desired. We further recommend that, before requesting appropriations to support and operate the EFOG-M equipment beyond the extended user evaluation period, the Secretary of Defense require the Army to provide evidence that such a deployment would be cost-effective. In addition, before requesting funds for a larger procurement, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that the Army has planned sufficient funding and personnel to support, operate, and maintain the larger procurement. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD said the report contained many useful comments and observations and it partially agreed with the recommendations. However, it did not agree with the findings because it believes the report treats EFOG-M as a normal acquisition program instead of as part of the RFPI ACTD. We disagree. The report is directed toward improving DOD’s management of acquiring EFOG-M for the RFPI ACTD, demonstrating EFOG-M’s utility, and evaluating its military value. DOD partially agreed with our draft recommendation to prepare a formal requirements document and conduct analyses comparing EFOG-M cost- and operational effectiveness with other alternatives by the end of the force-on-force demonstration. DOD stated that it would prepare a formal cost- and operational effectiveness analysis and statement of requirement if the results of the ACTD indicates that a larger quantity of EFOG-M should be acquired. However, it believed that the timing should be keyed to the transition decision. Based on DOD’s comments, we modified the recommendation to provide more flexibility in the timing of establishing requirements and conducting a cost- and operational effectiveness analysis. DOD agreed with the modified recommendation. DOD did not agree with our draft recommendation to establish measurable exit criteria regarding the most critical EFOG-M performance issues. DOD stated that exit criteria are not appropriate for use with an ACTD. It further stated that appropriate testing would be performed to characterize performance and required levels of performance will be established at the conclusion of the ACTD. We disagree with DOD. The Army has already established exit criteria for EFOG-M and the RFPI ACTD management plan recognizes that most of the systems (including the EFOG-M) have approved exit criteria that describe the technical goals for each system. Our recommendation is directed toward making some of these technical goals more specific and measurable. We continue to believe that measurable critical levels of performance should be established before beginning the tests, demonstrations, and evaluations. Because of a misinterpretation, DOD partially agreed with our draft recommendation to evaluate the feasibility and costs of performing sufficient tests and evaluations during the limited procurement to preclude the need to duplicate them during a larger procurement. DOD concluded that we wanted them to expand the testing program. However, our intent was to preclude the need to repeat tests to support a larger procurement. Therefore, we modified the recommendation to prevent any misunderstanding. DOD agreed to provide evidence that the deployment of EFOG-M would be cost-effective before requesting appropriations to support and operate the EFOG-M equipment beyond the extended user evaluation period. DOD stated that the results of the RFPI ACTD would include an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of limited fielding with the inventory procured for the ACTD as well as for an expanded deployment and that any decision to procure additional units would include full consideration of funding and personnel levels required to operate and support the expanded deployment. The DOD response and our comments are included in appendix III. We are sending copies of the report to the Secretaries of Defense and the Army and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be made available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appen dix IV. Engage targets not in line of sight (continued) Sling transportable by CH-47D helicopter in a march order configuration Sling transportable by UH-60 helicopter (2 lifts) We obtained information regarding the purposes of the Rapid Force Projection Initiative (RFPI) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) by (1) reviewing the RFPI ACTD management plan and (2) discussing the matter with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Technology; the Director of Technology, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition; and officials from the RFPI Program Office, U.S. Army Missile Command. We obtained information regarding the Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOG-M) system’s exit criteria by reviewing the EFOG-M Advanced Technology Plan and interviewing officials from the Non-Line of Sight Project Office (responsible for managing the EFOG-M program), Program Executive Office for Tactical Missiles. In addition, we obtained information regarding demonstration, test, and evaluation plans from discussions with RFPI and EFOG-M project officials and officials from the (1) Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; (2) Army Test and Evaluation Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground and Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; and (3) Operational Test and Evaluation Command, Alexandria, Virginia. We also obtained information regarding EFOG-M system requirements, force structure requirements, and fielding plans from the U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command’s System Manager for Antitank Missiles and the Dismounted Battlespace Battle Laboratory, Fort Benning, Georgia, and the Early Entry Lethality and Survivability Battle Laboratory, Fort Monroe, Virginia. We conducted our review from September 1994 through July 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) letter dated September 15, 1995. 1. The report does not focus on the EFOG-M program as a normal acquisition program. The report is directed toward improving DOD’s management of acquiring a limited number of EFOG-Ms for the RFPI ACTD. For example, we believe that the recommendation regarding the formal agreed-upon requirement is appropriate because requirements and/or support for three EFOG-M predecessors have disappeared after considerable effort and expenditure of funds. 2. The report does not ignore the primary thrust of ACTDs. The draft recommendation was directed at establishing an EFOG-M requirement by the end of the force-on-force demonstration in mid-1998, or nearly 4 years into the ACTD program, not at its inception. Our intent was to ensure that the Army validated its requirement for EFOG-M before deciding whether to either acquire a larger quantity of EFOG-Ms or retain the residual ACTD quantity after the 2-year evaluation. Based on DOD’s comments, we modified our recommendation to permit more flexibility in the timing and even greater user evaluation. 3. We disagree that requirements, exit criteria, and cost-effectiveness analyses must be products of an ACTD. We addressed the importance of exit criteria in the agency comments and evaluation section of the report and the importance of requirements in comment 1. A cost-effectiveness analysis can be performed at any time, not at just the end of the ACTD. 4. The report does not recommend force structure planning at this time; however, it does recommend that such planning occur before a decision is made to either acquire a larger quantity or retain the limited quantity after the 2-year evaluation. DOD agreed with the recommendation. 5. The report neither addresses changes in threat nor prohibits exploring EFOG-M’s effectiveness under early entry conditions. However, as modified, it recommends an agreed-upon requirement before making a decision to either procure a larger quantity or retain the limited quantity. 6. We do not judge EFOG-M because of its history; but, at the same time, we believe that history should be used to assist in making good management decisions. 7. Our review was not designed to evaluate the ACTD process, but rather to examine selected aspects of the acquisition of the Army’s EFOG-M system. Therefore, we cannot comment on the benefits of ACTD programs. 8. Regarding critical decisions, we modified our recommendations to permit more flexibility in establishing the requirement; however, we still believe that a requirement should be established before decisions are made regarding a larger procurement or retaining a limited quantity. We also believe that specific measurable exit criteria, or standards for performance, should be established before tests, evaluations, and demonstrations. 9. DOD’s comments and our evaluation are included in the body of the report. Thomas W. Gilliam, Evaluator-in-Charge Erin B. Baker, Evaluator The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

GAO reviewed the Army's plans for acquiring the Enhanced Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOG-M) system. GAO found that: (1) the Army lacks a formal requirement for EFOG-M and has not prepared comprehensive comparative cost studies because requirements documents and analyses are not normally required for Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) programs; (2) the Army should develop the requirement documents because of its prior difficulty in justifying the systems; (3) Congress has required the Army to certify that the requirement and analyses exist by December 1, 1995; (4) the Army has not fully defined EFOG-M performance criteria to evaluate the system's military value; (5) the ACTD program may not shorten the EFOG-M acquisition process unless innovative strategies are devised and formal testing agreements are reached; and (6) resources are not available to support limited fielding of EFOG-M after the 2-year ACTD evaluation period.

Leading organizations use their performance management systems as a key tool for aligning institutional, unit, and employee performance; achieving results; accelerating change; managing the organization on a day-to-day basis; and facilitating communication throughout the year so that discussions about individual and organizational performance are integrated and ongoing. Performance management systems in these leading organizations typically seek to achieve three key objectives. First, they strive to provide candid and constructive feedback to help individual employees maximize their potential in understanding and realizing the goals and objectives of the agency. Second, they seek to provide management with the objective and fact-based information it needs to reward top performers. Third, performance management systems provide the necessary information and documentation to deal with poor performers. Most federal performance management systems fail to achieve these objectives. In addition, many federal agencies are just beginning to recognize that their performance management systems can be strategic tools to achieve success. In my opinion, modernizing agency performance appraisal and management systems and linking them to agency strategic plans and desired outcomes should be a top priority. Results-oriented performance agreements are one mechanism in a performance management system that creates a “line of sight” showing how individual employees can contribute to overall organizational goals. Agencies that effectively implement such systems must first align agency leaders’ performance expectations with organizational goals and then cascade performance expectations to other organizational levels. These employees are then held accountable for their contributions to achieve desired results. Our work has shown that agencies have benefited from their use of results-oriented performance agreements for political and senior career executives. The performance agreements strengthened alignment of results-oriented goals with daily operations, fostered collaboration across organizational boundaries, enhanced opportunities to discuss and routinely use performance information to make program improvements, provided a results-oriented basis for individual accountability, and maintained continuity of program goals during leadership transitions. Governmentwide, agencies need to place increased emphasis on holding senior executives accountable for organizational goals. OPM amended regulations that change the way agencies evaluate the members of the Senior Executive Service (SES). While agencies will need to tailor their performance management systems to their unique organizational requirements and climates, they nonetheless are to: hold executives accountable for results; appraise executive performance on those results balanced against other dimensions, including customer satisfaction and employee perspective; and use those results as the basis for performance awards and other personnel decisions. Agencies were to implement the new policies for the SES appraisal cycles that began in 2001. Ultimately, an effective performance management system must link pay and incentive programs to individual knowledge, skills, and contributions to achieving organizational results. The affect of poor performers on agencies’ performance and morale can far exceed their small numbers. Still, while important, dealing with poor performers is only part of the challenge; agencies need to create additional incentives and rewards for valuable and high-performing employees who represent the vast majority of the federal workforce. Congress and the administration have repeatedly expressed a commitment to more fully link resources to results. The American people expect and deserve this linkage as well. However, we will never achieve this linkage without modern and effective performance management strategies. Additional information on the performance management programs in use in agencies and the relative strengths and weaknesses of those programs, along with best practice information, would prove very helpful as agencies seek to link pay to individual knowledge, skills, and performance. Efforts to link federal pay to knowledge, skills, and performance should be part of a broader effort to align resource decisions to results. As I noted, fostered in part by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), there has been an increasing interest within the executive branch and the Congress in linking performance and results to resource allocation and other decisions. Consistent with that view, we need to continue efforts to shift agency accountability—with appropriate safeguards and oversight— to budgeted resources and results and away from other inputs and processes. The work of the recently completed Commercial Activities Panel, which I had the privilege of chairing, is illustrative in this regard.One of the sourcing principles adopted by the Panel was that the federal government’s sourcing policy should avoid arbitrary full-time equivalent (FTE) or other numerical goals. The principle is based on the unarguable point that the success of government programs should be measured by the results achieved in terms of providing value to the taxpayer, not the size of the in-house or contractor workforce. I believe that the Panel’s principle should also apply to resource allocation generally. We need to continue— and even augment—efforts to shift the focus of management, resource allocation, and decisionmaking from inputs and process to a greater focus on results and outcomes and to provide management reasonable flexibility while incorporating appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse. In this regard, holding managers accountable for results based on a specific dollar allocation versus FTE caps would be a major step in the right direction. As you know, I believe that a greater emphasis should be placed on knowledge, skills, and performance in connection with federal employment promotion and compensation decisions at all levels, rather than the passage of time, the rate of inflation, or geographic location, as so often is the case today. In recent years, widespread concern has been expressed about the methodology and results of the procedures to determine the federal pay gap. These concerns are among the reasons that the pay gap has never been fully addressed. I believe that careful study is needed to develop more realistic and workable methodologies and solutions to federal pay issues. Part of that assessment should focus on options for moving away from a compensation system that contains governmentwide pay increases with locality adjustments, and toward a system that is based to a greater degree on the knowledge, skills, and performance of the individuals involved. I fully appreciate that much work may be needed before agencies’ respective performance management systems are able to support a more direct link between pay and individual knowledge, skills, and performance. OPM certainly has a continuing and vital role to play in connection with these issues. OPM’s recently released white paper on federal pay provides a good foundation for the results-oriented pay reform discussion that must now take place. The greater use of “broadbanding” is one of the options that deserves to be discussed. In the short term, Congress may wish to explore the benefits of (1) providing OPM with additional flexibility that would enable it to grant governmentwide authority for all agencies (i.e., class exemptions) to use broadbanding for certain critical occupations and/or (2) allowing agencies to apply to OPM (i.e., case exemptions) for broadbanding authority for their specific critical occupations. However, agencies should be required to demonstrate to OPM’s satisfaction that they have modern, effective, and validated performance management systems before they are allowed to use broadbanding. The nature and scope of the cultural transformation that needs to take place in many agencies across the federal government will take years to accomplish—easily outrunning the tenures of most political appointees. At the same time, GAO’s work over the years, most prominently in our High- Risk and Performance and Accountability Series, has amply documented that many agencies suffer from a range of long-standing management challenges and a lack of attention to basic stewardship responsibilities, requiring concerted action and sustained top-level attention if they are to be addressed. One option for addressing the issues agencies face is to create a Chief Operating Officer (COO) position for selected agencies that would provide the sustained management attention essential for addressing key stewardship responsibilities in an integrated manner while helping to facilitate the transformation process within an agency. These long-term responsibilities are professional and nonpartisan in nature. They cover a range of “good government” responsibilities that are fundamental to effectively executing any administration’s program agenda. Statutory COOs would differ from—but hopefully complement—the roles often assumed by the current Deputy Secretaries in assisting the Secretaries in executing the administration’s policy and program agenda and achieving an agency’s mission. The good government responsibilities that could be led by a COO include: strategic planning, organizational alignment, core values stewardship, human capital strategy, performance management (aligning institutional, unit, and individual measurement and reward systems to achieve overall organizational goals), communications and information technology management, financial management, acquisition management, risk management, knowledge management, matrix management, and change management. While various models for structuring such a position could be used, one option would be to have a COO who is appointed, subject to Senate confirmation, to a term of 5 to 7 years (generally considered to be the minimum time needed for major change initiatives to provide meaningful and sustainable results). The COO should be at an organizational level equivalent to the current deputies in major departments and agencies in order to help assure the effectiveness of this position. A term appointment would help to provide continuity that spans the tenure of the political leadership to ensure that long-term stewardship issues are addressed and change management initiatives are successfully completed. The individual would be selected without regard to political affiliation based on (1) demonstrated leadership skills in managing large and complex organizations, and (2) experience achieving results in connection with a number of the above responsibilities. To further clarify accountability, the COO could be subject to a clearly defined, results-oriented performance contract with appropriate incentive, reward, and accountability mechanisms. If Congress and the executive branch decide to move forward with the COO approach, it may make sense to use a pilot in a select number of agencies using a value and risk-based approach. For example, an agency that is experiencing particularly significant challenges in integrating disparate organizational cultures (such as the proposed Department of Homeland Security) may be an especially appropriate first phase candidate. Agencies engaged in major transformation efforts, like the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) could also benefit from such an approach. Similarly, a “challenged agency’’—one that has longstanding management weaknesses and high-risk operations or functions, such as the Department of Defense (DOD)—may also be a good first phase candidate. The point would be for the Congress, executive branch leadership in OMB and OPM, agencies, and others to gain experience with the COO approach before deciding how and where it should be applied across the government. More generally, we need to comprehensively examine opportunities for better using the federal government’s career SES leadership. This examination should focus on a number of issues that have been suggested to strengthen the SES and thereby improve federal performance and foster transformation efforts. These issues include, for example, concerns over SES compensation and pay compression. I believe that the issue of whether and how much to increase SES pay must be discussed within the context of how to make any pay increases variable and performance-based rather than across-the-board and fixed. We also must carefully examine the composition of the SES. It seems to me that, in general, current members of the SES fill three broad roles: executive leadership, program management, and senior technical and specialists positions. We need to look at the implications that these differing roles have for a range of issues, such as SES core competencies, performance standards, recruitment sources, mobility, and training and development programs. We also need to look at whether the number of levels within the SES (i.e. ES 1 through 6) are necessary and appropriate. As the federal government’s leading accountability organization, we have made a concerted effort to identify and encourage the implementation of human capital practices that improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the federal government. Over the last few years, we have issued numerous reports with practical recommendations on the steps individual agencies can take to address their specific human capital challenges. In addition, we have reported on governmentwide trends and lessons learned by successful organizations. We also understand that we have a responsibility to “lead by example” and “practice what we preach” in all key management areas, including strategic human capital management. On March 15, 2002, we released A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, the latest in a series of tools designed to assist agency leaders in effectively managing their people. Our model is designed to help agency leaders effectively lead and manage their people and integrate human capital considerations into daily decision making and the program results they seek to achieve. In so doing, the model highlights the importance of a sustained commitment by agency leaders to maximize the value of their agencies’ human capital and to manage related risks. Accordingly, it raises the bar for all of us—those in positions of leadership, federal managers, employees, unions, and human capital executives and their teams. Consistent with OPM’s and OMB’s views, our model of strategic human capital management embodies an approach that is fact-based, focused on strategic results, and incorporates merit principles and other national goals. As such, the model reflects two principles central to the human capital idea: People are assets whose value can be enhanced through investment. As with any investment, the goal is to maximize value while managing risk. An organization’s human capital approaches should be designed, implemented, and assessed by the standard of how well they help the organization pursue its mission and achieve desired results or outcomes. The model highlights the kinds of thinking that agencies should apply, as well as some of the steps they can take, to make progress in managing human capital strategically. The concepts presented in the model are arranged around eight critical success factors, which are organized in pairs to correspond with four cornerstones of effective strategic human capital management. (See Fig. 1.) As I noted before, OPM and OMB also have developed tools that are being used to assess human capital management efforts. We provided drafts of our human capital model to OPM and OMB for their review prior to publication to help ensure that the three efforts are conceptually consistent. We hope that the perspective and information provided in our model will help inform agencies’ efforts to respond to the administration’s management initiatives, such as “getting to green” on OMB’s management scorecard and using the tools developed by OPM. While we remain sensitive of the need to maintain our institutional independence, we are working constructively with OPM, OMB, and others to explore opportunities to develop a more fully integrated set of guidance and tools for agencies to address their human capital challenges. In addition to providing tools to help agencies help themselves, we believe it is our responsibility to lead by example. We are in the vanguard of the federal government’s efforts to modernize existing human capital strategies and we are committed to staying in this position. Our people are our most valuable asset and it is only through their combined efforts that we can effectively serve our clients and our country. By managing our workforce strategically and focusing on results, we are helping to maximize our own performance and ensure our own accountability. By doing so, we also hope to demonstrate to other federal agencies that they can make similar improvements in the way they manage their people. We have identified and made use of a variety of tools and flexibilities, some of which were made available to us through the GAO Personnel Act of 1980 and our 2000 legislation, but most of which are available to federal agencies. The most prominent change in human capital management that we implemented as a result of the GAO Personnel Act of 1980 was a broadbanded pay-for-performance system. The primary goal of this system is to base employee compensation primarily on the knowledge, skills, and performance of individual employees. It provides managers flexibility to assign employees in a manner that is more suitable to multi-tasking and the full use of staff. Under our current broadbanded system, analyst and analyst-related staff in Grades 7 through 15 were placed in three bands. We expect to modify our banded system in the future based on our experience to date. In January 2002, we implemented a new competency-based performance management system that is intended to create a clear linkage between employee performance and our strategic plan and core values. It includes 12 competencies that our employees overwhelmingly validated as the keys to meaningful performance at GAO. (See Fig. 2.) Our October 2000 legislation gave us additional tools to: realign our workforce in light of mission needs and overall budgetary constraints; correct skills imbalances; and reduce high-grade, managerial, or supervisory positions without reducing the overall number of GAO employees. This legislation allowed us to create a technical and scientific career track at a compensation level consistent to the SES. It also allowed us to give greater consideration to performance and employee skills and knowledge in any Reduction-in-Force actions. We believe that other agencies could benefit from these additional authorities. Since the legislation was enacted, we have established agency regulations and conducted and completed our first offering of voluntary early retirement opportunities. Once employees registered their interest in participating in the program, we considered a number of factors including: employee knowledge, skills, performance, and competencies; the organizational unit or subunit in which an employee worked; an employee’s occupational series, grade, or band level, as appropriate; and the geographic location of the employee. As authorized by the 2000 legislation, employee performance was just one of many factors we considered when deciding which employees would be allowed to receive the incentives. However, let me assure you, we did not use performance to target certain individuals. We are also using many recruiting flexibilities that are available to most agencies, including an extensive campaign to increase our competitiveness on college campuses and extending offers of employment during the fall semester to prospective employees who will come on board the following spring and summer. We are also using our internship program in a strategic fashion and we often offer permanent positions to GAO interns with at least 10 weeks of highly successful work experience. Moreover, we are building and maintaining a strong presence of both senior executives and recent graduates on targeted college campuses. We have also taken steps to streamline and expedite our hiring process. In this regard, the current length of time that it takes to hire a person in most other federal agencies is much too long and must be addressed. Even after we hire good people, we need to take steps to retain them. We have taken a number of steps to empower and invest in our employees. For example, we have active employee feedback and suggestion programs. In addition, we are in the midst of implementing our first student loan repayment assistance program for about 200 employees who have indicated interest and are willing to make a three-year commitment to staying with the agency. Overall, we have implemented the following initiatives and targeted investments, some of which are relatively recent and some of which are longstanding: Prepared a human capital profile and needs assessment to understand employee demographics and distribution. Conducted an employee survey in 1999 and 2002 to understand the status and progress of the agency and the areas in which we need to improve. Completed a knowledge and skills inventory for all employees. Conducted an employee preference survey so that employees could be given the opportunity to work in the areas that interest and energize them in light of our institutional needs. Implemented an Executive Candidate Development Program to prepare candidates for assignments in the SES. Initiated a Professional Development Program for newly hired GAO analysts to help them transition and progress. Initiated a redesign of our training curriculum to directly link and support our validated core competencies. Established an Employee Advisory Council to facilitate open communication and direct input from line employees to the Comptroller General and other GAO senior leadership. Provided an on-site child care center called “Tiny Findings” and the Wellness and Fitness Center. Implemented additional employee-friendly benefits such as business casual dress, flextime, and public transportation subsidies. Used recruitment bonuses, retention allowances, and student loan repayment assistance to attract and retain employees with specialized skills. Implemented a new “state of the art” performance appraisal system that is linked to our strategic plan and based on key competencies. As we engage in these changes, we also know that we are not perfect and we never will be. This is a work-in-progress for us as it is for others. Our approaches are not the only way for agencies to proceed, but they can help others identify ways to address their individual human capital challenges. In this regard, we have shared our lessons and experiences with others, and are happy to do so.

Strategic human capital management is critical to maximizing government's performance and ensuring its accountability for the benefit of the American people. The early years of the 21st century are proving to be a period of profound transition being driven by several key trends, including global interdependence; diverse, diffuse, and asymmetrical security threats; rapidly evolving science and technology; dramatic shifts in age and composition of the population; important quality of life issues; the changing nature of the economy; and evolving governmental structures and concepts. GAO designated strategic human capital management as a governmentwide high-risk area because of a long-standing lack of a consistent strategic approach to marshaling, managing, and maintaining the human capital needed for government to deliver on its promises. Three broad human capital reform opportunities are instrumental to agency transformation efforts: aligning individual and organizational performance, implementing results-oriented pay reform, and sustaining agency transformation efforts.

Washington (CNN) -- There's really only one big question hanging over President Obama's weekend vacation to Panama City, Florida: Will he or won't he dive into the water to send a message that the Gulf Coast is back? "Absolutely, I want him to take his shirt off and get in the water and show it's clean and safe," said Stephen Leatherman, a professor at Florida International University in Miami who puts together an annual list of America's best beaches. Leatherman rates the beach there as one of the top 10 in the country, and he said Obama has a unique opportunity to showcase the fact that the Gulf Coast is still open for business despite the worst oil spill in American history. "It's got lily-white sand, and frankly the oil didn't really make it there -- it was pretty well spared," said Leatherman, who noted that the water is 87 or 88 degrees because of the steamy Florida weather, making it conducive to at least a quick presidential plunge. "There is no better symbol than the president of the United States showing us the way," Leatherman said. But White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was cagey Friday when reporters asked whether the president will take a swim during the first family's 27-hour mini-vacation. "Stay tuned," said Gibbs, who grew slightly impatient and a bit bemused about getting so many queries about something as seemingly minor as a presidential swim. "Look, he's going to have some fun," Gibbs said. "Whether or not he gets in the water is up for clearly some debate. But, look, he will have an opportunity to enjoy ... the physical beauty of the Gulf and do some work at the same time." Mindful that Obama caused a bit of a tabloid stir when he took off his shirt to reveal a muscular physique during trips to Hawaii during the 2008 presidential campaign and subsequent presidential transition, Gibbs turned it around on reporters and wondered whether they would bare their midriffs this weekend. "Are you bringing your suits?" Gibbs said with a smile. But Leatherman suggested it's no joking matter because the president's decision to swim or not to swim will carry tremendous symbolic weight. "I think it's very important that he gets into the water because I think there's this feeling that if you get in, you're going to get contaminated or get all kinds of diseases," he said. This will be the president's fifth trip to the Gulf region since the April 20 explosion that sparked the horrific oil disaster. The trip is already generating criticism over whether Obama is giving the region short shrift by spending only parts of Saturday and Sunday in Panama City. White House officials announced the trip earlier this summer after critics wondered why the president and first lady had urged Americans to vacation in the Gulf but originally chose Bar Harbor, Maine, and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, as the only locations for their own sojourns. Now, the criticism has shifted to whether 27 hours in Panama City is too quick of a jaunt, and the Republican National Committee released a statement Friday that also said Obama has included Florida in only a couple of his trips to the region in recent months. "It's nice to see the president take the time out of his busy schedule of golf games and campaign fundraisers to clear his conscience and visit Florida for only the second time since the oil crisis began," RNC spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said. "As he meets with business owners in the Panhandle, it seems like the perfect opportunity for him to explain how his reckless spending, tax increases, and government takeover of health care are supposed to help the Gulf's devastated economy. Not even the Sunshine State can put a positive light on the president's failed liberal policies that have sunk his approval ratings to an all-time low." The president will be accompanied by first lady Michelle Obama and their younger daughter Sasha -- big sister Malia is still away at camp and will not be in Florida. Obama will also be joined by his Gulf Coast recovery chief, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, to try to show the administration is committed to a long-term turnaround. Gibbs largely deflected questions about whether the trip was too short, saying the president is focused on promoting the "health of the region" with the vacation. "Tourism in Florida and along the Gulf Coast is the economy," Gibbs told reporters Friday. "This is an opportunity to highlight the notion that this important region of the country is still doing well and open for business." While Leatherman said he does think the trip seems too short, Obama should be applauded for carving out some time to help the region. "I think it's basically a photo-op, isn't it?" said Leatherman. "But I still think it's a good thing for the president to come down and show the world that it's clean and safe. That will go a long way to helping the Gulf Coast." Leatherman added: "The best thing that could happen is the president saying, 'I'm going in!' And I don't mean damn the torpedoes. I mean him saying, 'It's clean and safe, and I'm going in the water!' " He concluded that it's a good thing the president is visiting one of the nation's best beaches in the summer instead of earlier in the year. "It's also one of the best spring break beaches, but I don't recommend going then," Leatherman said. "I went once, and there were 500,000 people there. I don't know if it was actually 500,000 all at once, but it felt like it." ||||| The first family dashed to the Florida Panhandle on Saturday so President Barack Obama could play pitchman _ Gulf Coast beaches are clean and open for business _ and assure residents his government won't abandon them now that the busted well has stopped spewing oil. President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama greet members of the U.S. Coast Guard while visiting the U.S. Coast Guard Panama City District Office in Panama City, Fla, Saturday, Aug. 14, 2010.... (Associated Press) President Barack Obama stops to answer a reporter's question about his position on the mosque at ground zero at the U.S. Coast Guard Panama City District Office in Panama City, Fla, Saturday, Aug. 14,... (Associated Press) President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, hidden, and daughter Sasha, walk over to greet people at Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City, Fla, Saturday, Aug. 14, 2010, upon their arrival. The... (Associated Press) President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, center right and left, participate in a roundtable discussion at the U.S. Coast Guard Panama City District Office in Panama City, Fla, Saturday, Aug.... (Associated Press) President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha, greet people at Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City, Fla., Saturday, Aug. 14, 2010 upon their arrival. The first family, absent... (Associated Press) President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha, greet people at Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City, Fla, Saturday, Aug. 14, 2010 upon their arrival. The first family, absent... (Associated Press) President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha walk to Marine One at Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City, Fla, Saturday, Aug. 14, 2010. The first family, absent Malia who is... (Associated Press) President Barack Obama gets a hug from his daughter Sasha after they arrived at the U.S. Coast Guard Panama City District Office in Panama City, Fla, Saturday, Aug. 14, 2010. The first family, absent... (Associated Press) President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha walk off of Air Force One at Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City, Fla, Saturday, Aug. 14, 2010. The first family, absent Malia who... (Associated Press) President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, partially visible second from right, and daughter Sasha, right, greet people at Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City, Fla, Saturday, Aug. 14, 2010,... (Associated Press) President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama greet people at Tyndall Air Force Base in Panama City, Fla., Saturday, Aug. 14, 2010, upon their arrival. The Obamas are spending the weekend in Florida.... (Associated Press) He also said he "absolutely" would plunge into Gulf waters that absorbed 200 million gallons (757 million liters) of oil. Expect the dip on Sunday, he told reporters accompanying him on the 27-hour excursion to the Sunshine State, whose tourism industry is reeling from the spill. "I'm here to tell you that our job is not finished, and we are not going anywhere until it is," the president said in this Panhandle city in northwestern Florida after meeting with state officials, local leaders and business owners at a Coast Guard station. "I will not be satisfied until the environment has been restored, no matter how long it takes." Obama said he brought his family _ first lady Michelle Obama, daughter Sasha (sister Malia is at summer camp) and family dog Bo _ to Florida "to let our fellow Americans know that they should come down here. It is spectacular. And not just to support the region, but also because it's a beautiful place to visit." It was his fifth trip to the region since the April 20 explosion on a deepwater rig that caused the spill and killed 11 workers. Obama said he knows Gulf Coast residents have been frustrated by the slow payment of claims from a $20 billion BP fund for those who have suffered damages as a result of the spill, and he pledged to rectify that. "Any delays _ by BP or by those managing the new fund _ are unacceptable, and I will keep pushing to get these claims expedited," Obama said. The president and first lady were joined at a roundtable discussion by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a former Mississippi governor appointed by Obama to develop a long-term Gulf restoration plan; the mayors of Panama City and Panama City Beach; the general manager of a three-hotel chain that has had 1,000 room night cancellations due to the spill, translating into more than $191,000 in lost room revenue alone; the owner of a charter boat company; and the co-owner of a restaurant and two fishing boats. Tourism officials say the region typically brings in 70 percent of its yearly income between June and August. Although only 16 of the 180 beaches in the western part of the Panhandle were affected by the spill, tourism officials say many potential visitors have stayed away, deterred by images of oil-slicked waters and tarball-strewn beaches in other parts of the region. The head of the U.S. Travel Association has proposed that BP, responsible for the oil spill, set aside $500 million for a marketing campaign to help draw tourists to the Gulf states. Alabama's attorney general on Thursday sued BP and others companies associated with the spill, seeking unspecified economic and punitive damages. At least 300 federal lawsuits have been filed in 12 states against British oil giant BP and the other three main companies involved in the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drill rig. Obama pledged to keep his administration focused on cleaning up the environment, holding the polluters accountable, ensuring that businesses and communities `are made whole and the people of the Gulf Coast are back on their feet." The White House scheduled the Obamas' trip after facing criticism that the president wasn't heeding his own advice that Americans vacation in the Gulf. "This is still a place that's open for business and welcoming so vacationers and people can have a wonderful holiday here," Obama said during a June trip to Pensacola, Florida _ one of his four to the region before this weekend. The first lady went a step further during a July visit to Panama City Beach. "One of the best ways that fellow Americans can help is to come on down here and spend some money," she said. Obama has vacationed in North Carolina this summer and is heading to Martha's Vineyard, off the Massachusetts coast, later in August. Mrs. Obama also traveled to Spain this month with Sasha. The government's point man on the spill, retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, said Friday that the blown-out well was not securely plugged to his satisfaction. He said that drilling a relief well _ long regarded as the only way to ensure that the hole at the bottom of the Gulf never leaks oil again _ must go forward. Work on the relief well was suspended this past week because of bad weather. ||||| ABOUT LAST NIGHT — With criticism mounting of his support for the construction of an Islamic center two blocks from ground zero in Manhattan, President Obama on Saturday defended his decision to wade into the controversy the night before, but backed off from his previous stance. "In this country, we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion,” Obama said when asked about his remarks at a White House dinner Friday marking the start of Ramadan. He did, however, insist that his defense of the organizers' right to build the mosque did not mean he endorsed the project. “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” Obama continued. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about. And I think it's very important, as difficult as some of these issues are, that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about." Read on after the jump ... . Families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as prominent Republicans, have criticized Obama for saying Friday that he supports building a mosque near ground zero. On Friday night, Obama took a much sharper stance on the issue. “Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” he said. “But let me be clear: As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.” — CAROL E. LEE White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton later e-mailed this statement to the pool: "Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project." "But it is his responsibility to stand up for the constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans." "What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that If a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a Mosque." "The World Trade Center site is hallowed ground, where 3000 American-Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims were the victims of a cold-blooded massacre. We are still at war with the small band of terrorists who planned and executed that attack." "But that does not give government the right to deny law-abiding Americans of one faith the same rights you would accord anyone else."

Now that he's waded into the controversy over the Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero, President Obama today sought to clarify his position, notes Politico: “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” he said. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about. And I think it's very important as difficult as some of these issues are that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about." The president's comments came during his quick family trip to the Florida panhandle to both promote the region's tourism and promise that the government won't abandon the Gulf, reports AP. "I'm here to tell you that our job is not finished, and we are not going anywhere until it is," he said. And in answer to the burning question (CNN roundup here) of whether he'll take a dip in the Gulf: "Absolutely," he declared. Look for it tomorrow.

Kelly's Engaged! Kelly Osbourne is reportedly tying the knot with her vegan chef beau. MORE >> is firing back at Kelly Clarkson only hours after the American Idol disputed claims about their testy relationship, as written about in Davis’ new memoir, The Soundtrack of My Life. “As anyone who has read The Soundtrack of My Life knows, I think Kelly Clarkson is a tremendous vocal talent and performer,” Davis wrote Tuesday night on his Twitter. “In the book, I provide an in-depth look at our years together during which we shared major multi-platinum success, as well as a few creative differences.” “I am truly very sorry that she has decided to take issue with what I know to be an accurate depiction of our time together,” he continues. “Before the book was published, I had every fact checked with five independent individuals who were present on a daily basis throughout it all. The chapter as it is written was thoroughly verified by each and every one of them. I stand by the chapter as written in my book. At the same time I wish, and will always wish, Kelly’s talent and her career to soar to ever new heights.” Earlier Tuesday, Clarkson — whose fallout with Davis hit the press in 2007 upon the release of her then-new CD, My December, fired off a brutal open letter to fans on her WhoSay page , in which she claimed that Davis’ book contained “memory lapses and misinformation.” “Growing up is awesome because you learn you don’t have to cower to anyone – even Clive Davis,” she wrote. To read the letter in full, click here. ||||| Speed Read In a new memoir, the 80-year-old music exec reveals that he’s bisexual. Plus, personal letters to Whitney Houston, trouble with Kelly Clarkson, a close brush with Janis Joplin, and more. Legendary music executive Clive Davis—most famous for being the brains behind the success of Whitney Houston—has worked with everyone from Aretha Franklin and Bob Dylan to Kelly Clarkson and Alicia Keys. Yet the buzziest part of his new memoir may be the 80-year-old’s disclosure that he is bisexual. From candid talk about his sexual adventures to spats with Bob Dylan and a close encounter with Janis Joplin, more of the juiciest bits from The Soundtrack of My Life. 1. Yep, He’s Bisexual After separating from his wife in the ‘80s, Davis reveals, he was in three simultaneous relationships—two of which were with women, and one with a man. “I enjoyed my time with all of them and honestly felt I had no strong sexual preference,” Davis writes. “Naturally, all of this preoccupied me.” It wasn’t until 1990 that Davis entered a monogamous relationship once again, with a man. That relationship lasted until 2004; for the last seven years, Davis says, he’s been in a “strong monogamous relationship” with a man. 2. Bob Dylan Accused Him of Censorship When Davis worked as a lawyer for Columbia Records, he consulted with Bob Dylan on The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan. According to Davis, Dylan wanted to include the satirical song “Talking John Birch Society Blues,” which mocked the then-influential right-wing group. When Davis decided certain lines would be considered libelous in court, he had to personally tell Dylan that Columbia would not put the track on the record. Of course, Dylan was not pleased. “‘What is this?’” Davis remembers Dylan saying. “‘What do you mean I can’t come out with this song? You can’t edit or censor me!’” The song never made it onto the famed album, but was later released as part of the Bootleg Series Volumes. 3. He Cried Over Whitney Houston Davis is largely credited with discovering Whitney Houston and sending her on her way to massive stardom, and he devotes a chapter to his late protégée—the one that was “hardest to write.” In it, Davis reprints several of the letters he wrote to Houston, including one sent in 2001 after he saw her at a concert looking “skeletal.” “Dear Whitney,” Davis wrote. “When I saw you Friday night at the Michael Jackson concert I gasped. When I got home, I cried. My dear, dear Whitney, the time has come ... I join your mother in pleading with you to face up to the truth now, right now, and there is no more time or postponement. You must think not only of yourself but you must think of those who love you.” Davis says never received a response to the letter. 4. He Turned Down Sex With Janis Joplin When Davis saw Joplin perform as part of the band Big Brother at Monterey Pop in 1967, he says it was downright revelatory. “The impact of seeing an artist that raw, earthy and fiery just floored me ... I experienced a personal epiphany as well. This has got to be my moment, I thought. I’ve got to sign this band.” When he finally was about to sign the band a year later, Joplin’s manager came to him with an unusual offer. “She’s talked about meeting you, and she thinks it only fitting and proper that she ball you to cement the deal,” Davis recalls her manager saying. “That would be her way of showing this is a more meaningful relationship—not in lieu of signing, but in addition a way to make the signing different from what it normally would be in the business world.” Davis politely declined, the band signed anyway, and the rest is history. 5. John Lennon Didn’t Listen to the Radio Get The Beast In Your Inbox! Daily Digest Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast. Cheat Sheet A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't). By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Subscribe Thank You! You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason Davis recalls running into John Lennon and Yoko Ono at a coffee shop on Columbus & 72nd St. in 1973, right before they moved into the Dakota. The trio got into a conversation about music and Davis asked Lennon if he liked to stay current by listening to the radio. He got a shocking answer. “He said ‘I don’t listen to the radio at all.’ I was flabbergasted. ‘Not at all?’ I said, ‘When you’re not recording you have no interest in knowing what else is happening?’ ‘No,’ he said. ‘I haven’t listened to any new music at all ... Clive let me ask you a question. Do you think Picasso went to the galleries to see what was being painted before he put brush to canvas?’” Only Lennon could compare himself to Picasso and not be totally out of his mind. 6. He Had Creative Differences With Kelly Clarkson The American Idol winner is "obviously very talented," Davis writes in a portion of the book that has already earned a rebuttal, but the two didn’t always agree. Davis claims that Clarkson "hated" what would become her hit tracks “Since You Been Gone” and “Behind These Hazel Eyes” when she first heard them, and wanted both songs off her album. "It was a very tough conversation, and it didn't get any easier when Kelly burst into hysterical sobbing. We all just sat there and she cried for a several minutes. No one knew what to say." On Tuesday, Clarkson responded to Davis's characterization, saying “his stories and songs are mixed up. I did want more guitars added to the original demo and Clive did not. Max, Luke and I still fought for the bigger sound and we prevailed and I couldn’t be more proud of the life of that song.” Clarkson added, “Growing up is awesome because you learn you don’t have to cower to anyone—even Clive Davis.” 7. But He and Aretha Are Pals Clarkson, Dylan, and Paul Simon may have been difficult to work with sometimes, but Davis’s relationship with the Queen of Soul reads like a virtual slumber party. ||||| Music mogul's new book recounts a life spent discovering and revitalizing storied careers. Recording industry legend Clive Davis, in his New York City home, has released a new memoir. (Photo: Robert Deutsch, USA TODAY) Story Highlights Remembering Whitney Houston, Davis says, "It makes you feel so helpless" Davis recalls working with icons ranging from Janis Joplin to Billy Joel The book matter-of-factly shares a revelation about the music mogul's personal life NEW YORK — In Clive Davis' handsomely appointed penthouse apartment on Park Avenue, there's a long windowsill adorned with photos of the music mogul's family and friends, among the latter such familiar faces as Rod Stewart, Barry Manilow, Dionne Warwick and the late Whitney Houston. Davis, who will turn 81 in April, has "a lot more" pictures at his weekend home in suburban Pound Ridge, he says, and it's surely not an empty boast. In his more than five decades in the business — first as a lawyer at Columbia Records, then as chief of that fabled company and founder of his own two labels, Arista and J — Davis has helped discover, nurture and revitalize the careers of some of the biggest names in rock, pop, R&B and jazz. In his new memoir, The Soundtrack of My Life (Simon & Schuster), co-written with Rolling Stone contributing editor Anthony DeCurtis, Davis takes readers from his Brooklyn, N.Y., boyhood through his ascent to one of the most high-profile and creatively engaged executives in his field — and also includes, in the final chapter, a highly personal revelation. Setbacks are addressed in detail, from his 1973 firing at Columbia in the midst of a legal scandal to his removal from Arista's top position in 1999. (He's now chief creative officer of Sony Music Entertainment.) But as Soundtrack makes clear, such reversals did not impede Davis' ability to play key roles in the progress of icons ranging from Janis Joplin to Miles Davis, Billy Joel to Annie Lennox, Patti Smith to Alicia Keys. Not too shabby for a guy who, as he admits early in the book, wasn't actually a fan of rock 'n' roll. "It just wasn't for me, any more than Hula Hoops or coonskin Davy Crockett hats were," he writes. Then Davis attended the Monterey Pop Festival of 1967 and had what he describes in conversation as "an epiphany. Watching artists like Joplin perform, I felt that tingle down my spine; I experienced the wonders of a cultural and musical revolution." He grew committed to Joplin and then-fledgling bands such as Santana, Chicago and Blood, Sweat & Tears — "artists I thought were groundbreaking and cutting-edge. And I found that I had a natural gift" for spotting talent "that I wouldn't have known about otherwise." In later decades, of course, Davis would gain even greater renown for his work with pop and R&B divas, none more so than Houston. There's a chapter dedicated to the superstar (who died last year, on the day of Davis' pre-Grammy Awards gala) that begins, "Without question, this is the most difficult chapter for me to write." When the subject is raised, Davis laments that Houston "didn't understand the seriousness" of her addiction problems. "She had flashes of understanding. I spent an afternoon with her a few days before she died, and she couldn't have been more vital. She played me music and promised that she would cut out cigarette smoking — I'd been relentless in telling her to do that. She was full of life, and looking back, it makes you feel so helpless." DeCurtis, who conducted more than 100 hours of interviews for the book, was impressed by Davis' ability to stay grounded through personal and professional ups and downs. "He's obviously very involved with his artists, but he doesn't ride on their coattails. He very much has his own life, and that's one of the reasons he's lasted so long." Davis, who is twice divorced, remains close to his family, which includes three sons, a daughter and six grandchildren, and to friends, with whom he vacations regularly. Soundtrack's aforementioned personal revelation acknowledges "something that my children and close friends have always known, but that I knew I would need to discuss in a biography": He considers himself bisexual. "After my second marriage failed, I met a man who was also grounded in music. Having only had loving relationships and sexual intimacy with women, I opened myself up to the possibility that I could have that with a male, and found that I could." Davis is currently involved with another man (who isn't in show business), "but I never stopped being attracted to women. Bisexuality is misunderstood; the adage is that you're either straight or gay or lying, but that's not my experience. To call me anything other than bisexual would be inaccurate." Professionally, at least, Davis has no plans to settle down anytime soon. Among his future plans are an album of "diva standards" with Aretha Franklin, another legend he has championed in the past, and co-producing a Broadway revival of My Fair Lady. "Listen, I love music," Davis says with a smile and a shrug. "So as long as my health is good, I'm going to keep doing this." Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/WIRovz ||||| Clive Davis' new memoir, The Soundtrack of My Life, is full of inside stories from throughout his famed career. But the biggest revelation is a personal one: For the first time, the 80-year-old record executive discusses his "bisexual life." Davis, who has been married and divorced twice, has never before publically addressed his sexuality. In a candid five-page section toward the end of the book, due in stores today, he writes that he first had a sexual encounter with a man during "the era of Studio 54." "On this night, after imbibing enough alcohol, I was open to responding to his sexual overtures," writes Davis, who says he had only been with women before. As for that experience, he writes, "Was I nervous? Absolutely. Did the heavens open up? No. But it was satisfying." Davis writes that afterward, he went through a period of "soul searching and self-analysis": "I didn't feel as if I had found, or was even searching for, my true self. I had not been at all repressed or confused during either of my marriages." Years later, Davis separated from his second wife and eventually began living what he calls "a bisexual life." In 1990, he entered into a "monogamous relationship" with a male doctor, who is not named in the book. Although that relationship ended in 2004, Davis says he has been in a subsequent relationship with another man ever since. Davis writes that his coming out deeply affected his ties with one of his sons, Mitchell: After what Davis calls "one very trying year," father and son worked out their differences, Davis says. The bulk of Davis' book – an overdue sequel to his now out-of-print 1975 memoir Clive: Inside the Record Business – is devoted to his interactions with a wide range of artists over nearly five decades. He recounts his early years with Columbia Records, some of which had been detailed in the previous book. In one particularly memorable scene, Davis attempts to talk Bob Dylan out of naming his new album Nashville Skyline ("It was not in any literal sense a country album"). He also relates how he told Bruce Springsteen's manager at the time, Mike Appel, that 1973's Greetings from Asbury Park, N.J., needed a few more radio-friendly songs – which resulted in Springsteen adding "Blinded by the Light" and "Spirit in the Night" to the finished record. Aretha Franklin to Reunite With Clive Davis for Next Album The Soundtrack of My Life (co-written with Rolling Stone contributing editor Anthony DeCurtis) covers Davis' post-1975 career as founder of Arista and J Records in great detail. Not unexpectedly, Davis devotes an entire chapter to his work with Whitney Houston. He recounts their early collaborations and his trepidations about her acting in The Bodyguard. But he also writes in-depth about the subsequent problems that led to her death. He reprints a letter he wrote to her after seeing an emaciated Houston perform at the 2001 Michael Jackson tribute concert ("When I got home, I cried," he tells her) and reveals a one-on-one intervention with her that he attempted at his Pound Ridge, New York, home. (Houston, he writes, was in "complete denial" about her excesses.) And he recounts the shock of getting that momentous phone call, just before his annual pre-Grammy party, that Houston was dead. Davis also goes in-depth on his clash with Kelly Clarkson and her management prior to the release of 2007's My December – he recruited focus groups to offer opinions on a batch of the album's songs, with very negative results – and his surprise at learning that Rob and Fab didn't actually sing on the Milli Vanilli album. ("People thought I was in on this elaborate scheme," he writes.) Davis also offers up his own account of how he had to, in his words, "relinquish Arista," the label he started and had turned into a huge success, but was given $150 million to launch his own major, J Records, and its biggest star, Alicia Keys. ||||| Most readers will go straight to the Whitney Houston section of record mogul Clive Davis’s autobiography, “The Soundtrack of My Life,” published today by Simon & Schuster. It’s heartbreaking when you realize how much Davis did to try and help Houston. Davis includes letters he sent Whitney from the beginning of her career to the morning after her shockingly thin appearance – a result of her drug addiction– in September 2001 at Michael Jackson’s 30th anniversary concert at Madison Square Garden. He wrote: “Dearest Whitney: When I saw you last night at the Michael Jackson concert, I gasped. When I got home I cried. My dear, dear Whitney. The time has come.” He implored her to get help quickly. She didn’t listen. Read the full letter here: http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/02/19/clive-daviss-pleading-letter-to-whitney-houston-september-2011 Clive brought Whitney and her entourage to his home in Westchester County, New York, as a kind of intervention. It wasn’t to make money. It was to save her life. But she wouldn’t listen when he spoke to her with urgency about her problems. “She was in complete denial,” Davis writer. “I knew that if an addict does not want to get help, there ultimately is very little that anyone else can do.” www.showbiz411.com/2013/02/19/clive-davis-responds-to-kelly-clarkson-an-accurate-depiction-of-our-time-together There were at least two other interventions and rehab stints that Davis supported but didn’t engineer. But there is just so much you can do: when Whitney got into a fight with a flight attendant on her way to Detroit to shoot “Sparkle,” it made headlines. This reporter was the one who mentioned it to Clive, and suggested trouble was brewing. The disappointment on his face was palpable. It hurt him to hear she might be suffering again. Davis got the call that Whitney died as he was dressing for his annual pre-Grammy dinner. She had just been in his hotel suite that week. He writes: “There are moments when time stands still, and you feel as if you can’t even begin to comprehend the words that are being spoken to you. That’s how I felt right then.”

Clive Davis has a new memoir, out yesterday, that apparently reads more like a tell-all. In The Soundtrack of My Life, Davis recalls that Whitney Houston was "in complete denial" about her substance abuse problems. He includes letters he sent her, including one from 2001 in which he wrote, "When I saw you last night at the Michael Jackson concert, I gasped. When I got home I cried. My dear, dear Whitney. The time has come." But, he writes, she didn't listen when he pleaded with her to get help, according to Showbiz411. She "didn't understand the seriousness" of her addiction. A few other tidbits from the book that are getting attention: Davis comes out as bisexual, USA Today reports, discussing a relationship he once had with "a man who was also grounded in music" after his second marriage ended. He's currently in a relationship with another man. In another portion of the book, he describes his first sexual experience with a man in the "Studio 54" era, Rolling Stone reports. He also got himself into a spat with Kelly Clarkson. He says she "hated" "Since U Been Gone" and "burst into hysterical sobbing" while discussing the song, but Clarkson claims he got the story wrong, the Daily Beast reports. Davis, in turn, insists he got his facts straight. More details here.

The Constitutional Council – General Information The Constitutional Council hands over the bill for a new constitution Reykjavik, 29 July 2011 The Constitutional Council presented the Speaker of Althingi, Mrs. Ásta Ragnheidur Jóhannesdottir, with the bill for a new constitution in Idnó, today (Download PDF version). The bill was unanimously approved by all delegates, at the last meeting of the Council, on Wednesday 27 July 2011. The bill assumes that from now on, changes to the constitution will be submitted to a vote by all who are eligible to vote in Iceland, for either approval or rejection. All delegates agree that the population should be given the chance to vote on the new constitution before Althingi’s final vote on it. In the case of ideas arising to make changes to the bill prepared by the Constitutional Council, the delegates of the Council declare themselves ready to revert to the matter before a national referendum is held. The bill starts with a prologue and contains a total of 114 articles in 9 chapters. The bill’s prologue starts with the following words: „We, who inhabit Iceland, want to create a fair society, where everyone is equal. Our different origins enriches all of us as a whole and together we have the responsibility for the legacy of the generations, land and history, nature, language and culture.“ The main themes which the Constitutional Council has observed during its work have been these three: Distribution of power, transparency and responsibility. The Council has strived to increase the distribution of power with a clearer division between the three branches of power. Furthermore it provides for an increased public participation in decision-making, also leading to further distribution of power. The Council put much emphasis on a clear and intelligible presentation of the constitution, regarding the wording and overall structure, as well as making it clear who has power according to the constitution and as a consquence responsibility. The Chapter on Human Rights has been revised and is now called Human Rights and Nature. The Principle of Equality is more detailed than in the present constitution and especially provides that all shall be granted the right to live with dignity. A provision is made that by law, all children shall be granted the protection and care required for their well-being. With the emphasis on increased transparency and duty of information of the government, it strives to better ensure civil rights against the authorities. The rights of media are put in the constitution and freedom of information is increased, it is especially provided that everyone is free to collect and distribute information and that public administration shall be transparent. Other new items in the Chapter on Human Rights and Nature are articles on Icelandic nature and environment and an article on resources, which states that resources not under private ownership are owned collectively and eternally by the people of Iceland. A new article is introduced providing that authorities should inform the public about the state of the environment and nature and the effect of land development on it. During the revision of the constitution, emphasis was put on the distribution of power and to increase the separation between the legislative power and the executive power. Many of the changes will improve the legislative work of the Parliament. A special emphasis was put on strengthening the Parliament’s role in supervision and financial management and the chapter on Althingi has many new items looking towards that. Furthermore, several articles call for a qualified majority of Members of Parliament, such as for the election of the Speaker of Althingi, intended to increase consultation between the majority and minority of the Members of Althingi. A new institution, Lögrétta (the Law Council), is established, with the role of examining whether laws are in accordance with the constitution or not. The bill includes several new items intended to ensure the right of the public to a democratic participation in decision-making. According to the bill 10% of the electorate can demand a national referendum on laws passed by Althingi and 2% of the electorate can produce a legislative proposal to Althingi. With these changes, Iceland will be among the nations which best ensures the right of the public to participate in public decisions, or direct democracy. The electoral system has undergone complete revision. All votes throughout the country are equal. A voter can select individual candidates across lists, but the legislator can stipulate that the vote is narrowed down to lists in one constituency or the national lists of the same political parties. Number of constituencies shall be from one to eight. The President shall not stay in office for more than three terms according to the bill and no government Minister can hold the same office for more than 8 years. Furthermore, the Prime Minister is elected directly by Althingi, following parliamentary elections; a direct parliamentary democracy. A novelty is introduced, that with a vote of no-confidence of the Prime Minister, a suggestion of his successor must be included. Should a Member of Parliament be appointed government Minister, he shall withdraw from his seat in Parliament during his time in office as a government Minister, and be replaced by his substitute. Articles on Ministers and the Government are more detailed than in the current constitution. A provision is made that the Government has collective powers and responsibilities and makes decisions as such, in important and policy-making matters. Also, a provision is made about the duty of information and the duty of truth of Ministers to the Parliament and ensured that competence and objectivity shall prevail for official appointments. A new chapter on the judiciary is submitted, with the Supreme Court defined as the highest court of the state. Further provisions are made in the bill about jurisdiction of courts, appointments of judges and their independence. Emphasis is put on increased autonomy of local authorities. A principle of subsidiarity is presented, which means that those parts of public service which are considered best served locally, should be in the hands of local authorities or associations or organizations acting on their behalf. Local authorities and their associations/organizations shall be consulted during the preparation of laws concerning their affairs. A special chapter on foreign affairs is presented. It states that it is allowed to sign international agreements, which includes a pooling of sovereignity to international organizations of which Iceland is a member, for the purpose of peace and economic co-operation. The pooling of sovereignity shall always be revocable. Should Althingi consent to the ratification of a treaty which entails a transfer of sovereignity, the decision shall always be put to a binding national referendum for passing or rejection. The decision of supporting actions involving the use of force, other than those which Iceland is obliged to according to international law, shall depend on the decision of Althingi. The delegates of the Constitutional Council is a group of various people with diverse opinions, education and experience in life. Each and everyone has taken a stance to matters based on their own beliefs and opinions. During the process, the Council has consulted the Report of the Constitutional Committee, as well as the result of the National Forum 2010. The public has had wide access to the work of the Council, primarily by writing comments, totaling 3600, as well as sending their suggestions, numbering approximately 370, to the Council’s website. The idea that the public had their saying in the revision of the constitution has thus been preserved. In that way, the bill of the Council has little by little taken shape during discussion between the delegates themselves and with open exchange of opinion with the community. The Constitutional Council now presents the bill to the Parliament and to the people. Explanatory notes on the bill, reflecting the discussion within and outside of the Council, will be handed over to Althingi next week. The Constitutional Council expects that the open discussion of recent months on constitutional matters will continue. For further information, please contact Mrs. Berghildur Erla BERNHARDSDÓTTIR, the Constitutional Council’s Press Officer, at tel. (+354-) 694-5149. The role of the Constitutional Council The role of the Constitutional Council is to discuss the Constitutional Committee Report and prepare a bill about a revised constitution, taking into consideration the results of the National Forum 2010. The Constitutional Council decides which parts shall be revised and/or suggests new provisions or chapters be added to the current Constitution. The Constitutional Council has three to four months to complete its role and is comprised of 25 delegates. When the Council has come to an agreement about a bill about a revised constitution the bill will be sent to Althingi for processing. The revised constitution does not come into force unless the requirements of the current Constitution are fulfilled and these requirements state that Althingi has the final word with voting between two discussions. General meetings of the whole Constitutional Council are called Council Meetings. All members of the Council participate in those meetings. Council Meetings are open to the public and anyone can attend while there is enough room. According to a parliamentary resolution about the Constitutional Council the Council shall discuss the following matters in particular: The foundation of the Icelandic Constitution and its basic concepts. The organisation of the legislative- and executive powers and their limits. The role and position of the President of the Republic. The independence of the courts and their supervision of other holders of state authority. Provisions about elections and the constituency system. Democratic public participation e.g. in the timing and arrangement of referendum, including a bill about constitutional laws. Transfer of state authority to international organisations and handling of foreign affairs. Environmental affairs, such as regarding ownership and utilisation of natural resources. The Constitutional Council may decide to discuss more topics than those mentioned above. A bill submitted to Althingi Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir submitted a bill to the Parliament about an advisory Constitutional Assembly, on 4 November 2009, which would have the task to review the Constitution. In a statement accompanying the bill the reasons why ideas about a Constitutional Assembly had been revivified were said to be mainly due to the extensive social discourse about the need to review the basis of the Icelandic administration following the collapse of the banks and the economic meltdown of the Icelandic economy. Demands had risen about the need to review various ground rules of the Icelandic administrative infrastructure such as the organisation of the legislative- and executive powers and the separation between the two. Furthermore to look into the regulations about the responsibilities of the holders of the executive powers and their supervision of the authorities as well as the possibility of direct public participation in the decision-making, by using referendums. In this social discourse the focus had been on the Icelandic Constitution and the fact that an actual democratic discourse had never taken place in Iceland about how these topics should be handled by the Icelandic Parliament. The foundation was still that of the Kingdom of Iceland from the year 1874 which in no way reflected the reality of Icelandic politics. Furthermore the bill showed that due to the fact that political parties had not succeeded in reaching an agreement about necessary amendments to the current constitution, there was a proposal that a special Constitutional Assembly be formed with elected representatives who would take on this important task. There were some amendments to the bill made by Althingi before it became an Act in June 2010. The main change was that the Assembly itself was to take two to four months instead of 11 months and a Constitutional Committee was to prepare the specialized material for the Assembly. The Act also stated that a National Forum of one thousand people should be held in order to find out the nation’s viewpoints on the core values of the Icelandic Constitution. The Act received the support of 39 Members of the Parliament, 11 abstained, one voted against and 11 were absent. Act on a Constitutional Assembly, committees and personnel According to the Act on a Constitutional Assembly no. 90/2010 an advisory Constitutional Assembly was appointed to revise the Constitution of the Icelandic Republic. The Assembly was to be composed of 25 to 31 delegates to be elected in public elections. The elections were to be held no later than 30 November 2010, by secret ballot. In addition to the aforementioned, the Act stated that when the Constitutional Assembly had agreed on a bill about a Constitutional Law, it was to be submitted to the Parliament for processing. The Act stated that two committees should be appointed, a Preparation Committee and a Constitutional Committee. The Preparation Committee had the role of preparing and organizing the Assembly as well as the National Forum. The role of the Constitutional Committee was to prepare and organize the National Forum as well as process the results from the National Forum and collect available material and information relating to constitutional matters which could be useful to the Constitutional Assembly. The committee should also present ideas on amendments to the Constitution, to the Assembly. The following people were appointed by the Parliament to form the Constitutional Committee: Gudrun Petursdottir, Adalheidur Amundadottir, Agust Thor Arnason, Björg Thorarensen, Elly Katrin Gudmundsdottir, Njördur P. Njardvik and Skuli Magnusson. The committee hired Gudbjörg Eva Baldursdottir as an Assistant. The following people formed the Preparation Committee: Thorsteinn Magnusson, Sigrun Benediktsdottir and Pall Thorhallsson. The Preparation Committee hired Thorsteinn Fr. Sigurdsson as General Manager of the Preparation Committee in August 2010. Berghildur Erla Bernhardsdottir was the Public Relations Manager of the National Forum and later the Constitutional Assembly. Agusta Karlsdottir started working in the office of the Constitutional Assembly in October and Finnur Magnusson was the Technical Manager of the National Forum and the Constitutional Assembly. In August an office was rented at Borgartun 24, Reykjavik for the employees of the Preparation Committee and the Constitutional Committee. Then a search started for convenient housing for the Assembly. Offices were found in the building at Ofanleiti 2, Reykjavik. The Assembly's office was moved there at the end of 2010. In the Assembly’s office all the preparations for the National Forum 2010 took place together with the preparations for the Constitutional Assembly. The National Forum 2010 The National Forum was held in 6 November 2010 and was a great success. Around 950 people participated in the event, and some 200 worked behind the scenes to ensure a smooth execution. The format and the discussion process of the National Forum was partly based on the experience which was acquired during a similar gathering 2009. At the end of the Forum, participants were asked about their views of its organization and impact. A total of 93% felt that the results would be of use to the constitutional assembly . Ninety-seven percent were satisfied with the Forum organization, 95% felt that the forum was a success, and 75% felt that the actual execution of the forum was exemplary. Elections for the Constitutional Assembly The nomination deadline for candidacy for the Constitutional Assembly was 26 October 2010. There were a total of 522 candidates, 30% of which were women and 70% were men. About 9% of Icelandic citizens signed a commendatory letter for a candidate. The Ministry of Justice and Human Rights had introductions of the candidates for the Constitutional Assembly on the webpage: www.kosning.is The Ministry also published a brochure with information about the candidates and the elections which was distributed to all homes in the country. The candidates could also place introductions about themselves on the webpages: dv.is, svipan.is, wikipedia.com and on facebook.com/stjornlagathing. RUV - The Icelandic National Broadcasting Service broadcasted over 50 radio shows where the candidates introduced themselves. The elections for the Constitutional Assembly took place on 27 November 2010. Various novelties, such as the STV election system were used for the first time in Iceland, the candidates were elected as individuals and the country was one constituency. The results of the elections were known on 30 November 2010 and 25 delegates were elected, 15 men and 10 women who received their credentials on 2 December 2010. A total of 83,531 people took part in the elections which was 35.95% participation. Invalidation of the elections for the Constitutional Assembly Three complaints were received by the Icelandic Supreme Court in December 2010 about the elections to the Constitutional Assembly. Oral proceedings on the complaints were made in the Supreme Court on 12 January 2011. Two complainants pleaded their cases and the Chairman of the Parliamentary Elections Committee and the administrative director of the Ministry of Internal Affairs spoke on behalf of the authorities. The elected delegates were given an opportunity to express themselves, which two of them did. About two weeks later, on 25 January 2011 the Supreme Court determined to invalidate the elections. The Court ruled that a series of problems made the vote problematic, such as that the ballot papers were marked with series of numbers that could make them traceable. Furthermore, in some polling stations cardboard partition walls were used instead of traditional polling booths, making it possible to see the voter’s ballot paper by standing right behind him. The majority of the judges also ruled that it was against the law to prohibit voters to fold the ballot paper, but two of the six judges didn’t consider this particular matter problematic. The ballot boxes were not considered satisfactory as they could not be locked and they were easy to open up. Finally the counting of the votes had not been done openly. The Supreme Court also found it problematic that representatives of the delegates were not allowed to be present at the voting and the counting of the votes. The ruling took into consideration all the various issues that were problematic and in light of this, the elections were invalidated. The appointment of the Parliamentary Committee Following the invalidation of the elections for the Constitutional Assembly the Prime Minister, having consulted the leaders of the political parties of the Icelandic Parliament, appointed an advisory group pertaining to the ruling of the Supreme Court. The group was to analyse the situation created by the invalidation and make suggestions about how to continue the work of revising the Constitution. The advisory group turned in their results on 24 February 2011 suggesting that the Parliament appoint an advisory Constitutional Council by a parliamentary resolution. The delegates who received the greatest number of votes in the elections to the Constitutional Assembly would be offered a seat on the Council. Their task would be to take over and discuss the Constitutional Committee Report and make suggestions about changes to the Constitution of the Republic of Iceland. In this way the preparations that had already been made would not be wasted and the setback in the review process almost none. This opinion was supported by the representatives of four political parties: Samfylking (Social Democratic Alliance), Vinstri hreyfingin – grænt framboð (Left-Green Movement), Framsóknarflokkurinn (Progressive Party) and Hreyfingin (Movement). The representative of Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn (Independence Party) had a dissenting opinion. Agreement on a parliamentary resolution A parliamentary resolution based on a proposition to appoint a Constitutional Council was approved on 24 March with 30 votes, 21 were against and 7 abstained. Five Members of the Parliament were absent. In accordance with the resolution Althingi offered the 25 delegates whom the Parliamentary Elections Committee had assigned a seat in the elections for the Constitutional Assembly, a seat on the Council, or else the persons next in line according to the information about the results of the counting published by the Parliamentary Elections Committee. Their task would be to take over and discuss the Constitutional Committee Report and make recommendations about changes to the Constitution of the Republic of Iceland. The Constitutional Council shall deliver their recommendations to Althingi in the form of a bill to the Constitutional Law at the end of June 2011 but may ask for an extension of one month. A total of 24 of the 25 who were elected for the Constitutional Assembly accepted the offer to take a seat in the Council. Iris Lind Saemundsdottir, who was the 26th in the elections for the Constitutional Assembly, also joined the Council instead of Inga Lind Karlsdottir who did not accept her seat. The Constitutional Council formed on 6 April The Constitutional Council was officially formed on 6 April. On the occasion the Constitutional Committee, which was appointed by Althingi, delivered their report. It contained well-grounded options for amendments to the Constitution. The Committee’s work took into account the main sentiments and opinions that came out of the National Forum in 2010 and these sentiments were intertwined in all the Committee’s discussions and recommendations. The report is in two volumes, a total of 700 pages. It can be found here on the Council’s webpage. Salvör Nordal was appointed the Chairman of the Constitutional Council and Ari Teitsson Vice-chairman, at the second meeting of the Council which was held a day after it was formed. Working procedures of the Constitutional Council The Council soon agreed on a procedure for their work and the delegates divided themselves into three workgroups; A, B and C. The groups have a total of 14 topics to discuss, which is according to a parliamentary resolution about the Constitutional Council as well as propositions in the Constitutional Committee’s Report. Group A is working on the following topics: Basic values, citizenship and national language, the structure of the Constitution and its division into chapters, natural resources and environmental issues and human rights, including the national church. The delegates in group A are: Silja Bara Omarsdottir, Chairman, Örn Bardur Jonsson, Vice-chairman, Arnfridur Gudmundsdottir, Dögg Hardardottir, Freyja Haraldsdottir, Illugi Jökulsson, Katrin Oddsdottir and Thorvaldur Gylfason. The Secretary of group A is Andres Ingi Jonsson. Group B is working on the following topics: The foundation of the Icelandic Constitution, the role and position of the President of Iceland, the role and responsibilities of the Parliament, the government, the responsibilities of the President and the Ministers, the obligations of the executive power and the status of the municipalities. The delegates in group B are: Katrin Fjeldsted, Chairman, Vilhjalmur Thorsteinsson, Vice-chairman, Astros Gunnlaugsdottir, Eirikur Bergmann Einarsson, Erlingur Sigurdarson, Gisli Tryggvason, Petur Gunnlaugsson and Thorhildur Thorleifsdottir. The Secretary of group B is Gudbjörg Eva Baldursdottir. Group C is working on the following topics: The Constitutional Council, democratic participation of the public (including amending the Constitution), the independence of the judicial courts and their supervision regarding other holders of the state authority, parliamentary elections, constituency system and Members of Parliament, international contracts and foreign affairs. The delegates in group C are: Pawel Bartoszek, Chairman, Iris Lind Saemundsdottir, Vice-chairman, Andres Magnusson, Ari Teitsson, Gudmundur Gunnarsson, Lydur Arnason, Omar Thorfinnur Ragnarsson and Thorkell Helgason. The Secretary of group C is Agnar Bragason. The Constitutional Council divides its time into two periods. The first period is discussion time when the groups work their way through the topics in the Constitution. At the end of the period the topics are joined in a draft proposition for the Constitution. The Constitutional Council discusses the draft in two sessions and completes its work by forming a proposition for the Constitution which will be submitted to Althingi. In accordance with the parliamentary resolution about the Constitutional Council the proposition shall be submitted before the end of June or July if the deadline is extended by one month. Working on the topics On Mondays and Tuesdays the groups work separately on their topics and recommendations for amendments to the Constitution. Before the recommendations are introduced at a weekly open Council meeting (on Thursdays), they are presented to the delegates of the other groups (on Wednesday meetings) who can then give their comments. When a group is ready with recommendations it introduces them at an open Council meeting where all the delegates are present. At that point the recommendations are also put on the Council’s webpage, into the progress document for presentation where the public can give their comments to the recommendations. Finally a special committee takes the recommendations and the comments from other delegates and the public. The next step is submitting the recommendations to the Council meeting for processing. If the meeting accepts them they are placed in the Constitutional Council’s process document and again the public is given an opportunity to comment on the recommendations. Although a text has been placed in the process document it can be taken up again and changed during the preparation process. In this way the public can follow the Council’s preparation process in making a recommendation for a new constitution. The process document will not be final until a final draft proposition has been made. All recommendations can be amended, even those that have been placed in the progress document. The public’s participation in the work process The Constitutional Council is eager to make sure the public can be up to date while the work is in progress. It's possible to see the developments in the text of a prospective proposition and make comments. Furthermore, the Constitutional Council has made it possible for the public to send messages and already numerous messages have been sent to the Council. All messages are published on the Council’s website under the sender’s name (anonymous messages are not accepted) and the public can read and comment on each of them which has already created a lively discussion on the website. In this way the Constitutional Council emphasises an open communication with the Icelandic nation and has given the people an opportunity to participate in the formation of a new Constitution of the Republic of Iceland. The Council’s work can also be seen on the major communicative media such as Facebook, Youtube and Flickr. Every day short interviews with delegates are put on Youtube and Facebook. On Thursdays at 13:00 there is live broadcast from the Constitutional Council meetings on the webpage and on Facebook. There are also schedules for all meetings, all minutes from meetings of groups, the Board and the Council as well as the Council’s work procedures. The webpage also has regular news from the Council’s work as well as a weekly newsletter. Advertisements are published in the media encouraging the public to keep track of what is going on and to make comments. ||||| It is not the way the scribes of yore would have done it but Iceland is tearing up the rulebook by drawing up its new constitution through crowdsourcing. As the country recovers from the financial crisis that saw the collapse of its banks and government, it is using social media to get its citizens to share their ideas as to what the new document should contain. "I believe this is the first time a constitution is being drafted basically on the internet," said Thorvaldur Gylfason, member of Iceland's constitutional council. "The public sees the constitution come into being before their eyes … This is very different from old times where constitution makers sometimes found it better to find themselves a remote spot out of sight, out of touch." Iceland's existing constitution dates back to when it gained independence from Denmark in 1944. It simply took the Danish constitution and made a few minor adjustments, such as substituting the word "president" for "king". In creating the new document, the council has been posting draft clauses on its website every week since the project launched in April. The public can comment underneath or join a discussion on the council's Facebook page. The council also has a Twitter account, a YouTube page where interviews with its members are regularly posted, and a Flickr account containing pictures of the 25 members at work, all intended to maximise interaction with citizens. Meetings of the council are open to the public and streamed live on to the website and Facebook page. The latter has more than 1,300 likes in a country of 320,000 people. The crowdsourcing follows a national forum last year where 950 randomly selected people spent a day discussing the constitution. If the committee has its way the draft bill, due to be ready at the end of July, will be put to a referendum without any changes imposed by parliament – so it will genuinely be a document by the people, for the people. Given that it was intended to go to a referendum, Gylfason said, the idea was that the public should be involved from the start of the process and not just at the end. Social media is seen as a way of making that happen with Iceland's population among the world's most computer-literate. Two-thirds of its people are on Facebook. Gylfason said he had been pleasantly surprised by the level of discussion. "There's been a lot of goodwill for what we are trying to do. The public have added much to our debate. Their comments have been quite helpful and they have had a positive effect on the outcome." Gylfason, an economics professor at the University of Iceland, said the draft bill would include checks and responsibilities for parliament and provisions for separation of powers intended to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis. It would also contain significant changes in the way MPs are elected and judges appointed.

The council drafting Iceland’s new constitution is out to bring new meaning to the term “by the people.” They’re essentially crowdsourcing the document, the Guardian reports, using social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to solicit ideas and get feedback from citizens. “I believe this is the first time a constitution is being drafted basically on the Internet,” one council member said. The current draft is updated every week online, with people welcome to comment either on the council’s website or on Facebook. “The public sees the constitution come into being before their eyes,” the council member says. The council started work based on a national forum held last year with 950 randomly selected people. They’re hoping to have a draft untouched by parliament put up for referendum in July.

International assistance using agricultural commodities, or food aid, has been an important part of U.S. agricultural and foreign policy since 1954. The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954,commonly known as Public Law (P.L.) 480, established the legal framework for U.S. food aid. The title I program is one of the three food aid programs authorized under P.L. 480 and is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under the title I program, U.S. agricultural commodities are sold on long-term credit terms at below-market-rate interest to developing countries. Numerous acts, including the most recent amendments in the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act have revised the goals and provisions of P.L. 480. The P.L. 480 legislation and its amendments have always consisted of a composite of multiple and sometimes competing objectives. While the emphasis among the various P.L. 480 program objectives has shifted over time to reflect the changing needs of domestic farm policy and emerging foreign policy developments, the importance of the title I program as a U.S. export program and U.S. food aid program has diminished significantly since the program’s inception in 1954. Title I commodity exports, which once represented a significant share of the total value of U.S. food aid and U.S. agricultural exports, have declined dramatically—representing about 14 percent of the total value of U.S. food aid and less than 1 percent of U.S. agricultural exports in fiscal year 1993. For this review, we assessed the impact of title I assistance on (1) broad-based, sustainable development in recipient countries and (2) long-term market development for U.S. agricultural goods in those countries. In addition, we evaluated the effect of the 1990 act on the interagency coordination of the title I program, the content of development plans included as part of title I agreements with recipient countries, and the process for selecting and funding countries for title I assistance. The P.L. 480 legislation, as amended, authorizes international food assistance under three different programs: government-to-government concessional loans that offer long-term, low-interest-rate credit (title I program); donations (title II program); and grants (title III program). Specifically, the three P.L. 480 programs are intended to provide the following types of assistance: Title I (trade and development assistance) authorizes concessional loans to developing countries that are short of foreign exchange and have difficulty meeting their food needs through commercial channels. The 1990 act gives priority to countries that are experiencing the greatest need for food, are undertaking economic development measures, and have demonstrated a potential to become commercial agricultural markets for U.S. exports. This type of food aid program is unique to the United States: no other country offers a food assistance program using long-term, low-interest concessional loans (i.e., repayment terms of 10 years or more and interest rates below prevailing market rates). Title II (emergency and private assistance programs) authorizes donations of agricultural commodities to provide emergency feeding programs and carry out activities to alleviate the causes of hunger, disease, and death. Title III (food for development) authorizes grants of agricultural commodities to be (1) used for food distribution programs and the development of food reserves or (2) sold and the proceeds used for economic development purposes. The 1990 act targets title III aid for least-developed countries. Before the 1990 legislative changes, the title III program forgave debt incurred under title I if the recipient governments used the local currencies generated from the sale of title I commodities to finance mutually agreed-upon development projects. Under the 1990 act, before an agricultural commodity can be considered for export under any one of the P.L. 480 programs, the domestic supply of that commodity in the United States must be in excess of what is needed to meet domestic consumption requirements, provide adequate surplus for domestic reserves, and meet anticipated export opportunities. Each fiscal year, the Secretary of Agriculture announces a P.L. 480 “docket” that lists the types and amounts of agricultural commodities available for sale or donation under the three P.L. 480 programs. Agricultural commodities typically sold under the title I program are bulk commodities (i.e., wheat, rice, corn, and cotton) and semiprocessed commodities (i.e., vegetable oil, wheat flour, and tallow). Commodities typically donated under title II and III assistance include those exported under the title I program as well as legumes (e.g., beans, peas, and lentils) and soyproducts. According to officials from USDA, several commodities that are regularly on the P.L. 480 docket represent planned production for export rather than an accidental byproduct of U.S. farmers’ overproduction during a year. For example, USDA considers the P.L. 480 programs at the outset of the fiscal year when it sets production goals and establishes acreage reduction programs to remove farm land from production for price-supported crops, such as wheat, corn, rice, and cotton. The total volume of U.S. agricultural goods exported and the total amount of program funds allocated for titles I, II, and III in fiscal year 1993 are presented in table 1.1. Countries are not restricted to receiving one type of U.S. food aid and can participate in more than one food aid program simultaneously. For example, many title I and title III recipients also receive title II assistance. Appendix I lists the countries that participated under each of the P.L. 480 programs and the value of the agricultural commodities exported in fiscal year 1993. In addition to encompassing expenditures for agricultural commodities, the P.L. 480 programs also include expenditures for ocean freight, or the cost of shipping title I commodities to recipient countries. Cargo preference provisions require that at least 75 percent of the P.L. 480 commodity tonnage be shipped on U.S. flag ships rather than on generally less expensive foreign flag vessels. The cost to the U.S. Treasury to ship title I commodities during fiscal year 1993 was $58.3 million (see table 1.1). Ocean freight expenditures are lower under the title I program than the other P.L. 480 programs because the U.S. government reimburses the recipient countries only for the amount by which the cost to ship on U.S. vessels exceeds the cost to carry the same commodities on vessels of other countries. In comparison, the ocean freight expenditures are higher for commodities donated under the title II and III programs because the U.S. government pays for the entire ocean freight costs via U.S. or foreign flag vessels. Although title I assistance is a concessional loan program in which recipients are expected to pay back the amount of the loan plus interest, according to officials at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the U.S. government never fully recovers the cost of the loans. In other words, the outlays for the commodities are greater than the present value of the expected returns, which include expected principal payments plus interest. Under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508, 1990), USDA and OMB must estimate the subsidy rate for program loans to determine the total budgetary cost of the title I concessional loans. The composite subsidy rate for all of the individual title I concessional loans in fiscal year 1993 was approximately 64 percent, according to USDA officials. Therefore, even though title I is a loan program, the actual cost of the fiscal year 1993 title I concessional loans to the U.S. Treasury is estimated to be $223 million on the basis of $332.8 million in title I loans made to recipients for commodity purchases during that fiscal year. In other words, OMB expects the U.S. Treasury to get back, on average, $.36 for every $1.00 loaned under the 1993 title I program. As part of its program management responsibilities, USDA directs the selection of title I recipients and the amount of money they receive under the program. In fiscal year 1993, 22 countries imported title I commodities from the United States in amounts ranging from $5 million to $40 million (see table 1.2 for title I allocations for fiscal years 1992 to 1994). In addition, 8 of the 22 title I recipients in fiscal year 1993 also received title II assistance, and 1 country, Sri Lanka, also received title III assistance. Several of the recipients were countries of the former Soviet Union and were first-time participants of the program in fiscal year 1992. While USDA hopes to transform title I recipients into commercial importers, their “graduation” from the program can be a long and uncertain event. For example, 6 of the 22 recipients in fiscal year 1993 have been in the program for 20 years or more. The main impact of the 1990 legislative changes on title I allocations was to shift several former recipients of title I assistance to the newly revised title III program. However, events since the 1990 act have spurred even greater changes in the allocation of title I assistance. Egypt, one of title I’s largest and longest-term recipients, did not use approximately $100 million of its fiscal year 1992 allocation and subsequently dropped out of the program in fiscal year 1993. In 1991, Egypt’s financial picture vastly improved, in large part as the result of U.S. and allied debt forgiveness following the 1991 Gulf War. The unused $100-million program allocation represented about 25 percent of title I’s total program value for that year. At the same time, countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe had become more important participants in U.S. assistance programs. During fiscal years 1992 and 1993, USDA was able to initiate title I programs in many of these countries using title I funds that may have otherwise been allocated to Egypt. Once a country is selected to participate in the title I program, USDA negotiates title I agreements with recipient government officials to determine the types and quantities of commodities the country will import. Under the title I program, countries purchase commodities selected from the P.L. 480 docket with concessional credit provided by the U.S. government. The concessional terms include a maximum 30-year period for repayment, with a maximum 7-year grace period and interest rates below prevailing market rates. USDA also negotiates with the recipient country to include a statement in the title I agreement describing how the assistance provided will be integrated into the country’s overall development and food security plans (see app. III for development plans for our seven case-study countries in fiscal year 1992 title I agreements). While the emphasis among the various P.L. 480 goals has shifted over time to accommodate changing U.S. farm and foreign policy interests, the domestic and international conditions that engendered the inception of the U.S.’ food aid program in 1954 have altered even more so. An increase in donations of food aid by other countries and the creation of new USDA market development programs designed to expand U.S. exports have significantly reduced the importance of the title I program as a worldwide food aid program as well as its importance as a U.S. agricultural export and surplus disposal program. According to the literature we reviewed on the history of the P.L. 480 legislation, when P.L. 480 was enacted in 1954 its goals were to move large amounts of U.S. surplus agricultural commodities to needy countries and serve U.S. foreign interests as well as develop future markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. At the time, the United States was the primary producer of agricultural commodities worldwide, there was a shortage of international purchasing power after World War II, and there was a great humanitarian need for food aid. Most U.S. food aid was sold to foreign governments through title I loans, but some was donated for disaster relief, economic development, and feeding programs. All countries, except some communist nations, were eligible to participate in the title I program. Although none of the original goals of the P.L. 480 legislation were abandoned, amendments in 1966 reoriented the goals of the P.L. 480 program toward combating world hunger. The 1966 amendments required that recipient countries sign self-help contracts as part of every title I agreement to encourage the countries to improve their domestic agricultural and food production. Amendments in 1968 expanded the use of loan repayments in local currency for self-help contracts and development programs. Title I loan repayments in local currencies were phased down between 1966 and 1971, emphasizing long-term credit sales for dollars and for convertible local currencies. In the early 1970s, agricultural prices soared as worldwide agricultural production stagnated and worldwide demand for agricultural products expanded. Demand increased because of strong economic growth in developing countries and rising commercial imports by the Soviet Union. The amount of U.S. surplus commodities drastically diminished, and Congress did not raise title I program appropriations to cover the increased costs of providing food aid. Amendments to the P.L. 480 legislation in 1973 and 1974 attempted to direct the distribution of P.L. 480 funds, including title I, to serve the most needy countries. Ultimately, the amendments required that 75 percent of the title I concessional sales go to countries designated by the United Nations as most seriously affected by food shortages. Amendments in 1977 shifted the emphasis of the food aid program to promoting the self-sufficiency of recipient countries. Recipient governments were encouraged to use proceeds from local sales of title I commodities for agricultural and rural development projects under a revised title III program. The focus of P.L. 480 shifted again in the 1981 amendment, when social development objectives became paramount. Recipient countries were urged to use local currency proceeds from the sale of title I commodities to support literacy and health programs for the rural poor. These development objectives were retained in the 1985 amendments to P.L. 480. By the late 1980s, both U.S. foreign assistance funds and U.S. farm surpluses to help meet global food aid needs were becoming more scarce. Under the 1990 amendments to P.L. 480, the focus of the food aid programs shifted again. Currently, the goal of P.L. 480, including title I, is to promote U.S. foreign policy by enhancing the food security of developing countries through the use of agricultural commodities and local currencies to (1) combat world hunger and malnutrition and their causes; (2) promote sustainable economic development, including agricultural development; (3) expand international trade; (4) develop and expand export markets for U.S. agricultural commodities; and (5) encourage the growth of private enterprise and democratic participation in developing countries. Food security was defined in the 1990 act as “access by all people at all times to sufficient food and nutrition for a healthy and productive life.” While the 1990 act emphasized food security—an economic development and food assistance issue—it also assigned title I program management responsibilities to USDA, whose international responsibilities are foreign market development for U.S. agricultural goods, rather than to the Agency for International Development (AID), which is an international economic development agency. The 1990 act removed the requirement that 75 percent of title I commodity sales go to countries that were defined as those with the lowest income, allowing USDA more flexibility in selecting title I recipients. In addition, the 1990 act removed the requirement that recipient countries be deemed “friendly” before receiving title I aid. Despite the shifting emphasis of the title I program, the importance of title I, domestically and internationally, has declined significantly since the program’s inception in 1954. Although the United States remains a world leader in providing food assistance, title I’s share of both total world food aid and U.S. agricultural exports has decreased substantially since the inception of the P.L. 480 programs. During the 1950s and 1960s, the United States provided about 90 percent of world food aid, and title I represented around 80 percent of U.S. food aid. As other countries began to increase their food aid donations in the 1970s, the U.S. share of world food aid decreased, to about 50 percent by 1980 and continued to decrease to about 43 percent by 1992. Title I’s share of U.S. aid also declined to about 65 percent in fiscal year 1980 and to 14 percent in fiscal year 1993. The establishment of new USDA credit guarantee programs and commodity price reduction programs in the mid-1980s also decreased the importance of title I food aid as a U.S. export and surplus disposal program. In the late 1950s and mid-1960s, title I shipments accounted for roughly 19 percent of the total value of U.S. agricultural exports (see fig. 1.1 for fiscal year 1960 data). However, this share decreased to around 2 percent in the mid-1970s to late 1980s. In 1993, title I’s portion of U.S. agricultural commodity exports dropped to its lowest level in over 40 years—0.8 percent (see fig. 1.2). Appendix II lists the value of title I exports and total U.S. agricultural exports for fiscal years 1955 to 1994 and presents title I as a percent of total U.S. agricultural exports. The objectives of our review were to assess the impact of title I assistance on (1) broad-based, sustainable development and (2) long-term market development for U.S. agricultural commodities in recipient countries. The 1990 act directed us to evaluate the impact of title I assistance on agricultural development in recipient countries. The three authorizing committees agreed that we would satisfy this requirement by assessing the impact of title I aid on broad-based, sustainable development since agricultural development is included under one of the act’s legislative objectives—“to promote broad-based, equitable, and sustainable development, including agricultural development.” In addition, broad-based, sustainable development includes raising economic and agricultural productivity—factors critical to achieving food security, which is also one of the act’s legislative goals. We also evaluated the effect of the 1990 act on certain elements of title I program management. Specifically, we looked at (1) the interagency coordination of title I assistance in Washington, D.C.; (2) the content of the development statements included in the title I agreements with recipient countries; and (3) USDA’s country selection and title I program fund allocation process. The 1990 act required us to review the title I program and conduct audit work in countries located in three geographic regions of the world that are representative of countries receiving title I assistance. As part of our review, we selected seven case-study countries in four regions of the world to conduct audit work at USDA’s, AID’s, and the State Department’s overseas posts. Our seven-case study countries were: Egypt and Morocco (northern Africa), Sri Lanka and the Philippines (East Asia), El Salvador and Guatemala (Central America), and Jamaica (the Caribbean). We selected these seven case-study countries in four geographic regions because they represented a variety of title I recipients in terms of program size, mix of USDA and AID programs, and length of title I participation. In fiscal year 1992, these seven countries received 51 percent of the total title I program funds. To assess the impact of title I assistance on long-term economic development and market development in our case-study countries as well as other recipient countries, we conducted interviews with and obtained documents from officials with USDA and its Economic Research Service (ERS), AID, OMB, the State Department, the World Bank, and U.S. commodity groups in Washington, D.C. In each country we visited, we interviewed U.S. and host government officials; representatives from U.S. commodity groups; and other parties, such as foreign food aid donors, importers, and exporters. We also reviewed literature that evaluated title I’s long-term impact on economic development, agricultural development, and commercial trade in recipient countries. To estimate the maximum foreign exchange savings made possible when a country imports title I commodities and to estimate the relative importance of these foreign exchange savings to broad-based, sustainable economic development, we calculated title I aid as a percentage of a recipient’s total imports for the 15 title I recipients in fiscal year 1991—the most recent year for which complete international financial statistics were available. We reported this information for each country, arranged by group according to their foreign exchange shortage. To measure foreign exchange shortage, we used a country’s international nongold reservesexpressed in number of weeks of imports these reserves would cover. We also calculated title I aid as a percentage of a country’s total food imports to determine the size of title I’s contribution to a country’s food import needs. In addition, we reviewed past and current development statements contained in title I agreements and discussed them with USDA, AID, and recipient government officials in the seven countries we visited. Using USDA’s and the United Nations’ trade database, we attempted a statistical analysis to determine whether there was any relationship between title I and commercial imports from the United States for major title I recipients, past and present. Our regression analysis, however, was not successful because of problems with the data, i.e., missing data, incompatible data sets, differences in reporting periods, inconsistencies between figures reported by the United States and other countries, differences in classification, and double counting of transshipments through other countries. Because we were unable to conduct a regression analysis, we based our conclusions regarding the relationship between title I and a country’s commercial imports on evidence drawn from literature we reviewed; an analysis of trade data from the International Wheat Council for our case-study countries for crop years July 1, 1980, through June 30, 1992 (the one data set we found that was complete and consistent for more than a decade); and information we collected from documents and interviews with officials from USDA and U.S. commodity groups in Washington, D.C., and in our seven case-study countries. Unless otherwise noted, we reported dollar values covering periods of 5 years or longer in 1993 dollars. In addition, we assessed title I’s contribution to developing or expanding markets for U.S. agricultural products in South Korea, a former title I recipient considered by USDA to be a best-case example of title I’s market development success. We interviewed officials from USDA, ERS, and three different commodity groups; analyzed trade data for three commodities that were the primary commodities exported to South Korea under the title I program (wheat, corn, and cotton); and reviewed several studies that examined factors contributing to South Korea’s economic development. To evaluate the effect of the 1990 act on certain elements of program management, we interviewed officials from USDA, AID, and the State Department in Washington, D.C., and in our seven case-study countries, as well as officials from OMB. In addition, we looked at the reasons why USDA never implemented a local currency program, section 104, which was authorized in the 1990 act. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of Agriculture or his designee. USDA chose not to provide us with written agency comments, but senior USDA officials responsible for title I program management gave us oral comments on the draft. We also discussed the contents of this report at exit conferences with senior officials from OMB and the State Department. Our evaluation of the comments from USDA, OMB, and the State Department appears in chapter 5. AID officials declined to discuss the draft report and did not provide agency comments. We did our work between October 1992 and December 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. While broad-based, sustainable (BBS) development is widely considered to be a cornerstone of any long-term strategy to achieve food security, the results of our review indicate that title I assistance has limited ability to affect sustainable economic development in recipient countries. The primary way that the title I aid can contribute to BBS development in a recipient country is by helping the country save its scarce foreign exchange to invest in projects that promote long-term sustainable economic development. Foreign exchange savings occur when title I imports displace commercial imports. Our analysis indicated, however, that even if the maximum possible foreign exchange savings occurred, title I’s potential contribution to sustainable economic development would still be minimal because the program is small in relation to the country’s overall development needs. There are some cases, though, in which title I assistance may have made a meaningful short-term contribution to the food supply in some recipient countries. However, this assistance is not considered a contribution to BBS development. The recipient government’s sale of the title I commodities to the private sector in-country generates revenues, called “local currencies,” that the recipient government can use to cover budgetary expenses. These revenues, however, are not an infusion of additional resources to the country since they are generated from the sale of the title I commodities within the local economy. Instead, the local currencies are a shift of money from the private to the public sector. The title I program is also intended to promote BBS development through the title I agreements in which countries agree to undertake certain development activities in exchange for receiving title I assistance. However, the results of our review indicated that the title I program provided the United States with relatively little leverage to induce recipient countries to undertake additional BBS development activities or policy reforms. The leverage was limited because the dollar value of the title I aid was small compared to the countries’ basic development requirements as well as to the total assistance provided by other world donors. Moreover, other competing program objectives dilute whatever leverage might have been associated with the provision of title I assistance. Although economic and agricultural development is one of P.L. 480’s objectives, a chief criticism of title I assistance has been that it may have a disincentive effect on local farmers and local food production, according to the studies we reviewed. Any disincentive effect, however, may be diminished to the extent that food aid imports displace commercial imports rather than domestic production. The title I program contains legislative requirements that impede the program’s ability to achieve its BBS development objectives through foreign exchange savings. These requirements also interfere with another provision in the legislation that is meant to ensure that the distribution of food aid in the recipient country does not interfere with that country’s domestic production. The 1990 act unites P.L. 480’s multiple objectives under one central policy goal: to promote the foreign policy of the United States by enhancing the food security of the developing world. While increasing the supply of food may help to relieve hunger and malnutrition in the short term, it is not sufficient for achieving food security. That goal requires long-term solutions to the problems of food availability, accessibility, and utilization in developing countries. BBS development is an integral component of a successful food security strategy because its tangible benefits, which include raising the purchasing power and productivity of the recipient population, are critical to attacking the causes of poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. The P.L. 480 legislation does not define BBS development. The World Bank and AID, however, broadly define BBS development as meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations. “Broad-based” refers to development policies designed to raise productivity (including agricultural productivity), buying power (including the foreign exchange earnings), and quality of life for the majority of the recipient population. “Sustainability” is concerned with avoiding policies that buy short-term gains at the expense of future growth, e.g., unsound macroeconomic policies that involve excessive borrowing or that unduly damage the environment, thereby impairing the quality of life for current and future generations. “Development” implies a continuing improvement in the “quality” of life and the extension of this improvement in quality to the lives of all the people in the country concerned. According to representatives from USDA, AID, our seven case-study countries, and the World Bank, and based on our literature review, the primary way in which title I aid can contribute to BBS development is through the foreign exchange savings that occur when title I imports displace commercial imports. These foreign exchange savings take place when a country purchases agricultural goods through the title I concessional sales program instead of purchasing them through commercial channels. Maximum gains in foreign exchange savings occur when 100 percent of the title I aid displaces agricultural imports that were previously purchased through commercial channels. Foreign exchange savings do not take place when title I imports are received in addition to a country’s customary level of commercial imports. In other words, title I assistance contributes to foreign exchange savings only when it displaces commercial food imports. This question of “additionality,” whether title I imports displace a country’s commercial imports or constitute an addition to the country’s food supply, is considered to be one of the most important issues when analyzing food aid’s impact on BBS development and on commercial trade. We evaluated two separate literature reviews that together examined over 100 studies on food aid’s impact on commercial trade. While all of these studies evaluated P.L. 480 food aid’s impact on commercial trade, every study did not specifically address the title I program. However, taken as a whole, these studies tended to support the view that food aid partially displaces commercial imports, though the degree of displacement varies greatly from country to country. Three studies within our literature review specifically examined whether title I assistance displaced commercial imports in three of our seven case-study countries—Egypt, Sri Lanka, and Jamaica. Through the use of statistical models, each study concluded that title I assistance had allowed the countries to achieve some foreign exchange savings by displacing commercial imports. For example, the analysis of commercial and concessional wheat imports in Sri Lanka from 1955 to 1981 strongly suggested that food aid had substituted for commercial purchases. The author concluded that P.L. 480 food aid imports clearly resulted in foreign exchange savings for Sri Lanka. We also compiled trade data from the International Wheat Council on wheat imports for six of our seven case-study countries for crop years July 1, 1980, through June 30, 1992, to help assess the impact of title I assistance on U.S. commercial imports. While we could not conclude that title I concessional sales had displaced U.S. commercial sales of wheat in Egypt, it appears that title I wheat had, to varying degrees, displaced U.S. commercial sales of wheat in the other five case-study countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Morocco, and Sri Lanka). For any of our case-study countries, however, we could not define with certainty the extent to which title I aid had displaced commercial imports because many other factors affected the importation and domestic production of wheat. To be more precise, for example, we would have to know what each country would have imported and produced in the absence of the title I assistance. On the basis of our analysis of wheat import statistics, El Salvador and Guatemala provide the clearest examples of displacement of commercial imports by title I assistance. In both El Salvador and Guatemala, the United States had been the dominant supplier of wheat since the 1950s. Until the early 1980s, when Guatemala and El Salvador first imported wheat under title I programs, these countries had generally imported wheat from the United States on a commercial basis. After the introduction of title I aid, both the volume and share of commercial wheat purchases declined greatly, even as total U.S. wheat exports to these countries increased. For Morocco, the interpretation of import statistics is more complicated due to the volatility of, as well as the reduction in, the volume of total U.S. wheat imports. However, in at least one of the many years of title I assistance, it appears that title I concessional sales replaced U.S. commercial wheat sales to Morocco. For crop years July 1, 1990, through June 30, 1992, the total volume of U.S. sales of wheat to Morocco declined by nearly 50 percent, whereas the volume of title I wheat sales increased by 72 percent. The extent to which foreign exchange savings can contribute to BBS development largely depends on the value of these foreign exchange savings relative to the country’s total economic needs. Imports represent one component of the resources that a country regards as vital to its developmental needs. On the basis of our analysis of fiscal year 1991 recipients, it appears that even if 100 percent of the title I assistance displaced the equivalent in a country’s commercial imports, the foreign exchange savings that title I provides could satisfy only a fraction of a country’s total imports. Consequently, title I’s potential contribution to BBS development is limited. However, despite its small size, title I may constitute a significant percentage of some of the countries’ food imports, which indicates that title I aid could be making a meaningful contribution to these countries’ food supply in the short term. In addition, title I could be quite important to those countries that are severely restricted in their ability to pay for commercial imports due to a critical foreign exchange shortage. To determine the extent to which the maximum foreign exchange savings made possible by the title I program could potentially contribute to a country’s BBS development, we compared the value of title I aid to the country’s total imports. A country’s imports include, but are not limited to, those goods the country finds necessary for its development that are currently available only from abroad and that the country must purchase with its scarce foreign exchange. To highlight the relative scarcity of the countries’ foreign exchange situation, we grouped the 15 title I recipients for fiscal year 1991 according to their foreign exchange position (see table 2.1). A general rule of thumb is that a developing country is experiencing a shortage of foreign exchange if it has less than approximately 3 months of reserves to cover its current rate of imports. We used nongold international reserves, expressed in terms of the number of weeks of imports these reserves covered, to measure a country’s foreign exchange status. Our analysis indicated that even if 100 percent of the title I imports had displaced commercial imports, title I’s maximum foreign exchange savings represented a very small portion of a country’s total import requirements and, therefore, did not meaningfully enhance the recipient’s capacity to import. Consequently, the potential foreign exchange savings, at best, could make only a minimal contribution to BBS development. Data were available for 14 of the 15 recipient countries in fiscal year 1991. In all of these countries, title I assistance as a percent of the value of the countries’ total imports was 4 percent or less, generally much less. For eight of the recipients, title I represented 1 percent or less of the value of the country’s total imports (see table 2.1). Although our analysis of potential foreign exchange savings showed that title I’s contribution to BBS development was limited, our research indicated that title I assistance could contribute significantly, in some cases, to helping a country meet its food import requirements in the short run. Food import data were available for 12 of the 15 fiscal year 1991 title I recipient countries. For six of these countries, title I constituted a significant portion, about 7 to 13 percent, of the countries’ total food imports. For El Salvador, this figure was 24.7 percent (see table 2.1). While a short-term increase in the supply of food may help relieve hunger, achieving food security requires long-term solutions to the problems of food availability, accessibility, and utilization in developing countries. Food security is a long-term, broad-based economic development issue. In addition, title I may have enabled some countries that were experiencing critical shortages of foreign exchange (i.e., reserves available that covered less than 1 month of imports) to acquire food that they otherwise would not have been able to purchase. Five of the 15 fiscal year 1991 title I recipients were experiencing a critical shortage of nongold reserves (see table 2.1). Since these countries were so restricted in their ability to pay for commercial imports, the title I imports were probably in addition to their usual commercial imports. Consequently, the title I assistance probably did not result in foreign exchange savings that then could be invested in long-term BBS development. However, in the short run, title I possibly provided food that these countries otherwise would not have been able to import. According to some program supporters, one way title I assistance might be able to contribute to BBS development is through the recipient government’s sale of the title I commodities in-country. When title I commodities enter a country’s food distribution system, their sale by the recipient government to the private sector generates revenues for the government that are called “local currencies.” These revenues, however, do not represent an infusion of additional money into the country; instead, the revenues are a shift of money from the private to the public sector. In theory, this transfer of resources enables the recipient government to gain control over additional domestic spending power that it would not have otherwise had to help support activities that could contribute to BBS development. Ultimately, any contribution that local currencies can make to BBS development depends on their investment in activities with long-term, broad-based, and sustainable benefits. In practice, there are many difficulties associated with ensuring the effective use of these local currencies. It is difficult for USDA or anyone else to say whether the currencies were actually dedicated to the projects specified in the title I agreements because these local currencies are owned and usually controlled by the recipient country’s government. Ensuring that the local currencies are invested in BBS development activities is further complicated by the fact that money is fungible and difficult to track. This condition is also aggravated by inadequate accounting and control systems in some recipient countries. Before the 1990 act, when AID managed the title I local currency program, we and AID’s Office of the Inspector General found that the monitoring of local currencies by U.S. government officials in-country was insufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the currencies were properly used. The contribution of title I assistance to BBS development depends on the recipient government’s investment in sound, long-term economic policies and projects. In return for the title I assistance, recipients must state in their title I agreement how they will integrate the benefits of the title I assistance into their country’s overall development plans. In general, we found that title I agreements usually reinforce macroeconomic reforms or activities that the recipient governments are already undertaking. The program generally provides USDA with little leverage to direct the recipient governments to undertake additional reforms or projects because the program’s value is small relative to the countries’ overall development needs and the total assistance that other donors provide. Furthermore, other competing program objectives can dilute whatever leverage might be associated with the provision of title I assistance. The 1990 act requires title I agreements to contain a statement that describes how the title I commodities or the revenues generated by the sale of these commodities will assist the overall development plans of the country to improve food security and agricultural development; alleviate poverty; and promote broad-based, equitable, and sustainable agriculture. In addition, the agreements must include a statement about how the recipient country intends to encourage private sector competition and participation. Within the title I agreements, a section known as the “development plan” describes what actions the recipient country will undertake in exchange for receiving title I assistance. For five of our seven case-study countries in fiscal years 1991 and 1992, we found that development plans in the title I agreements tended to reinforce those macroeconomic reforms or activities that the recipient governments were already undertaking (see app. III for development plans found in fiscal year 1992 title I agreements for our seven case-study countries). For example, the 1992 title I agreement in Morocco specified that the government would support two agronomic research institutes, an activity that AID had already included as part of its title I agreements from fiscal years 1988 to 1990. In Jamaica, the fiscal year 1992 title I agreement encouraged the country to work toward meeting the criteria necessary to become eligible for debt forgiveness under the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, a program established by the United States in 1990 to promote economic liberalization and growth in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Similarly, an Egyptian government official told us that his country’s development plans reinforced economic goals similar to those found in Egypt’s agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In Sri Lanka, USDA and AID officials explained that the country’s title I agreement paralleled the provisions included in its title III agreement. For example, in both agreements the country pledged to support crop diversification and liberalization of certain import and trade policies. In two of our case-study countries, El Salvador and Guatemala, USDA negotiated title I agreements that included promises by the recipient countries to undertake certain policy reforms in addition to the countries’ ongoing development efforts. In their fiscal year 1992 title I agreements, El Salvador and Guatemala pledged to eliminate “price bands” for certain commodities. Price bands institute tariffs to protect farmers from agricultural imports. Eliminating this policy was in keeping with USDA’s objectives to promote trade liberalization and reduce trade barriers that discriminate against U.S. products. The countries entered into similar agreements for fiscal year 1993. However, El Salvador dropped out of the title I program in fiscal year 1994 because its government did not want to pursue these particular reforms, according to State Department officials. Although the country was initially allocated funds for title I assistance in fiscal year 1994, the funds were never made available to the country because the United States and El Salvador failed to reach an agreement. For El Salvador and Guatemala, their agreements in fiscal year 1992 also supported another USDA activity in-country that was designed to protect the United States from pests and diseases that could be imported into this country. We found that all 22 of the title I agreements for fiscal year 1992 contained some reference to how the local currency proceeds generated from the sale of title I commodities should be allotted to support the reforms or projects cited in the agreement. For 5 of the 22 countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Sierra Leone, and Suriname), the fiscal year 1992 agreements required that some portion of the local currency sale proceeds be deposited into special accounts designated to support activities specified in the title I agreements. In Sierra Leone and Guatemala, it was the U.S. Ambassador rather than USDA who insisted that the sales proceeds be assigned to specific accounts, according to USDA officials. The agreements for the other 17 recipients assigned the local currency to the country’s general treasury, which meant that these funds were intermingled with other government revenues. Title I assistance often provided the United States with relatively little leverage to influence BBS development activities or initiate policy reforms beyond those that the country was already undertaking because of the program’s small size as well as the primacy of other competing objectives. We found the dollar value of title I assistance was small relative to the countries’ overall development needs as well as to the development assistance provided by world donors in most cases (see table 2.2). For example, in fiscal year 1991, total title I assistance distributed among the 15 recipients amounted to $395.2 million, while total official development assistance (ODA) from the entire world to these countries was $10.8 billion. Representatives from the World Bank and a prominent international food policy research group told us that it would not be reasonable for countries to undertake major reforms with wide-ranging economic consequences in exchange for the relatively small amount of assistance provided through the title I program. The dollar value of title I assistance overstates its economic value to the recipient country. As a result, the leverage provided by title I assistance as indicated by its dollar value is likely to be significantly less than the figure suggests. There are several reasons why the recipient country may not place the same dollar value on the title I commodity as does the United States: (1) the title I assistance is a loan that needs to be repaid, not a cash grant; (2) the recipient government may sell the commodity in-country for a price lower than its purchase price; (3) the program restrictions on shipping and reexporting title I commodities may further reduce its value to the recipient country; (4) the recipient country may be buying something (quality or quantity) other than what it actually would have preferred; and (5) the title I price per metric ton may exceed prices for similar commodities available through other USDA programs and suppliers. USDA’s ability to use title I assistance as leverage to influence BBS development in-country may also be limited because other title I objectives, such as promoting U.S. agricultural exports or U.S. foreign policy, sometimes take priority in shaping title I programs, according to AID and USDA officials both in Washington, D.C., and in our seven case-study countries. We reported similar conclusions in past reports on title I assistance. For example, if policy reforms are particularly sensitive, negotiations can be lengthy, and the long negotiation process may be contrary to U.S. farm interests who are concerned about signing agreements as early as possible to move commodities, according to AID officials. The AID officials believed that whatever leverage title I might provide exists only before the agreements are signed. The program’s leverage to influence which development activity a country agrees to undertake is reduced once the agreements have been signed. In addition, in some of our case-study countries U.S. officials told us that it would be difficult for USDA to negotiate additional policy reforms as part of the title I agreements since title I aid is also used to promote U.S. foreign policy objectives. For example, AID officials in the Philippines told us that AID could not be “tough” in the past when negotiating policy reforms to include in the title I agreements because the Philippine government considered all U.S. assistance “rent” for U.S. military bases in the country. Title I assistance also has served as a major symbol of U.S. commitment to Egypt, according to U.S. and Egyptian officials in-country. Egypt has played a key role in U.S. foreign policy strategies in the Middle East. Wheat exported under the title I program has helped to ensure the Egyptian government’s ability to make inexpensive bread readily available—a social policy critical to the country’s political stability. Many AID, State Department, and USDA officials in our case-study countries reported that one of the primary reasons for providing title I assistance to countries was to promote U.S. foreign policy interests. One of the chief criticisms of title I assistance, according to the studies we reviewed, has been that it may have a disincentive effect on local farmers and local food production, although the evidence supporting this criticism remains inconclusive. These studies concluded that title I assistance has the potential to negatively affect local agriculture in particular situations. However, the agricultural policy environment of the recipient country is also very important in determining whether and to what extent food aid creates a disincentive for local agricultural production. To the extent that food aid displaces commercial imports, any disincentive effect on local food production due to an increase in the food supply putting downward pressure on food prices diminishes since the same food aid cannot simultaneously result in foreign exchange savings and be additional to commercial imports. The disincentive effect underscores a difficulty in the title I program. It may not be possible at times to fulfill certain program requirements and simultaneously not interfere with domestic production or marketing in the recipient country. According to the studies we reviewed, food aid can discourage local agricultural production in two ways. Food aid can create disincentives to local production, in a direct manner, if it increases the availability of a commodity to the point where the additional title I imports put downward pressure on local food prices. Food aid can also discourage local agricultural production indirectly by enabling a government to neglect its own agricultural sector and/or postpone making policy reforms needed to enhance domestic food production. Disincentive effects can affect domestic production of those commodities that are imported under title I as well as those commodities that may act as substitutes for locally grown products; e.g., importing wheat could lead to consumer demand for bread rather than for locally grown corn-based foods. P.L. 480 responds to the possibility that the program may create disincentives by requiring that USDA conduct a Bellmon determination before signing a title I agreement. The legislation also requires that USDA consult donor organizations, such as the World Bank and IMF, to ensure that title I aid will not create a disincentive to domestic production or marketing. The literature on the disincentive issue, while inconclusive, indicates that disincentive effects are possible with food aid. The literature emphasizes a case-by-case approach involving a thorough understanding of in-country commodity markets and agricultural policy environments. For example, according to one study, wheat, the principal commodity imported by Sri Lanka under title I, was not produced in Sri Lanka to any significant extent in the 1970s. Therefore, title I aid could have had no direct disincentive effect on domestic wheat production. However, because of the possible substitutability between rice and wheat, it could have been possible that consumers may have substituted bread for rice, thereby causing the demand for rice and its production to decrease. The study, however, suggested that this situation did not occur. Rice production generally remained constant, then increased, during the 1970s, though it is arguable that rice production would have increased even more in the absence of title I wheat. Furthermore, the literature indicates that Sri Lankans prefer rice over bread, unless the price of bread is significantly lower than the price of rice. A country’s agricultural policy environment is important in determining whether food aid creates a disincentive for local agricultural production. Government policies can try to insulate local agricultural production from responding to the changing supply and price conditions as a result of receiving title I aid. Conversely, government can create agricultural distortions through its food policies, which may dwarf any disincentives that food aid may cause. Even if title I assistance increases the overall availability of a commodity, it still may not adversely affect producers or consumers if the government provides price support or direct subsidies, though this may cause repercussions elsewhere in the domestic or international economy. A government might pursue a food policy, perhaps partially financed from the revenue from the sale of food aid, to protect producers and/or benefit consumers by letting consumer prices fall while keeping producer prices at a higher level. For example, one study, which analyzed the grain sector in Brazil from 1952 to 1971, showed that P.L. 480 wheat imports had a positive effect on grain production. This circumstance was due primarily to the government’s wheat import and domestic price support programs whereby revenues gained from wheat imports were used to support domestic grain producers. While a price system such as Brazil’s may, at times, reduce the negative effects of food aid on producers or consumers, it may also backfire and lead to further distortions. For example, according to the study on Brazil, title I imports displaced commercial wheat imports, thus disrupting international wheat markets. Government intervention in Egypt, a country that had been a major recipient of title I assistance for decades, provides an example of how food aid and government policy interact to affect local agricultural production. Egypt’s wheat policy from 1950 through the early 1980s reflected the government’s objective to make bread, a commodity considered critical to Egypt’s political stability, cheap and readily available. To ensure wheat supplies and thereby keep the price of bread low, the Egyptian government encouraged both imports and local production of wheat. This strategy, in turn, supported the government’s policy of subsidizing retail sales of bread by supplying wheat to the predominantly state-owned mills at a low price. However, this policy resulted in an abundant supply of wheat flour with title I wheat shipments constituting an important component of this supply. This policy also contributed to other policies that acted as disincentives to farmers: the producer price of wheat was allowed to decline relative to other crops (maize, rice, and cotton) and relative to world market prices. This system had a direct disincentive effect on domestic wheat production. Egypt’s elaborate food subsidy program is currently under revision as part of Egypt’s commitment to ongoing structural economic reform, including agricultural pricing reform. This reform includes a price liberalization policy aimed at having most prices in the economy determined by market forces by 1995. Aside from the impact of deliberate government intervention in the marketplace, other factors could overshadow food aid’s potentially adverse effect on a country’s agricultural production. In circumstances of war, political strife, or natural disasters, it would be difficult to disentangle title I’s role, if any, in contributing to the decline in agricultural production. For example, the agricultural sector of El Salvador, a country that has received substantial amounts of title I assistance since 1980, has suffered from civil war over the past decade. Resources for agricultural production, especially for cotton, coffee, and livestock, became military targets of the guerrillas. As a result, most crop production declined in the 1980s. In instances such as these, title I assistance may have provided food that the country would not have otherwise been able to supply. The title I program contains legislative requirements that impede the program’s ability to achieve its BBS development objective. Title I aid could contribute to sustainable economic development if it were to provide recipient countries with foreign exchange savings. Food aid provides foreign exchange savings when it displaces commercial imports. However, the title I program contains requirements that are designed to ensure food aid is in addition to normal commercial imports and therefore does not lead to displacement of commercial imports. Section 403(e) requires that reasonable precautions be taken to ensure that the sale of agricultural commodities will not unduly disrupt normal patterns of commercial trade with foreign countries, and section 403(h) requires that reasonable precautions be taken to avoid displacing U.S. agricultural commodity sales. Essentially, these provisions require that the supply of the commodity increase by the full quantity of food aid. These requirements hinder the program’s ability to provide foreign exchange savings, which would otherwise occur through displacement of commercial sales. The mechanism used by USDA to ensure the requirement that title I aid be “additional” to normal commercial imports is the “usual marketing requirement” (UMR) provision of the food aid agreement. UMRs are the normal mechanism used by the United States and other nations to ensure that food aid is “additional”; they are negotiated between the supplying and recipient country and included in the contractual arrangements. The UMR also supports another P.L. 480 objective—to develop and expand markets for U.S. agricultural goods. The USDA calculates a UMR each time new title I agreements are negotiated to determine how much of a given commodity, if any, a country is eligible to receive that year. Title I assistance to Honduras illustrates USDA’s difficulty in implementing a program in-country that meets program requirements while simultaneously accomplishing the multiple program goals and objectives of supporting U.S. foreign policy, promoting economic development, and developing markets for U.S. agricultural goods. It was difficult, if not impossible, for USDA to reconcile the program’s UMR rules with the desire to support BBS development through foreign exchange savings, as well as promote U.S. foreign policy interests. The United States exported wheat on a strictly commercial basis to Honduras until 1975, when the title I program was introduced in response to emergency needs resulting from the ravages of Hurricane Fifi. According to USDA officials, the title I program continued into the 1980s and 1990s, motivated by U.S. foreign policy objectives to sustain political goodwill and provide economic support, despite USDA concerns about disrupting existing commercial markets for wheat. As a condition for receiving title I assistance, Honduras was expected to import an amount of wheat on a commercial basis equivalent to its preceding 5-year commercial import average after adjusting for factors affecting the country’s ability to import the commodity. In the early 1980s, it became more difficult for Honduras to meet its UMR requirement for wheat. For fiscal years 1983 through 1986, USDA was able to continue providing title I wheat to Honduras without technically violating the UMR rules by setting the UMR for wheat at zero—meaning that the country was not expected to import any wheat on a commercial basis during each of those years. According to a USDA official, the agency adjusted the 5-year commercial import average to zero because its analysis indicated that Honduras was unlikely to import any wheat commercially due to economic hardships facing the country. USDA set the UMR for wheat at zero for fiscal years 1983 through 1986, even though Honduras had been expected to import 51,000 metric tons of wheat commercially in fiscal years 1981 and 1982 according to the prior year’s UMR analyses. In addition, import statistics for fiscal years 1983 through 1986 showed that Honduras continued to import commercially, but in smaller volumes, while the title I imports increased. Solely on the basis of the UMR calculation, it would appear that title I wheat imports for fiscal years 1983 through 1986 were additional since Honduras was not expected to import any wheat commercially. However, it is more likely that title I wheat replaced commercial imports to some extent—contrary to the UMR principle. Ultimately, it appears that title I assistance made foreign exchange available without technically violating UMR rules. The program requirements that ensure that food aid be additional to normal commercial imports can also hinder the implementation of another requirement in the food aid legislation, the Bellmon determination. The Bellmon determination stipulates, in part, that the distribution of food aid in the recipient country should not interfere with domestic production or marketing in that recipient country. In economic terms, this generally requires that food aid not increase the total supply of food, as the increase in the food supply may create disincentives to local production by putting downward pressure on local agricultural prices. Whereas UMRs are meant to ensure that commodities exported under the title I program are, in fact, additional to the amount of commodities a recipient country would have bought commercially in the absence of the title I sales. Consequently, it may be impossible at times to simultaneously fulfill the usual marketing requirement and satisfy the Bellmon determination. The ability of title I aid to promote BBS development in the recipient countries is quite limited. The central objective of P.L. 480 legislation, as amended, is to promote the foreign policy of the United States by enhancing the food security of the developing world through the use of agricultural commodities. BBS development is a crucial component of any long-term strategy to promote food security—the goal of the title I program. The primary way in which title I food aid could contribute to BBS development in the recipient country would be by giving the country foreign exchange savings that it would not have had otherwise. While it is probable that the title I program, to varying degrees, provides foreign exchange relief to the recipient countries, even the maximum potential contribution to BBS development is limited, primarily due to the small size of title I aid relative to the needs of the country. Other factors also limit the program’s contribution to BBS development: title I assistance gives the United States relatively little leverage to influence BBS development activities or initiate policy reforms, and other title I objectives sometimes take priority in shaping the title I programs in countries. However, despite the small size of title I assistance, it appears that the program could be making a meaningful short-term contribution to the food imports of some title I recipients. In addition, title I aid may have enabled some countries that were experiencing critical shortages of foreign exchange to acquire food that they otherwise would not have been able to purchase. Several program requirements also hamper the ability of the title I program to achieve its BBS development goals. Title I aid could contribute to BBS development if it were to provide recipient countries with foreign exchange savings. Yet the condition under which the foreign exchange savings occur, i.e., the displacement of commercial imports, is impeded by UMRs, which are meant to ensure the requirements that title I aid be additional to normal commercial imports. UMRs also hinder the implementation of the Bellmon determination, which is meant to safeguard against the disincentives to local agricultural production and marketing that may occur if the food supply increases. The United States can claim market development success in a particular country if either the amount or the market share of U.S. agricultural exports to commercial markets has increased over the long-term. The results of our review, however, indicated that the importance of the title I program to long-term market development has not been demonstrated. To the extent that title I aid contributes to BBS development and expands the recipient’s domestic economy, the program may lead to an increase in U.S. agricultural exports. However, it is difficult to demonstrate a link between market development and title I’s impact on economic development because numerous factors affect the pace of economic growth. Although U.S. agricultural products have been exported under the title I program for 40 years, none of the many studies we reviewed has established a link between food aid and long-term commercial market share for U.S. agricultural products. While USDA officials often point to South Korea as the best example of a successful title I graduate, we believe that many influences, in addition to title I assistance, are responsible for the transformation of South Korea into a leading commercial market for U.S. agricultural products. Title I assistance can contribute to market development if the program creates preferences for U.S. products that remain after the concessional sales have been discontinued, resulting in a greater U.S. share of the country’s commercial market. However, it is difficult to develop product loyalty and secure commercial market share when title I commodities, which are typically bulk and semiprocessed agricultural goods, can easily be replaced by or substituted with products at a lower price from other nations. In the short term, title I allows the United States to move commodities and possibly keep a market presence that it otherwise might not have been able to maintain. Over time, the concessional sales made possible by the title I program will not necessarily translate into commercial market share unless the United States offers exports with competitive prices and financing. While title I sales may help lay the groundwork for establishing trade relations and exposing consumers to U.S. commodities, the program’s usefulness as a market development tool is diminished by several legislative requirements, such as cargo preference provisions, commodity eligibility criteria, and reexport restrictions. The title I program, representing less than 1 percent ($332.8 million) of the total value of U.S. agricultural exports in fiscal year 1993, is just one of several USDA export assistance programs used to increase the export of U.S. agricultural products to developing countries. In addition to the provision of food aid (donations and concessional sales), USDA employs three other basic methods to increase exports. Price reduction. USDA’s Export Enhancement Program (EEP), the Sunflowerseed Oil Assistance Program (SOAP), the Cottonseed Oil Assistance Program (COAP), and the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) pay cash to U.S. exporters as bonuses, allowing them to sell certain U.S. agricultural products to targeted countries at lower prices. These programs enable the U.S. exporters to meet price competition in world agricultural markets when domestic agricultural prices are higher than world prices. These programs are designed to help counter the effects of other countries that subsidize their exports. Export credit guarantees. Two USDA General Sales Manager programs (GSM-102 and GSM-103) offer short- and intermediate-term credit guaranteed by the U.S. government to countries with foreign exchange constraints. These programs are intended to help increase the availability of export financing to help U.S. agricultural exporters sell in markets with foreign exchange constraints. These programs protect the exporters against the risk of default on payments. Promotion assistance. USDA’s Market Promotion Program is an export promotion program designed to help U.S. producers and trade organizations finance promotional activities for U.S. agricultural products overseas. While the United States guarantees credit under the GSM programs, the terms of the GSM loans are not as attractive as the terms under the title I program. For example, the maximum repayment period is 3 years for GSM-102 and 10 years for GSM-103, compared to title I’s maximum repayment period of 30 years with a maximum 7-year grace period. In addition, the interest rates under the GSM programs are not concessional, whereas title I’s interest rate is set below prevailing market rates. Unlike price reduction programs that subsidize export sales, such as EEP, the contract sales price billed by USDA for title I commodities is the U.S. market price for that commodity and grade, which is frequently higher than world-market prices. Oftentimes, EEP is used in conjunction with the GSM programs so that certain U.S. agricultural exports can be purchased at competitive discount prices using U.S. government credit guarantees. Title I sales are not combined with EEP discounts. Because no discounts are allowed, recipients usually pay more on a price-per-tonnage basis for a title I commodity than they would if the commodities were purchased under one of the price reduction programs. For example, in fiscal year 1992, Egypt purchased wheat through title I at $141 per metric ton and through EEP at $110 per metric ton. In some cases, countries may choose to buy a certain commodity under a price reduction program because of its lower price-per-unit basis even though the cost of the commodity exported under the title I program is cheaper in the long-term since the cost is discounted over a long repayment period at below market rate of interest. However, multilateral development institutions discourage developing countries from incurring long-term debt for nondurable consumption goods, such as food. In addition, some countries forgo the benefits of the title I concessional loan, preferring the flexibility of commercial financing instead, according to USDA officials. Country participation and the amount exported under each U.S. export assistance program vary from year to year depending on factors such as the availability of agricultural commodities, favorable credit terms and credit guarantees, the country’s import needs and foreign exchange constraints, the export activity of competitor countries, and the foreign policy considerations of the United States. See table 3.1 for USDA program allocations to our seven case-study countries for fiscal year 1993. For several of our seven case-study countries, many commodities that were imported under the title I program (i.e., wheat, wheat flour, tallow, soybean meal, and vegetable oil) also were imported under the GSM, EEP, SOAP, and COAP programs. USDA officials in many of our seven case-study countries told us that bolstering sustainable economic development is the key way in which title I assistance could contribute to market development in their countries. Research shows that economic growth is a key factor in enabling developing countries to increase their imports of agricultural commodities. As per capita income rises in the early and middle stages of economic development, consumer demand for food usually grows more rapidly than domestic food production is able to supply. Moreover, as countries continue to develop and consumers’ dietary patterns begin to diversify, imports rise to accommodate these changing tastes and preferences. However, the link between title I, economic development, and subsequent market development is tenuous. We did not find any studies by USDA or other researchers that established a link between food aid and long-term commercial market share for U.S. agricultural products, despite the longevity of the title I program. We attempted to perform a regression analysis to determine what relationship might exist between title I and a country’s commercial imports for major title I recipients, past and present. However, the regression analysis was unsuccessful due to inaccurate, inconsistent, and missing data. While South Korea is frequently cited by USDA as best-case example of a country “graduating” from the title I program, our research did not identify any strong evidence to support a direct tie between title I aid and the development of commercial markets. Moreover, the level of U.S. agricultural exports to other countries having received little or no title I assistance indicated that title I assistance was neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for creating U.S. export opportunities. South Korea has become a leading market for U.S. agricultural exports as a consequence of its rapid economic growth. In 1993, South Korea was the fifth largest market for U.S. agricultural goods, representing $1.9 billion. Our research suggests that to the extent that title I may have contributed to market development for U.S. agricultural products, it is most likely to have done so through the role it played in supporting South Korea’s overall economic development in conjunction with substantial assistance from other U.S. programs and international donors as well as the South Korean government’s own development efforts. Moreover, our research indicates that a variety of other considerations, such as demographic, political, and cultural factors, also contributed to the country’s economic success. According to a 1985 AID study, the amount of international assistance South Korea received between 1943 and 1983 probably totaled over $26 billion, much of it in grant or concessional forms. According to the U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants statistical annex, the United States provided South Korea with approximately $15 billion in economic and military assistance for fiscal years 1946 through 1992, including $1.6 billion in title I assistance for fiscal years 1956 through 1981. These figures represent nominal values. If we had been able to covert these amounts to 1993 constant dollars, their value would have been substantially larger. While economic growth influenced South Korea’s ability to import, other factors, such as technical assistance and commodity price and quality, have played a role in South Korea’s decisions to import from the United States and other countries. For example, U.S. trade associations provided post-war South Korea with the technical abilities to utilize wheat, corn, and cotton exported under the title I program. Western Wheat Associates provided technical assistance to bakers, biscuit makers, and flour millers; and U.S. Feed Grains Council assisted South Korea in upgrading its technology for corn processing and feed and livestock production. In the case of cotton, U.S. technical assistance helped the country rebuild its spinning industry after the Korean conflict in the early 1950s, creating an industry designed to accommodate U.S. cotton specifications and merchandising systems. Because of the numerous and complex factors that influenced South Korea’s economic growth and import decisions, it is very difficult to meaningfully attribute market development results to any one factor in isolation from other possible causal factors. The level of U.S. agricultural exports to other countries suggested that having received title I assistance was neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for creating U.S. export opportunities. For example, the United States has been very successful in increasing the value of its agricultural exports to other Asian markets that received little or no title I assistance, such as China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore (see table 3.2). In 1993, Japan ranked as the top leading market for U.S. agricultural exports. Hong Kong, China, and Singapore ranked as the 10th, 21st, and 30th largest export markets for U.S. agricultural goods, respectively. However, India was the 33rd largest market for U.S. agricultural exports in 1993 (up from 41st in 1992) even though the country received a total of $18.5 billion in title I assistance between fiscal years 1957 and 1978. The level of U.S. agricultural imports to India, South Korea, and the other Asian countries and the tremendous difference in the amount of title I assistance that each received imply that many factors other than title I assistance contribute to a country’s economic success and to U.S. export growth. Title I can contribute to market development by increasing U.S. commercial market share if the program creates preferences for U.S. products that persist after the program sales have been discontinued. Agricultural commodities typically exported under the title I program are bulk and semiprocessed commodities. While many factors influence a country’s import decisions, such as the quality of a product, the availability of commercial financing, the reliability of the supplier, and the existence of trade ties, price is a predominant factor where the import of bulk and semiprocessed products is concerned. According to USDA officials, title I assistance serves as a market maintenance tool. In the short term, the title I program helps U.S. exporters to move commodities, albeit on a concessional basis, and possibly keep market presence that they otherwise may not have been able to maintain. However, this does not constitute long-term market development. Many USDA officials in the seven case-study countries we visited were skeptical of the United States’ ability to maintain its market share for title I commodities once the program is discontinued, unless the United States can offer competitive prices and financing, because the purchasing decisions of these countries are largely driven by price. Title I exports tend to consist of a few bulk commodities, such as wheat, rice, and corn, and a few semiprocessed products, such as vegetable oil, soybean meal, and tallow (see fig. 3.1). Wheat has been the predominate export under the title I program, representing approximately 48 percent of the total value of commodities exported under the title I program during fiscal years 1990 through 1993. Bulk products are traditionally seen as generic products that have little or no identification with a particular producer. According to USDA’s long-term agricultural trade strategy, competitive pricing is particularly important in the marketing of bulk and semiprocessed products. It is difficult to develop product loyalty and secure a market share when the commodities under consideration can be easily replaced with identical products at a lower price and face competition from a range of substitutes. In only one of our seven case-study countries, the Philippines, has USDA claimed success in using the title I program to establish a U.S. market presence by promoting specific characteristics of a commodity, enabling it to be differentiated on the basis of quality. According to USDA and Philippine officials, the Philippines had imported cheaper low-protein soymeal, primarily from Brazil, China, and India, before the title I program was used to introduce high-protein soymeal in fiscal year 1990. At that time, the title I program created a market niche by offering a higher quality (and more expensive) soymeal. Philippine ranchers developed a preference for U.S. soymeal with a high-protein content because it resulted in better livestock growth. While USDA officials in-country claimed market development success for high-protein soymeal, they could not provide import statistics to support their claim and stated that trade statistics do not distinguish between high- and low-protein soymeal. These officials told us that the long-term prospects for high-protein soymeal that have been supported through title I concessional sales are uncertain. Representatives from USDA and the American Soybean Association explained that, without the support of the title I program, users may return to less expensive, low-protein soymeal from China and India. In addition, a crushing plant was reopened in the Philippines, allowing the country to process raw soybeans. As a result, U.S. exports of high-protein soymeal will face increasing competition for market share, according to USDA officials. Other attempts by the United States in our case-study countries to differentiate title I commodities and entice buyers with concessional credit have not been successful. According to USDA officials in Egypt, they tried to diversify the country’s title I imports in fiscal year 1992 by offering an additional $10 million in title I assistance for U.S. soybean oil. Egypt declined the offer, however, because the country purchased more competitively price sunflowerseed oil and cottonseed oil from Asia, South America, and USDA’s price reduction programs—SOAP and COAP. In Guatemala, USDA officials told us that the country had imported vegetable oil (i.e., soybean, cottonseed, and sunflowerseed oil) under the title I program in the mid-1980s. While the program allowed the United States to establish a market presence, these officials said that eventually Guatemala decided to purchase vegetable oil from cheaper sources. Once the country stopped importing vegetable oil through the title I program, the U.S. share of Guatemala’s vegetable oil imports decreased from 37 percent in fiscal year 1988 to 2 percent in fiscal years 1989 and 1990. USDA used SOAP and COAP in fiscal year 1993 to reestablish U.S. market share of Guatemala’s vegetable oil imports; these programs helped increase the U.S. share to 38 percent. In another case-study country, Jamaica, USDA exported soybean oil under the title I and other food aid programs during fiscal years 1977 to 1985. While the food aid programs allowed the United States to establish a market share for its soybean oil, Jamaica imported about 70 percent of its vegetable oil (volume) in fiscal year 1993 from other nations that supplied cheaper varieties, such as palm and coconut oils, as well as competitively priced soybean oil, according to USDA officials. On the basis of interviews with USDA officials and our analysis of title I exports to our seven case-study countries and South Korea, the transformation of concessional sales into commercial market share is largely influenced by USDA’s ability to offer alternative export programs with competitive prices and financing. For example, according to USDA officials and representatives from a U.S. commodity group in Egypt, in fiscal year 1993 the United States was able to transform its concessional sales of wheat into a commercial market share with the help of USDA’s EEP, which subsidizes export sales. These officials believe the title I program helped the United States to establish a market share for wheat in Egypt by offering concessional sales to a country that had a critical shortage of foreign exchange. In fiscal year 1992, after Egypt’s foreign exchange reserves greatly improved due to significant debt forgiveness following the 1991 Gulf War, the country began using its foreign exchange to purchase U.S. wheat under EEP, where the price per ton was lower than under the title I program. Wheat exports to Egypt under the title I program dropped from $108 million in fiscal year 1991 to $40 million in fiscal year 1992; at the same time, U.S. wheat exports to Egypt increased from $120 million to $462 million under EEP. In fiscal year 1993, Egypt did not participate in a title I program and imported all of its U.S. wheat under EEP. USDA officials told us that they expect the United States to retain its market share only as long as it offers prices and credit terms that are comparable to or better than those offered by competing suppliers from the European Union. In Jamaica, USDA officials told us that the country’s import decisions are heavily influenced by price and the availability of favorable credit terms to stretch its scarce foreign exchange reserves. According to these USDA officials, title I concessional sales have helped the United States maintain a market presence that it otherwise might not have for corn and rice. Jamaica has imported corn through the title I program since 1972 and rice since 1981. Jamaica also imported wheat under the title I program during fiscal years 1978-1992. USDA officials told us that the title I program helped the United States to maintain its status as a primary supplier of wheat to Jamaica, competing with Canada for market share. However, U.S. market share has dropped since Jamaica stopped importing title I wheat in fiscal year 1993. On the basis of preliminary statistics, the U.S. share (volume) dropped from 66 percent in June 1992 to 57 percent in June 1994. USDA officials said that Jamaican millers prefer non-title I wheat because they want to reexport their processed and semiprocessed products—an export opportunity that is not permitted under the program for products derived from title I commodities. According to USDA officials, the Jamaican government is purchasing greater quantities of high-quality wheat at lower unit prices from Canada, Germany, and France. These USDA officials told us that the United States seemingly lacks an effective response to the threat to this U.S. market share. Jamaica is ineligible for GSM programs due to arrearages in its repayment schedule, and EEP cannot be activated unless the United States perceives unfair trading practices from European competitors. According to USDA and foreign government officials in Morocco, U.S. exports of vegetable oil under the title I program and EEP have helped the United States to maintain a share of Morocco’s vegetable oil market. The country’s import decisions are largely determined by price, according to the Moroccan government officials. These officials told us that although Moroccan oil refiners prefer soybean oil, a large portion of its vegetable oil imports comes from the European Union, which supplies less-expensive rapeseed oil. According to Moroccan government officials, the United States would need to export vegetable oil under EEP if the title I program were discontinued to compete with price-competitive rapeseed exports from the European Union and soybean oil exports from Argentina and Brazil. Although the United States still remains the primary supplier of cotton, wheat, and corn for South Korea, U.S. market shares established through concessional sales declined once title I assistance ended in 1981. Typical of trade in bulk and semiprocessed products, South Korea’s buying decisions are largely influenced by price. For example, the market for feed corn in South Korea is extremely sensitive to price. The U.S. market share declined from nearly 100 percent in fiscal year 1980 to 36 percent in fiscal year 1986 due to increased competition for feedgrains, a feed corn substitute, and to other corn exporters such as Argentina, South Africa, and Thailand, according to USDA officials. The U.S. share of South Korea’s corn imports increased substantially in the late 1980s due to a reduction in feedgrain and corn supplies from competitor countries. However, by fiscal year 1992, the U.S. market share dropped dramatically to 25 percent primarily because of competitively priced corn from China (see fig. 3.2). While the United States remains the primary supplier of wheat to South Korea, it lost market share to Canada and Australia in the mid-1980s. At that time, the South Korean government gradually relinquished control of grain procurement decisions, and the market became increasingly sensitive to price and different wheat qualities. The U.S. share of South Korea’s wheat imports dropped from 100 percent in 1980 to 43 percent in 1992 (see fig. 3.3). As for South Korea’s cotton market, factors other than price have helped to support U.S. cotton exports. According to cotton industry sources, despite the U.S. market share’s dropping from 95 percent in fiscal year 1980 to 64 percent in fiscal year 1992 (see fig. 3.4), the United States was able to retain its lead position in South Korea because the United States had helped the country rebuild its spinning industry. Important market development activities include differentiating products, establishing trade relations, exposing consumers to U.S. agricultural commodities, and familiarizing country traders with U.S. trade practices. The title I program’s usefulness as a market development tool, however, is limited because of several legislatively mandated program specifications, such as cargo preference requirements, UMRs, export restrictions, and eligibility requirements that determine which commodities can be exported under the P.L. 480 programs. These program requirements impede the program’s ability to respond to market opportunities and complicate trade transactions. The program requirements may also discourage future transactions. Moreover, the title I program may actually disrupt trade relations by replacing ongoing commercial transactions with government-to-government food aid programming. USDA’s difficulties in implementing an effective strategy are compounded because the title I program is subject to U.S. cargo preference requirements. The title I program is intended to strengthen trade linkages between importers in the recipient country and U.S. suppliers, encouraging these importers to turn to U.S. suppliers for future commercial imports. However, cargo preference requirements, which are designed to support the U.S. merchant marine industry, can be obtrusive and undermine market development efforts. These requirements may also lead importers to believe that U.S. exporters provide inferior service. Cargo preference provisions require that at least 75 percent of food aid tonnage be shipped on U.S. flag ships. One of our earlier reviews, which specifically examined the impact of cargo preference rules on food aid programs, found that some recipients were forced to purchase a different variety of commodity than planned because their purchasing decisions were driven by the availability of U.S. flag ships, rather than the availability of the commodities. For example, during the cargo preference year ending March 31, 1994, for title I both El Salvador and Guatemala were interested in purchasing western white wheat, which is available from the West Coast of the United States. However, since very few U.S. flag ships were obtainable from the West Coast, the countries were unable to purchase this desired commodity. Instead, they were forced to purchase different varieties of wheat located where U.S. flag ships were available. According to a Guatemalan purchasing agent, the Guatemalan government sells the title I wheat to a private group of Guatemalan millers, which sells its products at market value in-country. To minimize their commodity costs, the millers want to purchase less expensive, high-quality western white wheat. However, Guatemala’s agent explained that because of cargo preference requirements, when Guatemala puts together a purchasing plan for title I wheat to present to USDA, it must first consider the availability of U.S. flag ships, not what types of wheat it wants to buy. USDA officials stated that they believe that recipient countries that have had this type of unfavorable experience with the title I program are not likely to purchase agricultural products from the United States on a commercial basis in the future. To comply with cargo preference requirements, some title I recipients have not been able to purchase a title I commodity at its lowest cost because U.S. flag ships were not available. This situation forces the recipient to purchase less of the commodity at a more expensive price. Our review of the impact of cargo preference rules on food aid programs found that, for a 1992 title I wheat purchase, Tunisia was unable to take advantage of the four lowest offers that specified particular loading ports, because U.S. flag ships were not available at these ports. Eventually, Tunisia was forced to purchase wheat offered at the seventh and eighth next-lowest price—and these prices were from $3.82 to $3.95 higher per metric ton for the almost 55,000 metric tons Tunisia finally purchased. Food aid recipients are sometimes not able to purchase the title I commodities at their lowest price, even if a U.S. flag ship is available, because the vessel may not be the appropriate type or size to transport the commodity. For example, in a 1992 title I purchase, Estonia wanted to place both its corn and wheat purchases on one U.S. flag ship. However, the only U.S. flag ship that offered to carry these cargos was too large to be accommodated at the U.S. loading facilities that offered the lowest wheat prices. To use this U.S. flag ship, Estonia purchased higher-priced wheat from a supplier with loading facilities that could accommodate this ship. We also reported in June 1993 testimony that cargo preference requirements have forced USDA to transport title I corn on U.S. tankers, leading to excessive kernel breakage. This breakage, in turn, results in increased instances of insect infestation, mold growth, or other damage. Rather than export title I corn via bulk carriers, albeit foreign-owned, U.S. tankers were used to help meet the criteria that 75 percent of the title I export volume be transported using U.S. flag ships. Another problem, according to USDA officials, involves unloading a tanker at a developing country’s port where appropriate equipment for unloading the grain may not be readily available. Furthermore, the tanker may be too large to enter the foreign port and may have to discharge its cargo to smaller vessels while at sea, increasing the amount of grain breakage and subsequent spoilage. According to USDA officials, the use of tankers to transport food commodities would not be tolerated by exporters or importers under normal trade circumstances. Driven by supply-oriented considerations, another program requirement restricts the types of commodities eligible for promotion under the title I program. Consequently, the title I program supports a limited range of agricultural commodities without regard to market demand. The P.L. 480 docket lists the types and amounts of agricultural commodities available for sale or donation under the P.L. 480 food aid programs. With limited exceptions for urgent humanitarian needs, commodities are eligible for export under the P.L. 480 food aid programs only when they are considered “surplus,” that is, when domestic production exceeds what is needed to meet U.S. domestic consumption and reserve requirements, as well as anticipated commercial export opportunities. As a result, many commodities available for export under the title I program are not purchased by recipient countries through the program. For example, in fiscal year 1993, 18 categories of commodities were eligible for export under the title I program; however, commodities associated with only 6 of the categories were actually exported. As illustrated by figure 3.1 (see p. 60), these commodities were wheat, rice, corn, vegetable oil, tallow, and soymeal. Since commodities are not placed on the P.L. 480 docket because of their market potential, many commodities available for export under the title I program face narrow market opportunities. USDA has had little success exporting certain items on the P.L. 480 docket, such as legumes, soyproducts, peanuts, dry nonfat milk, and butter/butteroil, under the title I program. Instead, these commodities are usually donated under the other food aid programs. In one case-study country, the Philippines, a government official stated that periodically there is no match between what country officials want to import and what is available on the P.L. 480 docket. Figure 3.5 illustrates the types of commodities that were eligible for export under the P.L. 480 food aid programs for fiscal years 1983 through 1993 and which ones were actually exported under the title I program. Several case-study countries preferred to restrict the import of certain bulk and semiprocessed goods to support their own domestic production or processing industries. According to USDA and AID officials in the Philippines and Sri Lanka, these countries do not import rice under the title I program to protect their domestic production. In Jamaica, a country with a high level of fish consumption, USDA officials offered to export mackerel under the title I program. However, Jamaican officials declined the offer because they believed the import of U.S. mackerel would have disrupted the country’s own domestic fishing industry. While some commodities appear regularly on the P.L. 480 docket each year, other commodities appear inconsistently. USDA officials in two of our seven case-study countries, Jamaica and the Philippines, told us that it is difficult to introduce new types of title I commodities in recipient countries when USDA cannot guarantee that the commodity will be available through the title I program the next year. According to USDA’s long-term agricultural trade strategy, being a consistent supplier is an important component of having a successful marketing strategy. USDA officials in several of our case-study countries told us that the title I program would be more effective as a market development tool if the program were able to support a greater range of high-value products, especially consumer-oriented products. These officials told us that some high-value products may have strong market development potential in recipient countries with “two-tier” economies, that is, developing countries with pockets of mature markets and prosperous citizens, such as Jamaica and Guatemala. Although these recipient countries do not have foreign exchange to import a large variety of high-value products on a commercial basis, there is a thriving portion of the countries’ population that has the purchasing power, if the goods were made available. These USDA officials stated that the title I program, with its concessional terms, would be a useful market development tool for introducing high-value products into these countries. Other program requirements discourage countries from importing U.S. commodities under the title I program. For example, program provisions prohibit recipient countries from reexporting title I commodities (“export restrictions”) and may prevent or limit recipients from exporting domestically produced commodities similar to those imported under the title I program (“export limitations”). While these provisions are intended to ensure that title I commodities are not used to increase the commercial exports of the recipient countries, they limit USDA’s ability to take advantage of market opportunities. For instance, USDA offered Poland title I assistance to import U.S. cotton in fiscal year 1991. However, Polish officials refused the assistance because title I reexport restrictions would have limited the country’s ability to export its domestically produced textiles—an important source of foreign exchange. Also, in fiscal year 1993, Jamaican officials decided to stop importing wheat under the title I program because they wanted to be free of the program’s reexport restrictions, according to USDA officials in Jamaica. Title I agreements also include UMR rules that limit the amount of each commodity exported under the program to ensure that the recipient’s normal production, import, and marketing patterns are not disrupted. According to USDA officials overseas and in Washington, D.C., UMRs are one of the main reasons why the amount and types of title I exports to recipient countries have been restricted. In Jamaica, for example, UMR rules prevented USDA from exporting corn under the title I program even though the country specifically requested the commodity during its fiscal year 1993 title I negotiations. Since UMR rules prohibited the concessional sale, USDA donated the corn to Jamaica under another food aid program. While USDA officials told us that the title I program helps the United States build trade relations with countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, title I’s ability to advance this particular market development goal has not been demonstrated. Because of dissatisfaction with the title I program, several of these title I recipients, such as Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland, and Slovakia, declined to participate in the fiscal year 1994 program, according to USDA and State Department officials. The countries cited high prices, reexport constraints, and additional debt as some of the reasons for their declinations. While the title I program is intended to introduce importers to U.S. export practices, it may actually disrupt the development of trade relations by replacing existing private sector trade that is based on commercial transactions with government-to-government food aid programming. According to USDA officials, the title I program in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala has increased the recipient governments’ role in trade relationships that were once predominately in the private sector. USDA officials also told us that the private sector importers in these countries do not like to import title I wheat because the importers cannot always get the right specifications (e.g., type or protein content), the quality of title I wheat is generally low, and the title I wheat cannot be processed and reexported. USDA officials in two of our case-study countries, Morocco and Sri Lanka, questioned the wisdom of replacing private sector trade with government-to-government export assistance, especially if the United States cannot consistently export the chosen commodity under the title I program each year or offer competitive prices after the program is discontinued. In addition, the USDA official in Morocco was reluctant to promote wood under the title I program because he did not want to disrupt the country’s fledgling private sector trade, and importing title I wood would have required the intervention of the recipient government. The importance of title I as a long-term market development tool has not been demonstrated. To the extent that title I contributes to BBS development and expands the recipient’s economy, the program may lead to an increase in U.S. agricultural exports. However, the link between title I assistance, BBS development, and increased U.S. agricultural exports is tenuous. Our analysis indicates that many factors affect economic growth: even in the best-case scenario, South Korea, we could not determine a strong link between title I assistance, BBS development, and increased U.S. agricultural exports. In addition, in chapter 2 we concluded that the primary way in which title I could contribute to BBS development would be by providing the recipient country with some foreign exchange savings. However, we determined that the amount of foreign exchange relief derived from title I assistance was small and thus its contribution to BBS development was limited. Paradoxically, title I’s primary assistance to market development comes through its contribution to long-term economic development, which occurs with the foreign exchange savings that can take place only if title I exports displace commercial sales. While title I may help the U.S. maintain a market presence by offering concessional financing to developing countries with foreign exchange constraints, these concessional market shares will not necessarily transform into commercial market share once the title I program is discontinued. Many of the commodities exported under the title I program are price sensitive such that price has a greater influence on purchasing decisions than a commodity’s unique characteristics or quality. Unless the United States could offer exports with competitive prices and financing, the United States would more than likely lose market share for these price-sensitive commodities when title I export assistance is discontinued. In the short term, the title I program moves U.S. agricultural commodities. However, as discussed in chapter 1, the importance of title I as an export program has diminished substantially since the program’s inception. The title I program once represented a significant share of total value of U.S. agricultural exports, but its importance decreased as new USDA programs were created to support the export of U.S. agricultural goods. Requirements such as cargo preference provisions, commodity eligibility criteria, and reexport restrictions are built into the title I program to serve stated as well as unstated objectives. These requirements impede the program’s ability to act as a useful market development tool. The title I program does not manifest many of the attributes associated with a successful market development program. A successful program would normally not contain requirements that restrict USDA’s ability to respond to customer needs and that impose confining conditions on the buyer. A successful market development program would normally offer a wide range of products selected for their long-term market potential. Also, the products’ availability under the program would be certain from year to year so as to create a consumer preference and establish the United States as a consistent supplier. The 1990 act streamlined program management by eliminating the interagency administration of the title I program and simplifying the implementation requirements overseas. Although never put into practice, a new program was established by the 1990 act that authorized USDA to accept repayment of title I loans in local currencies and to use these local currencies for projects that support U.S. trade and agricultural development in-country. And, while the 1990 act made changes to the management of the title I program, the program continues to support multiple, and sometimes competing, objectives that are difficult for USDA to integrate into an effective program strategy. The process for selecting countries to participate in the title I program illustrates the difficulty in implementing a coherent strategy that effectively supports a diverse set of objectives. The 1990 act streamlined P.L. 480 program management by abolishing the cumbersome interagency administration of the title I and other P.L. 480 programs. The act clarified program management responsibility by assigning title I to USDA and titles II and III to AID. This clearer delineation of title I program authority simplified the program’s administration by reducing the potential for ongoing agency debate. In addition, the 1990 act eased the implementation of the title I program overseas by eliminating several program requirements pertaining to the execution of title I agreements. However, the 1990 act also created a new program within the title I program, called section 104, that could add significantly to USDA’s administrative responsibilities, if ever implemented. Before the 1990 act, the Development Coordination Committee (DCC), an interagency body, met regularly to make decisions about the allocation and implementation of P.L. 480 assistance. DCC was comprised of five agencies (USDA, AID, OMB, and the Departments of State and the Treasury). DCC working-level groups met on a biweekly basis to plan and approve the P.L. 480 programs as they operated in each country. No one agency had lead responsibility, and decisions were reached by consensus. DCC members’ interests usually reflected the P.L. 480 objective that most closely agreed with their agency’s views. In 1990, we found that, when differences of opinion arose among agencies over the proposed P.L. 480 objectives or policies with respect to a particular country, the DCC decision-making process was cumbersome and time-consuming and would cause delays in the negotiation and signing of a country agreement. The role of the interagency body in managing the P.L. 480 programs changed substantially when the 1990 act assigned USDA direct program responsibility for the title I program and AID direct responsibility for titles II and III. In February 1991, DCC was replaced by the Food Assistance Policy Council (FAPC), which is an interagency body consisting of senior representatives from USDA, AID, the State Department, and OMB. FAPC oversees rather than administers the P.L. 480 programs. A presidential executive order established FAPC to (1) ensure policy coordination of the assistance provided under the Agricultural Trade Development Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-480), as amended, and the Food for Progress Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1736o); (2) advise the president on appropriate policies under the act; and (3) coordinate the decisions on allocations and other policy issues. Once actively involved in administrating the P.L. 480 programs, the role of the interagency body, FAPC, is now primarily limited to approving the country selection and program allocations proposed by USDA and AID. FAPC meets annually to review and approve the initial program allocations. Midyear changes to the P.L. 480 program allocations are generally made by the responsible agency after consultation with individual member agencies. FAPC also serves as the “court of last resort” for interagency disputes that cannot be resolved directly among the agencies involved. Since February 1991, FAPC has met about 10 times on an ad hoc basis to respond to a variety of interagency issues. For example, in September 1993, an FAPC meeting was convened to address the impact of potential congressional budget cuts on the P.L. 480 programs and discuss a food aid strategy for countries of the former Soviet Union. FAPC also met on another occasion to discuss the transfer of P.L. 480 funds between the title I and title III programs. Overall, the officials from the four agencies believed the level of interagency competition was reduced substantially when program responsibility for the three titles was divided between USDA and AID. The officials agreed that FAPC has a much simpler review and approval process than DCC and that the interagency process is much less time-consuming. In general, agency officials believed that the consultation process, along with the ad hoc FAPC meetings, provides the necessary degree of communication to coordinate program implementation. Many of the extensive program requirements that directed the implementation of the title I program overseas were also eliminated under the 1990 act. In general, USDA and recipient government officials in our seven case-study countries expressed their satisfaction with the new title I program, often citing its reduced administrative burden. Before the 1990 act when AID managed the title I program, many factors complicated the agency’s efforts to negotiate and implement title I agreements in the recipient country. AID and recipient governments often engaged in lengthy negotiations to develop self-help measures that were “specific and measurable” and in addition to activities already undertaken by the country. When proposed self-help measures or the use of sales proceeds were especially controversial, the negotiation of the title I agreement tended to delay its signing and implementation. As discussed in chapter 2, we and AID’s Office of the Inspector General found that AID representatives in-country were not adequately monitoring adherence to title I self-help measures and use of the commodity sales proceeds. In addition, a number of recipient countries resented the increasing U.S. government auditing and monitoring requirements for these local currencies that were not owned by the United States, according to a 1990 planning document prepared by USDA. Under the 1990 act, many of these implementation requirements were simplified. In part, the provisions of the title I program were revised in recognition of the difficulties in negotiating and administering development activities supported by local currencies owned by the recipient government. Presently, USDA does not have to negotiate specific and measurable development activities as part of the title I agreements. Instead, the 1990 act requires only that the title I agreements contain a statement on how title I assistance and the commodity sales proceeds will be integrated into the overall development plans of the country to improve its food security. As described in chapter 2, most of the agreements in our seven case-study countries for fiscal years 1991 and 1992 contained general and broadly worded development statements that did not specify measurable outcomes. In addition, the 1990 act does not require USDA to monitor a country’s (1) use of the local currency generated from the sale of title I commodities and (2) progress on its development plans. Overall, we found that USDA did not extensively monitor the title I agreements in our seven case-study countries. According to USDA officials overseas, they monitor the program’s implementation through a variety of mechanisms, such as regular contact with recipient government officials, reviews of IMF and World Bank reports, and interagency meetings at the U.S. embassy level. USDA generally requires recipient countries to submit an annual progress report on their country development plans. To minimize reporting burdens, recipient countries can satisfy reporting requirements by giving USDA copies of relevant reports submitted in compliance with other U.S. government and international financial institutions. Despite the reduced reporting requirements, we found that more than 43 percent of the recipient countries had not prepared the requested annual reports for fiscal years 1992 and 1993. According to a USDA official, while USDA posts overseas attempt to collect these reports on a timely basis, the program does not provide enough leverage to motivate recipients to submit them. This is especially true once the country has dropped out of the title I program. For the 22 recipients in fiscal year 1992, only 11 submitted reports, 3 of which were on time; the others were late by 6 to 19 months. In fiscal year 1993, of the 21 recipients who were required to prepare annual progress reports, 12 recipients submitted reports, 4 of which were on time; the others were late by 1 to 8 months. While the 1990 act simplified title I program management in general, it also authorized a local currency program within the title I program that, if implemented, could increase USDA’s administrative responsibilities. Section 104 of the 1990 act authorizes USDA to accept repayment of title I loans in local currency, instead of dollars, and to use the local currencies for projects that promote U.S. trade and agricultural development in the recipient country. That portion of the loan, which is repaid to USDA in local currency, is never repaid to the U.S. Treasury. To begin the section 104 program, USDA solicited project proposals from its post overseas, eventually collecting proposals from three posts to include with its fiscal year 1993 budget submission. These proposals, however, were not included in USDA’s final and approved fiscal year 1993 budget submission. OMB officials raised questions about whether USDA would be able to manage a local currency program and whether some of the proposals would meet the market development criteria. OMB officials were also concerned that the section 104 program would increase the subsidy cost of the title I program because the program is essentially a grant program within a credit program. Since no repayments are made to the U.S. Treasury under section 104, there would be an increase in the total subsidy value. This circumstance would require a parallel increase in the budget authority for the title I program. In addition to these concerns, a hiring freeze imposed on USDA during the budget negotiation process caused USDA to reconsider its ability to adequately manage a section 104 program. According to officials at USDA and OMB, staff resources at USDA in Washington, D.C., and overseas were already being stretched because USDA had assumed responsibility for two additional food aid programs (Food for Progress and section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949). On the basis of these events and concerns, the section 104 program was not put in place. Some of the USDA officials in two of our seven case-study countries, Egypt and the Philippines, stated that they would like to undertake market development activities in-country using local currencies generated through a section 104 program. However, we interviewed other USDA officials overseas who raised concerns that the problems associated with administering a local currency program may exceed its potential benefits. In one of our case-study countries, Egypt, representatives from a U.S. trade association told us that they declined an opportunity to submit a section 104 proposal because it anticipated tremendous administrative troubles based on their past experience with similar programs. Most USDA and AID officials we met with overseas believed that it would be very difficult for USDA to administer such a program, given its current level of staff resources abroad. Also, at embassies in our two case-study countries that submitted section 104 proposals, the Deputy Chiefs of Mission believed that USDA did not have the administrative capabilities to manage a local currency program in-country. These officials preferred that AID, with its expertise and prior experience, manage any local currency programs in-country. In its budgets submission for fiscal year 1996, USDA requested $10 million to support proposed section 104 projects related to technical cooperation. Unlike in its fiscal year 1993 budget submission, USDA did not solicit section 104 proposals from its posts overseas; instead, the proposed projects were developed by USDA officials in Washington, D.C., and expected to be administered by headquarters officials. According to an OMB official, USDA’s final budget for fiscal year 1996 did not include the proposed section 104 projects for reasons similar to those given when the proposed projects were not included in USDA’s final budget for fiscal year 1993. The objectives of the P.L. 480 legislation are intended to support U.S. foreign policy and U.S. trade interests, as well as humanitarian and BBS development objectives overseas. While these objectives can complement each other, they can also work at cross-purposes, impeding the development of an effective program strategy. The process for selecting countries to participate in the title I program demonstrates USDA’s difficulties in implementing a cohesive strategy that supports a diverse set of objectives. Rather than reflecting the execution of a strategic plan, the process of selecting countries for title I assistance is a conglomeration of several separate events representing attempts to accomplish the different program objectives. While the provision of title I aid to some countries has simultaneously fulfilled several of the program’s multiple objectives, sometimes one objective conflicts with another. These conflicts may result in title I aid being provided to a country to accomplish one objective at the expense of achieving progress on other objectives. According to the 1990 act, a developing country is considered to be eligible for title I assistance if it has a shortage of foreign exchange earnings and difficulty in meeting all of its food needs through commercial channels. The act further directs USDA to give priority to countries that demonstrate the greatest need for food; are undertaking measures for economic development purposes to improve food security and agricultural development; alleviate poverty; and promote broad-based, equitable, and sustainable development; and demonstrate potential to become commercial markets for competitively priced U.S. agricultural commodities. In general, the universe of potential title I recipients is based on per capita gross national product (GNP) criteria. In fiscal year 1993, developing countries with a per capita GNP greater than $635 in 1991 were considered eligible for title I assistance. Those countries with a per capita GNP of $635 or less met the poverty criterion of the World Bank’s Civil Works Preference List and were considered eligible for title III assistance in fiscal year 1993. Although per capita GNP is used as a cutoff for determining which countries will receive title I or title III assistance, there is nothing to prohibit USDA from providing title I aid to countries eligible for title III assistance. Once the list of potential title I recipients was established, USDA’s country selection process gave priority to market development considerations. USDA selected its candidates for title I assistance on the basis of a separate and internal planning exercise nicknamed “spigots.” First, USDA estimated the amount of commodities that countries expect to import in the coming year and then identified the various USDA export programs available to assist with these exports, such as GSM-102, GSM-103, EEP, and P.L. 480 food aid programs. On the basis of its “spigots” exercise, USDA estimated the amount of title I assistance needed to help meet export goals in eligible countries. In its estimates, USDA also considered how much assistance went to which recipients in the preceding year, collected input from its attaches overseas, and assessed the amount by which a country may be behind in its title I payments, if any. In general, USDA’s allocation process focused on moving commodities rather than developing new markets for title I commodities. The State Department and AID also have influenced the selection of title I recipients. The recommendations of these two agencies for title I allocations sometimes coincide with USDA’s. For example, both USDA and the State Department supported title I programs for countries of the former Soviet Union; however, their recommendations were based on fulfilling different objectives. The State Department intends to provide title I assistance to support foreign policy objectives, while USDA hopes to support market development objectives. On the other hand, there have been occasions when an agency’s primary objective has hampered progress on other title I objectives. For example, U.S. foreign policy and economic development objectives in Central America prompted the State Department’s and AID’s support for title I assistance to Honduras despite USDA concerns about displacing commercial sales. Until fiscal year 1993, the State Department also succeeded in allocating title I assistance to Sierra Leone even though USDA argued that Sierra Leone, a country with little market development potential, was eligible for title III grants. According to USDA officials, foreign policy considerations have also influenced program allocations to Jordan, where title I aid was intermittent between fiscal years 1966 and 1993 because of its political alignments in the Middle East. Further, according to USDA officials, title I assistance to Pakistan was reinstated in fiscal year 1993 after a 2-year suspension because of U.S. concerns over the country’s nuclear armament capabilities. While the on-again off-again nature of title I assistance in response to foreign policy considerations is contrary to sustaining important components of a successful market development strategy (i.e., demonstrate a long-term commitment and be a consistent supplier), the over-arching goal of the 1990 act—to promote U.S. foreign policy objectives—is being fulfilled. In addition to the market development and economic development objectives and foreign policy considerations, another objective of the food aid program is to combat hunger and malnutrition and their causes. “Demonstrating the greatest need for food” is one of the conditions a country must demonstrate to receive priority when USDA selects countries for title I assistance. Using a 1992 food security index developed by AID,we determined that title I assistance in fiscal year 1993 went to eight countries considered “borderline” or “most food insecure” (see table 4.1). The amount allocated to these countries represented about 44 percent of the $332.8 million in title I funds allocated that year. However, at least 37 percent of the title I funds went to eight countries considered “relatively food secure.” Food security data were not available for the six countries of the former Soviet Union that received 20 percent of all title I funds in fiscal year 1993 (listed in table 4.1 as “status unknown”). With the exception of Tajikistan, it is likely that these countries would be considered “relatively food secure” because of their relatively higher per capita GNPs. For example, estimated 1992 GNP per capita statistics for these five countries of the former Soviet Union ranged from $1,230 to $2,930 compared to those title I recipient countries considered relatively food secure, whose per capita GNP ranged from $1,030 to $1,960. Therefore, as much as 53 percent of the title I funds may have gone to countries considered “relatively food secure.” Several USDA officials told us that they believed that donations under the title II or III programs are more appropriate for delivering food aid to countries for humanitarian purposes than the title I concessional sales program. While the 1990 Agricultural Development and Trade Act streamlined program management and simplified implementation requirements overseas, the revised structure of the title I program did not improve the program’s ability to accomplish its objectives. Multiple and sometimes competing objectives, along with certain program requirements, continue to encumber the title I program, making it difficult to create and implement an effective program strategy. For example, as discussed in chapter 2, legislative requirements designed to ensure that food aid does not displace commercial sales impede the program’s ability to achieve its sustainable development objectives through foreign exchange savings. Chapter 3 provides examples of how USDA efforts to develop long-term markets for U.S. agricultural goods are hampered by legislatively mandated program requirements. These incude requirements to carry title I cargo on U.S. flag ships, reexport restrictions that impose constraints on recipient countries, and rules that determine which commodities are eligible for export under the P.L. 480 programs. In addition, the process for selecting countries to participate in the title I program illustrates the difficulty in implementing a coherent strategy that effectively supports a diverse set of objectives. When the P.L. 480 food aid legislation was enacted in 1954, its objectives were to encourage the export of large amounts of U.S. surplus agricultural commodities and serve U.S. international policy goals. Today, however, title I is less important in terms of reducing U.S. agricultural surpluses, and title I’s share of U.S. agricultural exports and world food aid has decreased significantly. While the 1990 act streamlined program management and simplified implementation requirements overseas, the revised structure of the title I program did not improve the program’s ability to accomplish its objectives. Multiple and sometimes competing objectives, along with certain program requirements, continue to encumber the title I program, making it difficult to create and implement an effective program strategy to achieve either its sustainable economic development or long-term market development objectives. We found that the title I program has not significantly advanced either the sustainable economic development or market development objectives of the 1990 act. Title I aid has had minimal impact on broad-based, sustainable development because the amount of foreign exchange a country can potentially save through using the title I program is small relative to its overall development needs. Also, title I provides the United States with relatively little leverage to influence development activities or initiate policy reforms, and other title I objectives sometimes take priority in shaping the title I programs in recipient countries. We also found that title I’s importance to long-term market development has not been demonstrated. The link between title I assistance, economic development, and increased U.S. agricultural exports is tenuous. In addition, title I commodities tend to be price-sensitive, and it is difficult to retain market share once the food aid program has been discontinued unless the United States can offer competitive prices and financing. The size and importance of the P.L. 480 title I program have declined, and the program as currently structured does not significantly advance either the economic development or the market development objectives of the 1990 act. Thus, if Congress wants to continue to support these objectives and devote resources to achieving them, it may want to consider alternative approaches to doing so. Among the alternatives available to Congress are (1) refocusing the program on more specific economic and/or market development objectives by eliminating some of the multiple and competing requirements of the present framework; (2) restructuring the program to concentrate on a single objective, such as market development; (3) eliminating the program and transferring its resources to existing programs with compatible purposes; and (4) eliminating the program and replacing it with a new program or programs unencumbered with a history of competing objectives and outdated program requirements. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of Agriculture or his designee. On May 3, 1995, we received oral comments on the draft report from the Deputy Administrator for Export Credits of USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service and other USDA officials responsible for title I program management. We also discussed the draft report with senior officials at OMB and the State Department on May 2 and 4, 1995. These officials included the Chief of OMB’s Economic Affairs Branch of the International Affairs Division and the State Department’s Deputy Director of the Office of Agriculture and Textile Trade Policy. AID officials declined to discuss the draft report and did not provide agency comments. USDA agreed with our conclusions that (1) title I’s contribution to sustainable economic development is minimal because of the current program’s small size relative to each country’s overall development needs; (2) the 1990 act streamlined the management of title I, but the 1990 act did not significantly improve the program’s ability to accomplish its market or economic development objectives; and (3) several program requirements impair the usefulness of title I as a market development tool (i.e., cargo preference requirements, commodity eligibility, and government-to-government loans). USDA disagreed with our conclusion that the title I program has not demonstrated long-term market development success. USDA officials said that the title I program moves commodities and keeps a market presence that the United States might not have had otherwise. However, USDA officials also stated that it is hard to quantify the market development benefits associated with the title I program. This report recognizes these contributions; however, we do not believe that these benefits constitute long-term market development unless market presence remains after the assistance ends. We found that the commodities exported under the title I program tend to be price-sensitive, meaning that purchasing decisions by importing countries are largely driven by price. Our interviews and analyses identified many examples where market share once maintained by title I exports did not transform into commercial share. Title I concessional sales did not lead to commercial sales unless the United States offered competitive prices and financing. Moreover, we did not find any studies by USDA or other researchers that established a link between food aid and long-term commercial market share for U.S. agricultural products. USDA officials did not refute these findings. In addition, USDA agreed that the importance of title I as an export program has diminished significantly since the program’s inception in 1954. USDA also agreed with the report’s overall conclusion that multiple and sometimes competing program objectives, along with certain program requirements, encumber the title I program. USDA suggested restructuring the title I program to allow it to focus on one objective—market development—rather than eliminating the program and applying those resources to new or existing programs that individually address each of the separate objectives. Senior OMB officials agreed with our conclusions that (1) the program, as currently structured, is unable to significantly advance either the sustainable economic development or market development objectives of the 1990 act and (2) the multiple and competing objectives, along with certain program requirements, make it difficult to create and implement an effective program strategy. Rather than eliminate the title I program and dedicate those resources to new or existing programs that individually address each of the program objectives, OMB officials suggested restructuring the program to reduce the impact of multiple and competing objectives and improve the program’s focus on market development. Senior officials from the State Department generally agreed with the information presented in the draft report. However, these officials disagreed with our overall conclusions and the original matters for congressional consideration. The officials said that the title I program as currently structured serves the multiple objectives reasonably well and does not need to be significantly restructured. The officials emphasized the usefulness of the title I program in introducing U.S. commodities and trading practices into recipient countries, especially those with foreign exchange shortages. The report recognizes this benefit of the title I program; however, we also identified several limitations: (1) the government-to-government nature of the title I loan can interfere with private sector trade in-country, (2) U.S. cargo preference requirements can have a negative impact on trade relations because recipients are unable to import the desired commodity quality or grade, and (3) program criteria driven by supply-oriented considerations restrict the types of commodities eligible for export under the title I program such that the program supports a limited range of agricultural commodities without regard to market demand and consistent availability from year to year. We also found that the title I program has had limited success as a tool to introduce U.S. commodities and trade practices in several countries. For example, Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland, and Slovakia dropped out of the program after about a year because of high title I commodity prices, program limitations that restricted the countries’ ability to reexport title I commodities, and an unwillingness to assume long-term debt. The State Department officials also said that title I’s contribution to a country’s food supply can have a long-term economic impact; greater nourishment supports a more productive population, which, in turn, has long-term positive economic consequences. While our analysis found that title I can make a significant contribution to a country’s food supply, we do not consider this to be a contribution to long-term sustainable economic development. The program’s central goal is to enhance the food security of the developing world. This goal requires long-term solutions to food availability, accessibility, and utilization in developing countries. We found that the primary way in which title I can contribute to sustainable economic development in recipient countries is by helping the country save foreign exchange to invest in projects that promote long-term economic development. However, we concluded that the title I program has had a minimal impact on sustainable development because the amount of foreign exchange a country can potentially save through using the title I program is small relative to its overall development needs. While we did not intend to imply in our matters for consideration that elimination of the program and use of its resources on new or existing programs to achieve the program’s objectives was the only option for Congress to consider, it appears that the original wording led the agencies to believe we discounted other options. We have expanded and reworded our matters for congressional consideration to make it clear that there is a range of options available for Congress to consider.

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the impact of Title I assistance on: (1) sustainable economic development in recipient countries; and (2) long-term market development for U.S. agricultural goods in those countries. GAO found that: (1) U.S. agricultural exports and world food aid have decreased because there are other donor countries and new programs such as the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) market development program; (2) title I has had minimal effect on sustainable economic development in recipient countries; (3) the primary way in which title I food aid can contribute to broad-based sustainable development in the recipient country is to give the country the foreign exchange savings it needs to invest in long-term economic development projects; (4) the link between title I and market development is uncertain, since USDA and other agency studies have not shown a link between title I assistance and the establishment of a long-term commercial market share for U.S. agricultural products; (5) price-sensitive exports restrict title I market development opportunities; (6) Title I program management has been streamlined by assigning title I programs to USDA and titles II and III to the Agency for International Development (AID); and (7) while the objectives of P.L. 480 legislation can support U.S. foreign policy and trade interests, they can also impede the development of an effective program strategy.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last comprehensively amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110 ). Appropriations for most programs authorized by the ESEA were authorized through FY2007. As Congress has not reauthorized the ESEA, appropriations for ESEA programs are currently not explicitly authorized. However, because the programs continue to receive annual appropriations, appropriations are considered implicitly authorized. During the 114 th Congress, the House Education and the Workforce Committee reported the Student Success Act ( H.R. 5 ), which would provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. The bill was subsequently passed on the House floor on July 8, 2015, based on a strictly partisan vote of 218-213. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee reported the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 (ECAA; S. 1177 ), which would also provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. S. 1177 was subsequently passed on the Senate floor on July 16, 2015, based on a bipartisan vote of 81-17. Both chambers agreed to a conference to resolve their differences. On November 19, 2015, the conference committee agreed to file the conference report of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) by a vote of 39-1. On December 2, 2015, the House agreed to the conference report based on a bipartisan vote of 359-64. This report highlights key provisions included in the ESSA and provides some context regarding the treatment of similar provisions in current law, where applicable. Table 1 highlights key provisions in the bill. An emphasis has been placed on issues that have received the most attention during the reauthorization process, including Title I-A accountability and formula issues and Title II-A formula issues. Table 2 depicts the proposed structure of the ESEA under the ESSA and includes all authorizations of appropriations for FY2017 through FY2020. The table also indicates whether a comparable program was included in current law. Table 3 provides examples of programs authorized under current law that would not be retained by the ESSA. The report does not aim to provide a comprehensive summary of ESSA or of technical changes that would be made by the bill. As Congress had not enacted legislation to reauthorize the ESEA, on September 23, 2011, President Obama and the Secretary of Education (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) announced the availability of an ESEA flexibility package for states and described the principles that states must meet to obtain the included waivers. The waivers exempt states from various academic accountability requirements, teacher qualification-related requirements, and funding flexibility requirements that were enacted through NCLB. State educational agencies (SEAs) may also apply for optional waivers related to the 21 st Century Community Learning Centers program and the use of funds, determinations of adequate yearly progress (AYP), and the allocation of Title I-A funds to schools. However, in order to receive the waivers SEAs must agree to meet four principles established by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) for "improving student academic achievement and increasing the quality of instruction." The four principles, as stated by ED, are (1) college- and career-ready expectations for all students; (2) state-developed differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; (3) supporting effective instruction and leadership; and (4) reducing duplication and unnecessary burden. Taken collectively, the waivers and principles included in the ESEA flexibility package amount to a fundamental redesign by the Administration of many of the accountability and teacher-related requirements included in current law. As of December 2015, 42 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had approved ESEA flexibility applications, and ED was reviewing applications from other states. The ESSA would terminate all waivers associated with the ESEA flexibility package on August 1, 2016. The remainder of this report focuses only on current law and does not compare the provisions in the ESSA with the provisions included in the ESEA flexibility package. Table 1 highlights similarities and differences between the ESSA and current law. As previously discussed, areas of the ESSA that have received the most congressional interest are given a more in-depth review in the table. The major areas considered include the following: overall structural and funding issues; Title I-A accountability; Title I-A formulas; teachers, principals, and school leaders; flexibility and choice; and general provisions. No attempts, however, were made to provide a comprehensive analysis of the ESSA. Table 2 depicts the structure of the ESSA by title. For each program with an authorization of appropriations, the amount authorized is provided for FY2017 through FY2020. The table also indicates whether the program is a new program or one that is similar to a program included in current law. An indication that a program is also included in current law does not mean that the program is being retained without changes. For example, while the ESSA would retain Title II-A, a state grant program focused on teachers, it would modify the formula used to award grants and the uses of funds. Table 3 provides examples of programs authorized under current law that would not be authorized under the ESSA. Activities supported by some of the programs that would no longer be authorized, however, may be required or allowable uses of funds under programs that would be authorized under the ESSA. For example, under the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants program (block grant program), LEAs could use funds to support counseling programs, create safe school environments, provide physical education, and support the use of technology; and states and LEAs could use funds to reimburse low-income students for the costs of accelerated learning examination fees, such as Advanced Placement (AP) exams. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all programs authorized under current law that would no longer be authorized. Rather, this list is based primarily on programs that have been included as line-items on appropriations tables in recent years and would not continue to be authorized by the ESSA.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last comprehensively amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). Appropriations for most programs authorized by the ESEA were authorized through FY2007. As Congress has not reauthorized the ESEA, appropriations for ESEA programs are currently not explicitly authorized. However, because the programs continue to receive annual appropriations, appropriations are considered implicitly authorized. Congress has actively considered reauthorization of the ESEA during the 114th Congress, passing comprehensive ESEA reauthorization bills in both the House (Student Success Act; H.R. 5) and the Senate (Every Child Achieves Act of 2015; S. 1177). Both chambers agreed to a conference to resolve their differences. On November 19, 2015, the conference committee agreed to file the conference report of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) by a vote of 39-1. On December 2, 2015, the House agreed to the conference report based on a bipartisan vote of 359-64. Table 1 in this report highlights key provisions included in the ESSA and provides some context regarding the treatment of similar provisions in current law, where applicable. The major areas considered in this examination include the following: overall structural and funding issues; Title I-A accountability; Title I-A formulas; teachers, principals, and school leaders; flexibility and choice; and general provisions. Table 2 depicts the proposed structure of the ESEA under the ESSA and includes all authorizations of appropriations for FY2017 through FY2020. Table 3 provides examples of programs authorized under current law that would not be retained by the ESSA. The report does not aim to provide a comprehensive summary of ESSA or of technical changes that would be made by the bill.

If you’ve been trying to connect to North Korean Internet sites in the last 24 hours, you might have been unsuccessful. Connectivity between North Korea and the rest of the world has been spotty for much of the time, according to Dyn Research. Look at the graph below. Each period of purple corresponds to an outage on North Korea’s Internet connection. Is this related to all that’s been going on in the last few days? Possibly. North Korea’s Internet connection does suffer from periodic outages, so it could be something as mundane as network maintenance or a failing router. On the other hand… “I haven’t seen such a steady beat of routing instability and outages in KP before,” said Doug Madory, director of Internet analysis at Dyn Research. “Usually there are isolated blips, not continuous connectivity problems. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are absorbing some sort of attack presently.” ||||| Following the hack on Sony Pictures and the threats made by the hackers, Sony has decided to cancel the theatrical release of the comedy “The Interview”. Recently Sony had commented saying that they’re still exploring their options on how best to distribute the movie (it seems that they aren’t backing down a second time), with Sony’s Crackle service being a rumored possibility which has since been debunked. Well it looks like if Sony doesn’t come up with an idea soon, hacker group Anonymous might do their job for them. Anonymous has posted a series of tweets in which they lambasted Sony for giving into the hackers’ demands so easily and also offered to release the movie themselves as a “Christmas present” for internet users. According to Anonymous, “We’re not with either side, we just want to watch the movie too…and soon you too will be joining us. Sorry, @SonyPictures.” Of course it remains to be seen if Anonymous will really follow through with their claims, but if Sony were to distribute the movie for free anyway then we guess this won’t really have that much of an impact, save for the fact that Sony won’t be able to control how and where it is being distributed. That being said the recent spate of hacks have definitely done an extremely good job of marketing and promoting the movie, a move we’re not sure the hackers had intended but either way are you looking forward to checking it out? Filed in . Read more about Anonymous, Hacking and Sony. ||||| Story highlights A company reports the outage lasted more than nine hours "It's as if North Korea got erased from the global map of the Internet," says one analyst The disruption came amid an escalating war of words between the U.S., North Korea [Breaking news update, posed at 535 a.m. ET] Internet service in North Korea is still intermittent, Dyn Research, a company that monitors Internet performance, announced on Twitter Tuesday morning. Service went down completely for about nine hours earlier, Dyn Research said. [Previous story, posted at 1:42 a.m. ET] North Korea's Internet was back up Tuesday after a more than nine-hour outage, according to Dyn Research, a company that monitors Internet performance. The disruption came amid an escalating war of words between the United States and North Korea over a massive cyberattack on Sony Pictures. "Usually there are isolated blips, not continuous connectivity problems. I wouldn't be surprised if they are absorbing some sort of attack presently," Doug Madory, director of Internet analysis at Dyn Research, said when the Internet was down. Matthew Prince, president of CloudFlare, a performance and security company, described the disruption as if "all the routes to get to North Korea just disappeared. JUST WATCHED What are military options for N. Korea? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH What are military options for N. Korea? 01:48 JUST WATCHED Reports: North Korea's Internet is down Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Reports: North Korea's Internet is down 02:42 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean leader Kim Jong Un meets with North Korea's first female fighter jet pilots in this undated photo released by the country's state media on Monday, June 22. He called the women "heroes of Korea" and "flowers of the sky." Hide Caption 1 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim stands on the snow-covered top of Mount Paektu in North Korea in a photo taken by North Korean newspaper Rodong Sinmun on April 18 and released the next day by South Korean news agency Yonhap. Kim scaled the country's highest mountain, North Korean state-run media reported, arriving at the summit to tell soldiers that the hike provides mental energy more powerful than nuclear weapons. Hide Caption 2 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim Jong Un, center, poses with soldiers on the snow-covered top of Mount Paektu in an April 18 photo released by South Korean news agency Yonhap. Hide Caption 3 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim visits the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun in Pyongyang, North Korea, on April 15 to celebrate the 103rd birth anniversary of his grandfather, North Korean founder Kim Il Sung. Hide Caption 4 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim inspects a drill for seizing an island at an undisclosed location in North Korea in an undated picture released by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency on February 21. Hide Caption 5 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim speaks during a meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea in Pyongyang, North Korea, in this photo released February 19 by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. Hide Caption 6 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A picture released by the North Korean Central News Agency shows North Korean leader Kim Jong Un appearing without his cane at an event with military commanders in Pyongyang on Tuesday, November 4. Kim, who recently disappeared from public view for about six weeks, had a cyst removed from his right ankle, a lawmaker told CNN. Hide Caption 7 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim is seen walking with a cane in this image released Thursday, October 30, by the state-run Korean Central News Agency. Hide Caption 8 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim sits in the pilot's seat of a fighter jet during the inspection. Hide Caption 9 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military This undated photo, released Tuesday, October 14, by the KCNA, shows Kim inspecting a housing complex in Pyongyang, North Korea. International speculation about Kim went into overdrive after he failed to attend events on Friday, October 10, the 65th anniversary of the Workers' Party. He hadn't been seen in public since he reportedly attended a concert with his wife on September 3. Hide Caption 10 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A picture released by the KCNA shows Kim and his wife watching a performance by the Moranbong Band on Wednesday, September 3, in Pyongyang. Hide Caption 11 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim tours a front-line military unit in this image released Wednesday, July 16, by the KCNA. Hide Caption 12 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim poses for a photo as he oversees a tactical rocket-firing drill in June. Hide Caption 13 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim watches a tactical rocket-firing drill in June. Hide Caption 14 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier patrols the bank of the Yalu River, which separates the North Korean town of Sinuiju from the Chinese border town of Dandong, on Saturday, April 26. Hide Caption 15 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military In this photo released Thursday, April 24, by the Korean Central News Agency, Kim smiles with female soldiers after inspecting a rocket-launching drill at an undisclosed location. Hide Caption 16 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A picture released Tuesday, March 18, by the KCNA shows Kim attending a shooting practice at a military academy in Pyongyang. Hide Caption 17 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier uses binoculars on Thursday, February 6, to look at South Korea from the border village of Panmunjom, which has separated the two Koreas since the Korean War. Hide Caption 18 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier kicks a pole along the banks of the Yalu River on Tuesday, February 4. Hide Caption 19 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A photo released by the KCNA on Thursday, January 23, shows the North Korean leader inspecting an army unit during a winter drill. Hide Caption 20 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim inspects the command of an army unit in this undated photo released Sunday, January 12, by the KCNA. Hide Caption 21 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim visits an army unit in this undated photo. Hide Caption 22 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim inspects a military factory in this undated picture released by the KCNA in May 2013. Hide Caption 23 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim visits the Ministry of People's Security in 2013 as part of the country's May Day celebrations. Hide Caption 24 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier, near Sinuiju, gestures to stop photographers from taking photos in April 2013. Hide Caption 25 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean soldiers patrol near the Yalu River in April 2013. Hide Caption 26 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim is briefed by his generals in this undated photo. On the wall is a map titled "Plan for the strategic forces to target mainland U.S." Hide Caption 27 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim works during a briefing in this undated photo. Hide Caption 28 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military In this KCNA photo, Kim inspects naval drills at an undisclosed location on North Korea's east coast in March 2013. Hide Caption 29 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim, with North Korean soldiers, makes his way to an observation post in March 2013. Hide Caption 30 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim uses a pair of binoculars to look south from the Jangjae Islet Defense Detachment, near South Korea's Taeyonphyong Island, in March 2013. Hide Caption 31 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim is greeted by a soldier's family as he inspects the Jangjae Islet Defense Detachment in March 2013. Hide Caption 32 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim is surrounded by soldiers during a visit to the Mu Islet Hero Defense Detachment, also near Taeyonphyong Island, in March 2013. Hide Caption 33 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim arrives at Jangjae Islet by boat to meet with soldiers of the Jangjae Islet Defense Detachment in March 2013. Hide Caption 34 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Soldiers in the North Korean army train at an undisclosed location in March 2013. Hide Caption 35 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military In a photo released by the official North Korean news agency in December 2012, Kim celebrates a rocket's launch with staff from the satellite control center in Pyongyang. Hide Caption 36 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim, center, poses in this undated picture released by North Korea's official news agency in November 2012. Hide Caption 37 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim visits the Rungna People's Pleasure Ground, under construction in Pyongyang, in a photo released in July 2012 by the KCNA. Hide Caption 38 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A crowd watches as statues of North Korean founder Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jong Il are unveiled during a ceremony in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 39 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier stands guard in front of an UNHA III rocket at the Tangachai-ri Space Center in April 2012. Hide Caption 40 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military In April 2012, Pyongyang launched a long-range rocket that broke apart and fell into the sea. Here, the UNHA III rocket is pictured on its launch pad in Tang Chung Ri, North Korea. Hide Caption 41 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military – A closer look at the UNHA III rocket on its launch pad in Tang Chung Ri, North Korea. Hide Caption 42 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A military vehicle participates in a parade in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 43 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean soldiers relax at the end of an official ceremony attended by leader Kim Jong Un at a stadium in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 44 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Kim Jong Un applauds as he watches a military parade in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 45 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean soldier stands on a balcony in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 46 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean soldiers march during a military parade in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 47 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Soldiers board a bus outside a theater in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 48 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean performers sit below a screen showing images of leader Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 49 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean soldiers salute during a military parade in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 50 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean soldiers listen to a speech during an official ceremony attended by leader Kim Jong Un at a stadium in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 51 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military Members of a North Korean military band gather following an official ceremony at the Kim Il Sung stadium in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 52 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military North Korean military personnel watch a performance in Pyongyang in April 2012. Hide Caption 53 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean controller is seen along the railway line between the Pyongyang and North Pyongan provinces in April 2012. Hide Caption 54 of 55 Photos: Kim Jong Un and North Korea's military A North Korean military honor guard stands at attention at Pyongyang's airport in May 2001. Hide Caption 55 of 55 "It's as if North Korea got erased from the global map of the Internet," he said. Prince, who also spoke when the Internet was down, told CNN it's well within the realm of possibility that a single individual could have been behind the interruption but said he can't conclude at this point that an attack took place. "If it is an attack, it's highly unlikely it's the United States. More likely it's a 15-year-old in a Guy Fawkes mask," he said. The outage brought down sites run by the Korean Central News Agency and the Rodong Sinmun -- major mouthpieces for the regime -- according to the South Korean news agency Yonhap. There were no problems accessing pro-Pyongyang pages that have servers abroad, Yonhap reported. The United States blames North Korea for the Sony hack; North Korea denies it was involved. The regime is upset over Sony's controversial comedy, "The Interview," which follows a plot to assassinate its leader, Kim Jong Un. The studio decided to pull the film amid threats to moviegoers. U.S. President Barack Obama told CNN on Sunday that the hack was "an act of cybervandalism that was very costly, very expensive" but that he didn't consider it an act of war. He had previously said that the United States would "respond proportionally" to the attack on Sony, without giving specifics. A spokeswoman for the National Security Council declined to comment on the reported outage. A State Department spokeswoman similarly deflected a question about the disruption. "We aren't going to discuss -- you know -- publicly, operational details about the possible response options or comment on those kind of reports in any way, except to say that as we implement our responses, some will be seen, some may not be seen," Marie Harf told reporters.

Anyone with a North Korean IP is likely chilling offline or punching the keyboard about now, because the country's Internet has been down for a couple of hours. "After 24hrs of increasing instability, North Korean national Internet has been down hard for more than 2hrs," Dyn Research posted on Twitter today, CNN reports. North Korea's Internet is prone to "isolated blips," says a Dyn director, who "wouldn't be surprised if they are absorbing some sort of attack presently." So is this President Obama's promised payback for North Korea reportedly perpetrating the Sony hack? Possibly, reports North Korea Tech, but "it could be something as mundane as network maintenance or a failing router." If this is US retaliation, the Verge says that such a "wholesale attack" would set "a dangerous precedent of retaliation against targeted attacks" like the one suffered by Sony. Meanwhile, the hacker group Anonymous says it will post The Interview (the film that apparently aggravated North Korea in the first place) by Christmas if Sony doesn't do so first, Ubergizmo reports. "We’re not with either side, we just want to watch the movie too…and soon you too will be joining us. Sorry, @SonyPictures," writes Anonymous on a Twitter account that's currently suspended. But Sony may well distribute the film on its own via YouTube, as company CEO Michael Lynton said over the weekend on CNN.

The Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs are the two largest federal programs providing cash and medical assistance to people with severe, long-term disabilities, at an annual cost of more than $100 billion. The DI program offers partial income replacement for disabled workers who have earned Social Security benefits. The SSI program provides federal and state cash assistance to people who are elderly, blind, or disabled, regardless of insured status, whose income and resources are below a specified amount. In the legislation authorizing the SSI and DI programs, the Congress articulated its aim to rehabilitate into productive activity as many disability benefit recipients as possible. Consistent with this goal, the Congress has passed several work incentive provisions to reduce the risks of seeking employment for recipients, by safeguarding cash and medical benefits while a recipient tries to work. One such provision authorized the plan for achieving self-support (PASS) program as part of the SSI program in 1972. In explaining this provision, the pertinent House Report stated that the Ways and Means Committee wanted to “provide every encouragement and opportunity” for participants to work. The DI program, authorized in 1956, provides cash and medical benefits to workers under age 65 who become disabled and cannot continue working, as well as to their dependents. The DI program is funded through Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes paid into a trust fund by employers and workers. In 1994, 3.3 million people with disabilities were enrolled in DI and received, on average, cash benefits of about $660 a month. The SSI program was authorized in 1972 under title XVI of the Social Security Act as a means-tested income assistance program for people who are elderly, blind, or disabled. Unlike DI beneficiaries, SSI recipients do not need to have a work history to qualify for benefits, but need only have low income and limited assets. General government revenues provide the federal funding for the SSI program, while some states supplement federal payments with their own funds. SSI disabled beneficiaries receive an average monthly cash benefit of about $380 (beneficiaries in the 43 states that provide a monthly supplement received, on average, an additional $110 in 1993) and immediate Medicaid eligibility in most states. In 1994, 2.3 million blind and disabled adults under age 65 and 893,000 children were enrolled in SSI. Individuals who are insured under Social Security, but fall below SSI’s income and resource eligibility threshold, can qualify for both DI and SSI benefits. An additional 671,000 people under age 65, called concurrent beneficiaries, were enrolled in both programs in 1994. To be considered disabled under either program, a person must be unable to engage in substantial gainful activity (SGA) because of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is expected to last not less than 12 months or result in death. The severity of the impairment must prevent the applicant not only from doing his or her previous work, if any, but also from engaging in any other kind of substantial work in the national economy, considering his or her age, education, and work experience. The process used to determine eligibility for benefits is the same for both programs. In establishing the SSI and DI programs, the Congress considered it very important that disabled persons be helped to return to self-supporting employment wherever possible. To this end, over the years the Congress has enacted numerous work incentive provisions in both the SSI and DI programs to encourage more people to work their way off the disability rolls. These include the PASS program and extended eligibility for Medicare benefits to working DI beneficiaries. During a beneficiary’s work attempt, these work incentive provisions allow varying degrees of safeguards for cash and medical benefits, as well as program eligibility. However, despite the Congress’ aim to return the maximum number of DI and SSI beneficiaries to work, few beneficiaries have actually done so. Only 1 in every 500 DI beneficiaries is terminated from the rolls because he or she has returned to work. While SSA has no comparable measures for the SSI population, we recently reported that this population’s return-to-work rate is similarly low. The PASS program was established by the Congress as part of the SSI program to assist disability benefit recipients with beginning or returning to work. The PASS program is administered by staff in the approximately 1,300 SSA field offices nationwide, based on policy and regulations developed by SSA headquarters staff in the Office of Program Benefits Policy. The Program Operations Manual System (POMS) is the primary policy guidance to staff on the PASS program. Work incentive staff in SSA’s 10 regional offices provide additional guidance and oversight to field office staff. In December 1994, about 10,300 individuals participated in the PASS program and had active PASSes. In commenting on the PASS provision, the pertinent House Report stated that it should be “liberally construed,” and SSA headquarters has chosen to place few constraints on the program in regulations or in the POMS. For example, there is no required application format and no limit on the number of approved plans an individual can have in a lifetime. PASSes are written plans, developed specifically for an individual, that identify a work goal and the items and services needed to achieve that goal. (For a sample plan format, see app. I.) To purchase these items and services, PASS program participants may use any non-SSI income or resources they have—for example, DI benefits or wages from a job. Anyone can write a PASS—the disability benefit recipient, an SSA staff member, a vocational rehabilitation professional, staff from another agency, or a relative or friend; no vocational rehabilitation expertise is required. Normally, any additional income or resources would reduce the amount of the SSI payment, but SSA disregards the income and resources included in a PASS when determining income available to the SSI recipient. Consequently, excluding income and resources to pursue a work goal under a PASS can result in additional monthly SSI cash payments. For example, an SSI recipient earning $300 a month in a part-time job is normally eligible for about $350 in SSI benefits, if he or she is single and lives alone. However, using a PASS, this individual could use these earnings to pay for classes and transportation to school to become an accountant and receive the maximum 1995 federal benefit of $458 each month. As currently implemented, the PASS program can also be used to establish eligibility for SSI by disabled individuals whose incomes or resources would otherwise exceed program eligibility limits. If a DI beneficiary who receives $620 a month in benefits, for example, can set $300 of this income aside under a PASS to pursue a work goal, he or she becomes eligible for SSI payments because his or her countable income is less than the federal SSI eligibility rate. Eligibility for SSI usually brings eligibility for other means-tested benefits, including Medicaid and food stamps. PASSes are submitted to staff in one of the SSA field offices for review. These staff approve or deny plans on the basis of the work goal’s feasibility and adjust SSI payment levels for approved plans. Work goals must be stated in terms of specific job titles or professions. For example, education can be part of a plan but cannot be a goal in itself. As long as applicants specify a different work goal in each PASS, there is also no limit placed on the number of plans one individual can have, although only one plan can be active at a time and each PASS is limited to a maximum of 48 months. However, interim guidelines issued in January 1995, in response to a mandate in the Social Security Independence and Program Improvement Act of 1994, allow additional 6-month extensions to ongoing plans. In December 1994, PASS participants represented only about three-tenths of 1 percent of the working-age disabled SSI population. The number of PASSes varies by state, with clusters in areas where outreach by professional PASS preparers and service providers has been greatest. As a result, knowledge of and experience with the PASS program varies greatly among field offices and staff. Some offices have no active PASSes, while administering the PASS program constitutes a significant workload in others. Compared with other SSI recipients, PASS program participants are generally younger and more often men. In addition, PASS program participants are more likely to have mental illness as their disabling condition. For a more detailed description of the demographics of program participants, see appendix II. The PASS program is unique among all DI and SSI work incentives because it is available to disabled individuals who are not already working. Specifically, the PASS provision allows participants to exclude unearned, as well as earned, income for consideration in determining benefit amount. All other work incentive protections, such as extended eligibility for health and cash benefits for working recipients, apply to earned income only. Furthermore, while SSI and DI beneficiaries who work can use the impairment-related work expense provision to deduct from their gross wages the cost of items and services needed to work, only half these costs are offset by increased SSI benefits. In contrast, PASS expenses are deducted after all other exclusions when determining an individual’s countable income, and therefore fully subsidized by additional SSI cash payments, up to the maximum benefit amount. House Conference Report 103-670, accompanying the Social Security Independence and Program Improvement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-296), asked that we review SSA’s PASS program. Specifically, we were asked to provide data for the last 5 years, to the extent possible, on (1) the number and characteristics of individuals who have applied for a plan, (2) the number and characteristics of those whose plans have been approved, (3) the kinds of plans that have been approved and their duration, (4) the success of individuals in fulfilling their plans, and (5) the extent to which individuals who have completed a PASS have become economically self-sufficient. We were also asked to study whether improvements can or should be made to the PASS program, including the process used to approve plans. Because SSA’s Office of Program Integrity Review was already tracking PASS program participants’ compliance with their plans and the outcome of PASS program participation, we focused our efforts on PASS program management and internal controls. To analyze PASS program implementation and determine what changes and improvements were needed, we reviewed PASS guidance, legislation, and regulations. We also interviewed Social Security headquarters staff responsible for the program and monitored an SSA work group charged with considering PASS program policy changes. In addition, we met with staff in 19 SSA field offices, located in California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Vermont, and Wisconsin, that had high numbers of active PASSes to discuss their experience with the work incentive. (For a list of locations visited, see app. III.) In these same states, we met with 38 individuals, representing 32 different organizations, who prepare PASSes for disability benefit recipients. In addition, we spoke with the PASS program liaison in each of the 10 SSA regional offices to learn about program trends nationwide. To determine the numbers and characteristics of PASSes and program participants, we analyzed an extract of the Supplemental Security Record (SSR), the main database of SSI participants. We also used data from the SSR, the Master Beneficiary Record (MBR) of DI beneficiaries, and SSA’s Master Earnings File maintained for all workers to assess the current earnings and benefit status of former PASS participants. We were unable to evaluate program impact, because most program participation has been recent, and SSA has only 4 years of historical data on the PASS program, which includes no data on the outcomes of program participation. In addition, individuals self-select into the PASS program, and may already be different from other SSI and DI beneficiaries in ways that would affect their future employment and earnings. Finally, we reviewed 380 randomly selected PASS files in 17 field offices to gather additional data about PASSes, including the types of work goals and proposed purchases. We did not, however, verify that specific program participants complied with the goals and activities specified in their PASSes. For more information about our methodology, see appendix IV. We did our work between January and November 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. SSA has not translated the PASS program’s goals of providing opportunities for participants to work into a well-defined program structure with specific objectives. Confusion about program objectives has resulted in different and sometimes conflicting PASS approvals and denials across field offices. In addition, SSA field office staff find it difficult to approve or deny PASSes because SSA headquarters has not developed clear criteria for evaluating PASSes. Most field office staff do not have expertise or training in evaluating work opportunities for people with disabilities, whose needs are extremely diverse. Reflecting this diversity, the PASSes we reviewed encompassed a wide array of work goals, from janitorial work to professional positions, and included expenditures ranging from business cards to new cars. Finally, the PASS program includes primarily DI beneficiaries, many of whom use the PASS program to gain eligibility for federal SSI payments. Because SSA has not developed measures to evaluate how well the PASS program is helping participants become or stay employed, the agency lacks adequate management data on PASS use. For this reason, we could not accurately measure PASS program impact. We did find that many former PASS participants are earning enough income to at least reduce their SSI payments, compared with other SSI recipients, although many had worked prior to participating in the PASS program. Few, however, have earned enough to end SSI payments. In addition, nearly all concurrent beneficiaries continue to receive DI benefits after their plans end, even if they leave the SSI program, limiting the potential federal savings stemming from the PASS program. The 380 PASSes we reviewed encompassed a wide variety of goals, including increasing hours and responsibilities at a current job, seeking a new job, or pursuing education as a step toward work. (See fig. 2.1.) About one-third of plans had education as a major component, although the level of education desired ranged from attending culinary school to pursuing a Ph.D. in philosophy. Another one-third of PASS program applicants were seeking new jobs, while about 10 percent proposed to maintain or increase their hours or responsibilities at a current job. For those individuals proposing specific occupational goals, the demands of these jobs, as well as their likely income, were highly variable. We found that many PASSes were written to help applicants achieve low-skill, low-wage service jobs, such as janitorial work, product assembly, or employment in fast-food restaurants; however, we also saw plans written to help participants become psychotherapists, computer programmers, engineers, and college professors. Some program participants’ goals were more unusual, involving self-employment in music, arts, and crafts. Self-employment was the goal in 15 percent of the PASSes we reviewed, including small businesses in tailoring, tree stump removal, and window washing. In addition, some PASS program participants were approved to support themselves as professional PASS preparers, writing plans for other disability benefit recipients for a fee. (See app. V for a sample of occupational goals listed on the approved PASSes we reviewed.) The proposed purchases listed on PASSes varied, as did their cost. Automobiles (new and used vehicles as well as insurance, maintenance, and modification costs), tuition, and computers were common items in PASS budgets. More than 80 percent of the plans we reviewed included at least one of these items. Costs for these items ranged from a $41,000 wheelchair-modified van or thousands of dollars in highly specialized computer equipment to a $19 monthly bus pass. SSA has placed no absolute limits on the types or costs of items that PASSes can be used to purchase as long as they are necessary to achieve the work goal and reasonably priced. The wide range of approved purchases we saw included photographic film, cellular telephone service, business advertising, professional attire, job coaching, and school supplies. The total budget also ranged considerably in the PASSes we reviewed, depending on the amount of the income excluded and the plan’s time length. The average monthly exclusion for all PASSes in December 1994 was $400, although some individuals were excluding more than $1,000 a month. Total costs associated with a single PASS could be significant; for example, one plan had a budget of $67,233 for an individual to return to work as a radiological technologist, which included items such as a standing wheelchair, a modified van and insurance, a track lift system, and a computer. Field staff in at least eight of the offices we visited raised concerns about PASS applications in which proposed purchases were exactly equal to total excludable income. Several PASS preparers confirmed that they develop budgets based on the maximum excludable income, regardless of the occupational goal. We were not able to determine the average time length of PASSes, because extensions and end-dates were not always documented in the files we reviewed. In addition, this information is not captured in the Supplemental Security Record (SSR), the database of SSI recipients. We found, however, that half of the current exclusions as of December 1994 had been active 9 or fewer months. In addition, more than 1,700 PASSes begun in 1993 were no longer active in December 1994. No comprehensive data are currently available on the total number of PASS applications, because SSA does not track denied plans. However, staff in almost all the field offices we visited agreed that the majority of PASSes are approved. SSA has neither clearly articulated the objectives of the PASS program nor established criteria for evaluating whether an individual plan will be successful. This lack of clear goals is reflected in inadequate guidance to field office staff and inconsistent and inefficient PASS program administration. Our interviews revealed a wide range of standards applied by SSA field office staff and third-party PASS preparers in assessing the feasibility of individual PASSes, ranging from cessation of all disability benefits to improved quality of life. Current PASS participants constitute less than 1 percent of the working-age SSI population; nonetheless, the number of PASSes has grown by more than 500 percent in the last 5 years. As a result of congressional direction to liberally construe the PASS provision, SSA has permitted individuals to become eligible for SSI by using a PASS. Consequently, the PASS program includes primarily DI beneficiaries, many of whom use PASS to gain eligibility for SSI payments. In establishing the PASS program, the Congress specified that the work incentive should “provide every opportunity and encouragement to the blind and disabled to return to gainful employment.” SSA headquarters staff, however, have not issued regulations translating this goal into specific outcome measures of PASS program success, choosing instead to leave the interpretation open to the field office staff who administer it. As a result, the SSA field office staff and third-party PASS preparers we interviewed used different, and sometimes conflicting, interpretations of successful outcomes when developing and reviewing individual PASSes. For example, some field office staff will not approve a PASS unless they believe it will result in the applicant leaving the disability rolls, while the preparer may have written it to give the applicant a chance to attend school and try working, but not become self-supporting. SSA field office staff in nearly all the offices we visited said that PASS use should result in a reduction, if not cessation, of SSI benefits. While 10 of the 38 PASS preparers we interviewed shared this view, others offered broader definitions of success, including working or attending school, improved self-esteem, and fuller participation in society. Some PASS preparers and SSA staff expressed concern that immediate economic self-sufficiency was not feasible for some members of the SSI population, and that the appropriate PASS outcome depended on the individual. PASS program guidance from SSA headquarters to the field offices contributes to confusion over the goal of the work incentive. Prior to January 1995, the POMS, SSA’s primary written guidance to field office staff who administer the PASS program, stated that the occupational objectives on PASSes must ultimately produce enough additional earned income to reduce or eliminate SSI payments. The guidance also noted that the PASS program was “not intended to subsidize a continuing level of current work activity.” In contrast, the POMS transmittal concerning PASS issued in January 1995 directed field office staff to evaluate individual PASSes in terms of the applicant’s higher earnings potential upon completion of the PASS, and weakens the link between earnings and benefits payments. In addition, this guidance includes increased on-the-job independence and decreased reliance on employment support, irrespective of earnings, as acceptable PASS goals. According to field office staff, the verbal guidance they receive from regional and headquarters staff encourages them to be liberal and err on the side of approving individual PASSes. Agency literature available to SSI recipients primarily defines the PASS program in terms of employment goals, with little or no focus on reduced or eliminated benefits, or increased earnings potential. SSA field office staff in half the offices we visited said PASS approvals and denials were inconsistent, and nearly all field office staff expressed frustration with the inadequate guidance they received from SSA headquarters on approving or denying PASSes. Some SSA field and regional offices have developed their own guidance for approving PASSes to compensate for gaps they see in the POMS. As a result, we found that the PASS program was implemented differently by location or even by individuals in the same location, depending on the prevailing beliefs about program goals. For example, some field offices in Wisconsin use a PASS evaluation form that requires applicants to estimate their pre- and post-PASS earnings to demonstrate increased earnings capacity before they will approve a plan. Staff in other field offices said they only look to see if there is even a “remote chance” of achieving a proposed occupational goal. The basis for decisions about acceptable cost items also varies. For example, some field office staff approved computer expenditures for students without documentation that computers were required, while staff in another office denied a request for computer equipment, noting that the university the applicant planned to attend did not require students to have computers. Work incentive staff in some regional offices review PASS approvals and denials made by the field offices; however, staff in SSA’s headquarters do not provide direct oversight of this process. PASS program participants in December 1994 represented only three-tenths of 1 percent of the working-age SSI population. Nonetheless, the number of PASSes has risen dramatically in recent years, from 1,546 in March 1990 to 10,329 in December 1994. PASS program growth has been much slower during 1995; the number of plans increased by only 169 between December 1994 and June 1995. However, SSA field staff in 15 of the 19 offices we visited predicted that the number of PASSes will continue to grow. Several PASS preparers also told us they believe that more outreach will increase PASS use. Outreach efforts, especially by outside organizations, have already increased awareness of the PASS program. For example, in the Denver area, several professional PASS preparers have established businesses that seek out clients. Since the late 1980s, individuals and organizations across the nation have assisted disability benefit recipients to understand and use work incentives, especially the PASS program. At the same time, some state agencies that provide employment services to the disabled have started to use PASSes to supplement other funds. Private agencies, too, are being encouraged to look at the PASS program as a funding source for their clients. The potential universe of PASS program participants is significant and increasing with the recent tremendous growth in the number of federal disability benefit recipients. All 4 million DI beneficiaries are potentially eligible for a PASS. In addition, any of the 2.3 million blind or disabled adults receiving SSI with additional income or resources to exclude could potentially participate in the PASS program. The PASS program encompasses primarily DI beneficiaries, who can exclude their DI benefits under a PASS. Of the approximately 10,300 PASS participants in December 1994, about 75 percent were concurrent beneficiaries, many of whom would not receive federal SSI benefits without a PASS. In comparison, about 30 percent of disabled adults in the overall SSI program also received DI benefits. We estimated that, overall, more than 40 percent of all PASS program participants had earned or unearned income, primarily DI benefits, in excess of the eligibility level for federal SSI benefits. These individuals received, on average, $318 in monthly federal SSI payments. Without the PASS program, they would not have been eligible to receive any federal SSI payments. The federal cost of PASS program participation for these individuals who use a PASS to establish SSI eligibility is often higher than just the SSI payment, because the participants may also gain access to other means-tested benefits, such as Medicaid and food stamps, while retaining access to DI payments and Medicare. In these instances, Medicaid supplements Medicare benefits, covering deductibles, medications, and other medical costs not covered by Medicare. Nearly one-fourth of recipients whose plans started in 1994 first applied for SSI benefits that year. PASS program participation for SSI recipients who are not concurrent beneficiaries is generally limited to those who are already working and can exclude their earned income or who receive other types of income or resources, such as an inheritance. Many SSI recipients who may benefit from the PASS program are unable to participate because they lack income or resources and cannot make the initial investments in education and skills that can be key to successful vocational rehabilitation. Our field work suggests that SSA’s current implementation of the PASS program is poorly managed and designed. Information required of applicants is inadequate for evaluating plan feasibility. SSA field staff lack the training, guidance, and expertise to effectively review PASSes, and the PASS program competes with other field tasks, such as processing initial claims, that receive more work credit in SSA’s system for measuring office productivity. POMS guidance specifically directs field office staff to evaluate applicants’ goals in light of their impairments and other disability-related factors. However, the POMS does not require much of the information that would be relevant to determine whether a work goal is feasible, including the nature of an applicant’s disability, on a PASS application. This information may not be otherwise available to field office staff. Because of this inconsistency, staff may approve or deny PASSes without knowledge of the applicant’s skills, education, work history, impairments, or even the disabling condition. Further, PASSes are not required to provide any information about the demands of the proposed job, and required skills and qualifications. We also found that diagnosis information was missing on the SSR, which is accessible by field office staff, for more than 40 percent of recipients with PASSes in December 1994. In addition, the detailed assessments of applicants’ work ability compiled by state Disability Determination Services during its reviews to decide program eligibility are often not sent to staff in SSA’s field offices. Field office staff also lack specific training and experience in determining the vocational capabilities and needs of people with disabilities. As a result, staff in every office we visited reported that they do not feel equipped to adequately evaluate PASS work goals and expenditures. Staff in half of these field offices described the evaluation process as inconsistent between and often within offices, and some noted it was unfair to PASS program applicants. SSA headquarters staff are aware of the field staff’s concerns, which were discussed at a 1994 work group on the PASS program. Field office staff’s lack of knowledge and training is also frustrating to third-party PASS preparers; half of those we interviewed said they did not believe field office staff were qualified to make decisions about PASS feasibility. In addition, at least 14 of 38 PASS preparers raised concerns about field office staff’s lack of awareness and understanding about disability issues, including the vocational capabilities of people with disabilities. The differences in plan approvals and denials have also led some PASS preparers to “shop around” within a field office or across offices to find someone who will approve a plan that has been denied elsewhere, according to field office staff and preparers. According to field office staff who evaluate plans, the guidance and criteria for approving and denying PASSes is inadequate, given their lack of expertise. While the POMS acknowledges that self-support is “highly subjective and often complex” to define, staff are directed to use a “common sense approach” when evaluating plans. When no licensed or accredited vocational rehabilitation agency or individual has been involved in developing a PASS, field office staff can seek outside input from a vocational rehabilitation or other employment services agency, or use their “judgment and intuition” to determine PASS feasibility. As a result, SSA field office staff can make highly individual decisions about plans based on their personal beliefs. For example, one field office staff member told us she denied a plan with the goal of writing a cookbook because she believed there were already too many cookbooks on the market. Furthermore, if they seek guidance outside of SSA, field office staff are limited to vocational agencies willing to provide evaluations of the feasibility of proposed work goals at no cost, unless the program applicant agrees to include the cost of the evaluation on his or her PASS. These agencies, however, are not required to advise SSA, and we found that some public agencies did not provide assistance to SSA field offices for individuals who were not already their clients. Field office staff also contact regional or central office work incentive staff with questions about feasibility; however, the staff in the regional and central offices are not necessarily trained in vocational rehabilitation. The field office staff’s lack of vocational rehabilitation knowledge and the limited guidance they receive also limits their ability to evaluate whether charges for particular items in PASS budgets are reasonable or necessary. Staff in at least eight field offices said they had no basis on which to judge whether a proposed item was reasonably priced. POMS guidance directs staff to be “as pragmatic as possible” when evaluating questionable expenses or determining the relationship of an item or service to the work goal. We found that some staff used personal criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of certain costs, especially automobiles and computers. For example, one field staff member told us she denied a plan that included a $22,000 automobile because she herself could not afford a car that expensive, even with a job, so “why should someone receiving federal assistance be allowed to buy one?” Some PASS preparers reported that they were frustrated with the inconsistent and subjective criteria they believed staff used when assessing the appropriateness of expenses. Items and services purchased with PASS funds do not need to be directly related to the claimant’s disability, but only necessary to achieve the work goal. Field office staff provided examples of expenses they considered excessive or unnecessary, including new cars and doctoral degrees, that were submitted on PASS plans and permissible under PASS guidelines. In addition, some field office staff said they have difficulty evaluating specialized or highly technical equipment with which they are not familiar. SSA headquarters has also not determined whether only new cost items related to the goal should be approved, or whether the PASS can be used to pay for existing expenses, such as car loan payments, deemed necessary to achieve the goal. SSA field office staff in many of the offices we visited reported that time spent administering the PASS program is not adequately reflected in SSA’s work credit system. The time necessary to thoroughly evaluate a PASS, including seeking additional information about feasibility, was estimated by field office staff as up to 8 hours or more. The work credit for reviewing PASSes submitted by individuals already entitled to SSI, which is grouped with other tasks including recording wages earned, was 6.8 minutes in June 1995. Furthermore, PASS denials receive no credit at all, yet some field office staff reported that plan denials take even longer than approvals, because of the amount of evidence needed to justify the denial. Requests from two regional offices that SSA create a separate work credit category just for the PASS program were turned down by SSA headquarters. In our interviews, few field office staff identified the PASS program as a high priority workload. Many reported that initial claims and other tasks necessary to secure or start benefits for claimants were a higher priority than PASS. Monitoring PASS program compliance is also considered to be a time-consuming effort by field office staff, especially when participants have not kept adequate records. POMS guidance on reviewing PASSes and monitoring compliance includes a number of steps that could take several hours to complete. More than half the PASS preparers we spoke with reported significant concern about the length of time required by field offices to approve plans. POMS directs field office staff to review PASSes “as soon as possible.” SSA does not track the length of time PASS program applicants must wait for a decision on their plan. We were not able to develop an estimate because submission and approval dates were frequently not recorded on the plans we reviewed. However, we saw and heard examples of plans reviewed and approved within a day, as well as delays of several months before a response was given on a submitted PASS. Delays in approval could result in lost employment and schooling opportunities for applicants, and the slow approval process serves as a disincentive to PASS program participation, according to PASS preparers. For example, the two agencies involved in a demonstration project attempting to increase PASS use and evaluate PASS effectiveness in funding supported employment, conducted in 1989 and 1990 by the Association for Retarded Citizens of the United States, ultimately withdrew as a result of lengthy delays in approving PASSes. On the other hand, quick reviews may not effectively screen out applicants with infeasible PASSes. Although the PASS program has been in existence for more than 20 years, SSA has no published data on the PASS program’s effect on employment and benefits, nor has the agency maintained the type of management data necessary for measuring program impact. We attempted to evaluate the PASS program’s impact on employment among former participants. However, we were unable to adequately determine the long-term effect of PASS program participation for a number of reasons, including the fact that most PASS use has been very recent and that SSA has not maintained comprehensive historical data on PASS program participants. Furthermore, participation in the PASS program is based on self-selection, and therefore PASS program participants may well be different from other SSI and DI beneficiaries in ways that could affect their future employment and earnings, independent of the program. On the basis of the limited data available, we examined the current status of former participants using selected economic measures of potential success—increasing earnings, reducing SSI benefits, and leaving the disability rolls. Among the SSI population, former PASS program participants were more likely than other SSI recipients to have sufficient earnings to reduce their SSI benefits, but few left the rolls as a result of their earnings. The PASS population was also likely to have been working before using the work incentive. Nearly half had earnings higher than before they had the PASS. Success in returning DI beneficiaries to work was negligible. Generally, earnings among concurrent beneficiaries who were former PASS program participants were not high enough to terminate DI benefits. While many concurrent beneficiaries we reviewed left the SSI program after their PASS ended, nearly all were still receiving their DI benefits in May 1995. We estimated the cost of additional cash payments to PASS participants in January 1995 as $2.6 million, or about $30 million annually. The lack of clear outcome measures prevents SSA from evaluating the PASS program’s success in helping recipients return to work. Consequently, the agency does not have data on the PASS program’s effect on employment during the more than two decades since its inception and thus cannot make informed decisions on and changes to the program, such as developing appropriate criteria for setting time limits on PASSes or determining the best candidates to target, as well as improving program implementation. While SSA’s current database for the SSI program, the SSR, includes some characteristics of PASS program participants, it does not systematically track PASS denials, PASSes that exclude only resources and not income, and the occupational objectives and budgets listed on plans. Therefore, SSA also does not know, for example, the acceptance and denial rates for PASS program applicants, nor the total number of applicants or active plans. SSA officials responsible for the PASS program are considering changes to the way program data are tracked, which would capture some of this information, including denials and resource-only exclusions. Former PASS participants who remained in the SSI program were more likely to have earnings that reduced their SSI cash payments than were other SSI recipients. We examined December 1994 earnings and benefit data for 4,751 former PASS program participants whose plans had ended by that date. We excluded from our analysis concurrent former PASS participants who stopped receiving SSI payments after their PASS exclusion ended. More than one-third of the 4,751 were reporting earnings to the SSI program, and the majority of these earned enough income to at least partially reduce their SSI payment amount. Half of the wage earners still receiving benefits reported wages of $360 or more for the month, which would result in a reduction in monthly benefits of about $147. About one-fifth of the 4,751 former PASS participants were earning more than $500, SSA’s measure of substantial gainful employment for most claimants. SSI benefits and reported earnings received before program participation were not available for all of the former PASS holders, and therefore we could not determine whether their earnings had increased or benefits had decreased after participating in the PASS program. Similarly, we could not estimate the cost of PASS program participation for this group of 4,751 former participants. In contrast to the experience of former PASS participants, only about 8 percent of other working-age disabled SSI recipients reported any earnings during December 1994, averaging $300 per person. Similarly, while 14 percent of the 4,751 former PASS program participants had earnings high enough to end their cash benefits altogether, and were receiving Medicaid benefits only, only about 1 percent of other working-age disabled SSI recipients earned this much. Very few former PASS program participants left the SSI rolls in the relatively short time frames for which data were available. Among the SSI-only former program participants we reviewed, about 160 had stopped receiving SSI or Medicaid by December 1994 for any income-related reason. They represented only about 2.5 percent of the 6,582 PASS program participants 1991 through 1993, including those concurrent beneficiaries who left SSI after their PASSes ended because their unearned income was too high. This low rate of leaving the SSI rolls by working for former PASS program participants is consistent with the overall experience of both the SSI and DI programs, which have traditionally seen low rates of return to work. However, even very limited workforce participation by SSI recipients can accrue significant federal savings. For example, the reduced benefits paid to all working recipients in January 1995, including former PASS program participants, lowered SSI cash payments by $18.6 million in that month alone. We found that many PASS program participants had already worked while on the rolls. Because SSI preprogram benefit and earnings data were not available for most PASS program participants, we examined the annual earnings data reported to SSA for all workers, regardless of disability status, to determine whether PASS program participants had been working before starting their PASSes. About half of both current and former PASS program participants we analyzed had earnings the year before their plans began, averaging between $2,000 and $3,000. Although we did not determine whether earnings increased as a result of the PASS, former participants’ annual earnings were frequently higher in the year their plans ended. We reviewed pre-and post-PASS annual earnings data for 3,659 recipients whose plans had ended by December 1993. Approximately 55 percent had earnings in the year before their PASS, and about 60 percent had earnings in 1993. Nearly half were earning more in 1993 than they did before they had a PASS, including those with no prior earnings. The median increase in annual earnings for those with any earnings was more than $3,000. In addition, about one-fifth of the entire group had no earnings the year before their PASS started, but were working in 1993. PASS program participation had almost no financial impact on the DI program. Given the high benefit paid to many DI beneficiaries—$660 a month, on average—a successful PASS program offers a chance for significant DI trust fund savings if participants leave the DI rolls, even with the cost of additional SSI benefits. However, while approximately 40 percent of concurrent beneficiaries left the SSI rolls after their PASS exclusions ended, about 93 percent were still receiving their DI benefits in the following year. And for the remaining 7 percent, many had DI benefits terminated for reasons other than earnings, such as death. Furthermore, unlike the SSI program, DI benefits are not offset by monthly earnings below $500, and previous GAO analysis has shown that earnings above this amount may not be economically rational for DI beneficiaries who face the loss of substantial cash and medical benefits. For example, a DI beneficiary receiving $700 or $800 a month in cash benefits, plus Medicare benefits, could lose both for earning as little as $501 a month. While the PASS work incentive provision is designed to be flexible and individual, oversight from SSA headquarters has been lax and required little accountability, leaving the PASS program open to abuse. Although SSA has established few required elements for PASS plans, we found evidence of noncompliance even with these minimal standards. In addition, we found that SSA’s guidance to its field staff on administering the PASS program, as discussed in chapter 2, also lacks several internal control measures necessary to adequately ensure that expenditures are appropriate and beneficial. Specifically, SSA has no standard application form or effective time limits for PASSes, no penalties for willful noncompliance with the PASS program, and no standards for third-party PASS preparers. These internal control weaknesses result in SSA having little or no reasonable assurance that the PASS program is being used appropriately. While SSA headquarters is aware of many of these inadequacies and has established a work group to address some, efforts to date are not sufficient to protect taxpayer dollars and to restore public confidence. SSA regulations require only minimal information to be provided in PASSes, yet we found that even this information was not always present. According to regulations, the PASS must be in writing and (1) state a specific occupational goal, (2) disclose the amount of money the applicant has and will receive, (3) specify how this money will be spent to attain his or her occupational goal, and (4) explain how the PASS money will be kept separate from the applicant’s other funds. SSA’s PASS program guidance also states that PASSes should be “as descriptive as possible about the occupational objective.” In addition, the occupational objective must be a job or profession, or increased hours or responsibilities at a job already held by the applicant; completion of education/training programs or the purchase of transportation are not occupational objectives, although they may be a means to attain an objective. Field office staff sometimes approve PASSes even when these minimum standards are not met. Oversight of field office approvals and denials varies among the 10 regional offices; not all regions review the decisions made by their field offices. Our analysis of 366 approved PASSes found at least 20 that did not have acceptable occupational goals as defined in the most recent POMS. These included 11 approved plans with objectives solely to complete education/training programs, 4 plans with objectives to purchase automobiles and/or maintain car payments, and 5 plans in which no job or profession was identified. One of these plans, for example, stated that a PASS was necessary to “obtain a second job.” Our review of PASSes also revealed plans that did not state the amount of money recipients had and would receive, nor how the PASS money would be kept separate from the applicant’s other funds. For example, 27 of the PASSes we reviewed did not show what money and other resources the PASS program applicant had or would receive to use in attaining the occupational objective. Without this information, SSA field office staff cannot determine whether the occupational goal is economically feasible. Further, at least 75—or about 20 percent—of the PASSes did not describe how the applicant would keep income/resources separate from other assets. If PASS funds are commingled with other benefits in the same account, it is difficult for SSA field office staff to measure compliance and ensure that PASS funds are spent only for approved items. SSA’s internal controls over the PASS program result in only limited guarantees that program moneys are being used appropriately and that taxpayer dollars are being spent judiciously. SSA regional and field office staff raised concerns about the integrity of the PASS program, noting that in its current state the program may be vulnerable to abuse. While not all of the internal control weaknesses we found have a proven adverse impact, each contributes to the potential for misuse. Internal control weaknesses we noted included the lack of a standard application form, no effective limits on the length of time a PASS may be in effect, few penalties for willful noncompliance with the PASS program, infrequent and nonstandardized compliance reviews, and inadequate controls over third-party PASS preparers. While SSA headquarters staff are aware of field office concerns, their efforts to date, including an internal work group on the PASS program and a new version of the POMS, have not sufficiently addressed them. SSA regulations do not require a standard PASS program application form, and as a result, PASSes vary in specificity and completeness both within and across SSA field offices nationwide. Further, some SSA field office staff told us that many of the details they would find helpful for evaluating PASSes were often not provided on plans. SSA has developed a sample form, included in a pamphlet for SSI recipients, which captures the minimum of required types of information necessary to process the application. (See app. I.) However, applicants are not required to use this form. PASSes we reviewed ranged from a few sentences to very detailed business plans. For example, one PASS program applicant submitted a nine-page plan to open a business providing on-site fish aquarium maintenance for offices and other business establishments. Another presented an application to become a self-employed seamstress, which included an assessment of the market demand for her services and a detailed description of the need for proposed purchases. We also saw PASSes consisting of a few words jotted on notebook paper as well as plans lacking any specific occupational goal or discussion of the need for proposed purchases. Current limits on the length of PASSes are being reviewed by SSA and may soon be removed in response to a congressional mandate that SSA develop individualized criteria for determining the time limit of a plan. Program regulations provide that PASSes be approved for an initial period of up to 18 months. Changes and extensions must be approved by SSA, with a 36-month maximum for general occupational goals and 48 months maximum for PASSes that require lengthy educational or training programs. These time limits have been successfully challenged in one federal district court as “unreasonable” and without consideration of individual needs,and some PASS advocates have actively lobbied to have them removed. In 1992, the SSI Modernization Project recommended that the SSA Commissioner remove the regulatory limit on PASS length, and an internal SSA memo recommended allowing extensions beyond the existing limits, noting that time limits could be viewed as an additional barrier that keeps people with disabilities from achieving self-support. These recommendations were never implemented. Instead, the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-296) required that SSA reexamine criteria for limits on the length of times PASSes may be active by taking into account reasonable individual needs. In an emergency teletype dated January 1995, SSA instructed field offices to grant 6-month extensions to PASS program participants who have exceeded the 36- or 48-month time limits, as long as the individual is in compliance and still needs to exclude income or resources to achieve his or her goal. Regulations currently under development will likely remove absolute time limits on the length of time a PASS may be in effect, according to SSA officials. Because the PASS program is operating without clearly defined objectives and other internal controls, removing all time limits for PASS completion would likely exacerbate the program’s vulnerability to misuse. Most SSA region and field office staff we interviewed who administer the PASS program do not want all PASS time limits eliminated. Some staff told us they believed that without any time limits PASS program participants may abuse the provision, staying out of work indefinitely and continuing to receive benefits such as Medicaid as well as increased SSI payments; others said that field office staff lack the background to make assessments of reasonable lengths of time for proposed PASSes in light of the applicant’s disability. No limit is placed on the number of approved PASSes an individual can have, provided that each one involves a different occupational objective. While only one PASS can be in effect at a time, a participant could have an unlimited number of subsequent plans if the first is unsuccessful. Individuals can even have a new plan if they were found to be deliberately noncompliant on a previous plan. While few in number, we saw instances where individuals were on their second or third PASS. For example, we reviewed one case in which a recipient had previous PASSes to be a word processor and receive a vocational evaluation, and now was pursuing a third goal of being a florist. The lack of adequate guidance on acceptable PASS expenditures means that SSA cannot provide reasonable assurance that PASS funds are being spent appropriately. While POMS states that PASSes must explain the necessity of each proposed purchase in the PASS budget, and that these items must be reasonably priced (moderate or fair and not extreme or excessive within the geographic location), it offers insufficient specific guidance on allowable PASS expenditures, according to field office staff. While the current POMS provides examples of acceptable expenditures such as tuition, books, uniforms, equipment, child care, and attendant care that are acceptable if they are found necessary and reasonably priced, it places no absolute limits on the types of items that can be approved, nor their costs. For example, the POMS specifies only that a luxury or sports car would “rarely” be appropriate, but sets no limit on the amount that can be spent on an automobile. Furthermore, the standards for justifying necessity or cost have not been specified, leaving them open to individual interpretation. Some SSA field office staff cited examples of approved PASSes that they believed did not contain evidence that the proposed expenditure items were reasonably priced and/or in direct relation to the proposed occupational goal. Not surprisingly, approved and denied expenditures in the plans we examined were inconsistent. For example, the proposed purchase of a $13,000 automobile in one plan was denied on the basis that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the car’s cost; in another plan, the purchase of an automobile was denied altogether because the plan did not specify why the purchase of any automobile was necessary to achieve the occupational goal. In contrast, we also saw plans in which similarly expensive vehicles were approved, or in which less justification for purchasing an automobile was provided. Some field office staff also told us that some individuals who helped prepare PASSes were occasionally unwilling to provide documentation to support proposed expenditures. The periodic reviews SSA requires to determine whether PASS program participants are complying with their plans are infrequent and nonstandardized. These reviews are intended to ensure adherence to the spending plan and to determine whether the occupational objective has been reached or whether the participant is meeting plan milestones. Recent changes to the POMS require compliance reviews at least every 12 months, compared with the previous requirement of at least every 18 months, and require reviews every 6 months under certain circumstances. SSA field staff in most offices we visited, as well as several third-party PASS preparers, told us that frequent reviews would help prevent noncompliance and the resulting overpayments from additional SSI payments to PASS program participants not following their plans. In addition, staff in at least four offices told us they review plans more frequently than the POMS guidelines recommend if they have concerns about the feasibility of a plan. One field office staff member, for example, said that she performs early compliance reviews for plans that include high expenditures, such as a $20,000 car. SSA headquarters, however, does not have specific requirements about how compliance reviews should be done. The POMS directs field office staff to conduct the review in a manner convenient to the individual, either in person, by mail, or over the telephone. We found that all three methods were used. Ensuring compliance consists of reconciling actual expenditures with funds set aside under a plan and determining whether the program participant has reached his or her goal. Field office staff cited examples of PASS program participants submitting grocery bags or shoe boxes of receipts to be reconciled. In addition, according to SSA field office staff, many PASS program participants do not understand how to account for their funds, and some have not kept records of purchases. Little specific information about compliance reviews is included in the notification letter sent to individuals when their PASS is approved. Furthermore, some third-party PASS preparers told us that proper accounting of expenditures can be a difficult task for some program participants. Guidance to field office staff does not make a distinction between willful noncompliance and noncompliance for other reasons. While the POMS specifies that a series of unsuccessful plans “may be grounds” for questioning the feasibility of a new PASS, there are no prohibitions on subsequent PASSes for individuals who have abandoned or willfully not complied with previous ones. Materials from one organization that prepares PASSes, for example, tells prospective clients that “there is no penalty for not obtaining or maintaining employment after participating in PASS.” POMS directs SSA field office staff to ask the participant for evidence of PASS expenditures. If the participant provides none, the field office staff must obtain authorization from the participant to contact appropriate third parties to verify savings and purchases. Therefore, SSA field office staff must rely on the cooperation of the program participant and the third party to obtain needed evidence. SSA headquarters guidance is unclear about actions field office staff should take if a PASS program participant is noncompliant with his or her plan. Although SSA regulations require all changes to PASSes to receive prior SSA approval, if during a compliance review a PASS program participant is found to be out of compliance with the terms of the PASS, the POMS gives the participant the opportunity to amend the plan and return to compliance. Specifically, if the PASS program participant has not met the occupational goal or is not in compliance, the POMS states that field office staff should amend the PASS retroactively to fit the participant’s circumstances if this will result in compliance. For example, if an individual proposes to use a PASS to attend college as an engineering student and subsequently changes majors to journalism, the plan can be amended to reflect this change if this would make the program participant compliant with his or her amended plan. Similarly, if a PASS budget includes the purchase of a used car and the participant leases a new car instead, the plan can also be changed retroactively. SSA’s POMS also does not encourage terminating PASSes for recipient noncompliance. If the PASS cannot be amended or amendment would not result in compliance, POMS recommends suspending the PASS. Terminating a PASS is recommended only as a last option. If they are found noncompliant, program participants may be charged with repaying the additional benefits they received during their PASS. However, some SSA field office staff we interviewed were unaware they could collect these overpayments from individuals who had not complied with their plans. The amount of overpaid funds that can be withheld by SSA from a subsequent SSI check is limited to 10 percent of the total benefit, unless the claimant agrees to a higher amount. SSA guidance states that anyone can help prepare a PASS, including a vocational rehabilitation counselor, an organization that helps people with disabilities, an employer, a friend or relative, or SSA. Of the 380 PASSes we reviewed, more than half were prepared by third parties. Although SSA staff will help disability benefit recipients to fill out a plan free of charge, field office staff infrequently prepare PASSes. Indeed, SSA field office staff prepared only 14 of the 380 PASSes we reviewed. Recognizing the need for outside help, SSA field offices are to maintain a referral list of organizations that can assist people with writing their PASS, for a fee or not, although it does not endorse any organization. Although SSA has determined that anyone can help prepare a PASS, it did not establish minimum standards for third-party PASS preparation. As a result, the services provided by third-party PASS preparers vary greatly. Some preparers we interviewed provide extensive assistance and resources to their clients to determine their goals and needed expenses, including vocational evaluations of their abilities and needs; others provide only guidance to clients, directing them to do their own research. In addition, the amount of vocational rehabilitation expertise and experience varied considerably among the PASS preparers we interviewed. Some were certified vocational rehabilitation professionals or had graduate training; others had no special experience or training in assisting people with disabilities with obtaining or maintaining work. In the last several years, a number of SSI and DI recipients have received training, generally funded by a PASS, on preparing PASSes for a fee in several states, including Iowa, Oregon, Maine, and Colorado. The fees charged by preparers also range considerably. For example, the median fee charged among the PASSes we reviewed was $200, while the highest fee for PASS preparation and monitoring was $832. Some PASS preparers charge fees for PASS preparation as well as additional fees for other services, such as PASS amendments and monitoring. Other PASS preparers charge no fees but provide some or all of the services mentioned. POMS clearly states that fees are acceptable PASS expenditure items, but it is not clear whether SSA anticipated the amount of fees PASS preparers would charge in some cases and whether SSA intended to allow the applicants to claim the total amount as a planned PASS expenditure that would be offset by additional SSI payments. According to the current POMS, PASS preparation fees should be evaluated on the basis of the preparer’s involvement in formulating the plan, including the type of work done and number of hours. However, the absence of preparer standards and qualifications and the lack of nationwide SSA guidelines on appropriate charges make this guidance difficult for SSA field staff to administer. At least one SSA region issued its own guidance on acceptable fee amounts, recommending limits of $25 an hour and a total of no more than $500 for an individual PASS. Other regions approve fees in excess of these recommended limits. SSA lacks a uniform policy toward third-party PASS preparers, and conflict exists between some preparers and the SSA field staff. While some PASS preparers encourage good relationships with SSA, others have adversarial relations with local field offices. The lack of written objectives and a clear definition of success creates the potential for disagreement and conflict regarding PASS approvals and denials. We found in at least six offices we visited that this conflict was disruptive to field office operations. Most of the PASS preparers we interviewed expressed frustration with the inconsistencies in PASS approvals and denials across field offices where they submit plans. At the same time, some SSA field office staff told us they believed that some third-party preparers wrote “ridiculous” PASSes, unlikely to result in economic self-support, or simply designed to maximize an individual’s purchases or the preparer’s earnings. Field office staff and PASS preparers we spoke with were sometimes divided as to whether individuals who request a PASS should have a high probability of achieving the occupational goal, or if it should just be theoretically possible. Some PASS preparers we spoke with believed that nearly all PASSes are feasible, citing the requirement that the PASS program be liberally interpreted. One PASS preparer told us, for example, that the PASS program is an individual’s opportunity “to pursue their dream.” Another said he encourages his clients to “shoot for the stars” when developing a PASS. Staff in at least nine SSA field offices we visited said that they felt pressured by third-party PASS preparers to approve PASSes. A few third-party preparers said they use tactics such as repeated calls to SSA field offices, involvement of advocacy groups, publicity, and letters to local congressional representatives to pressure field office staff to approve plans. Tension between PASS preparers and SSA field office staff may also arise because PASS preparers sometimes get paid their fee only if a PASS is approved. SSA has no internal controls to prevent conflicts of interest on the part of third-party preparers. For example, some PASS preparers also provide vocational and rehabilitation services for people with disabilities, and may write PASSes to pay for the services they also provide. We saw plans, for example, written to fund job coaching or independent living services provided by the agency developing the PASS. SSA is aware of and is trying to address some, but not all, of the internal control weaknesses present in the PASS program. Many are detailed in a 1994 internal SSA PASS program strategy paper. In addition, SSA issued new POMS guidance on the PASS program in January 1995 in an attempt to provide field office staff with better control over the program. Nonetheless, field office staff in nearly every office we visited reported that SSA’s guidance on administering the PASS program still does not provide them with enough specifics for approving and denying plans. In September 1994, SSA assembled a work group to address various PASS program issues, including the role of third-party PASS preparers and field office staff’s evaluation of plans. This group reconvened in August 1995 to review data from an internal SSA study of the PASS program conducted by the Office of Program Integrity Review and to address several related policy issues stemming from this study. SSA officials responsible for the PASS program told us they are currently considering a number of regulatory and policy options resulting from this group. In the near future, SSA plans to disseminate materials to educate PASS program participants and third-party preparers about PASS rules and responsibilities, but this will not address the issues of third-party preparer qualifications, services provided, fees charged, or conflicts of interest. SSA has done a poor job implementing and managing the PASS program. The PASS program is small, comprising less than three-tenths of 1 percent of the working-age disabled SSI population; however, SSA pays about $30 million in additional cash benefits to PASS program participants annually, not including medical and other benefits. Moreover, the large potential for future growth merits attention now to serious management and internal control weaknesses. As a result of the PASS program’s design, more than 40 percent of all program participants had income, primarily DI benefits, that exceeded SSI standards and used their PASS to gain eligibility for federal SSI payments. These individuals maximize their federal benefits while participating in the PASS program, but almost none leave the DI rolls as a result of work. In addition, SSA has allowed PASS preparation and monitoring fees paid to third parties to be disregarded when calculating benefit amounts and has neither placed limits on the amount of such fees nor set standards for what services those fees should cover. Administrative action on these issues by SSA may well result in legal challenge because of SSA’s long-standing practices of allowing DI beneficiaries to use the PASS program as a means for gaining SSI eligibility and of allowing fees to third-party preparers as PASS expenses. SSA has not translated the Congress’ broad goals for the PASS work incentive into a coherent program design, and it has not provided adequate criteria or guidance to field offices charged with administering the program. In following the congressional directive that the work incentive be “liberally construed,” SSA has placed few limits on the program, such as stringent criteria for assessing whether an individual PASS work goal is feasible and whether proposed expenses are appropriate. SSA has also not developed outcome measures to evaluate the program’s effect on participants’ return to work. At the same time, field office staff who administer the PASS program receive inadequate training, information, and credit for this task. Finally, SSA has not addressed internal control weaknesses that have left the program vulnerable to abuse and undermined program integrity. The PASS program lacks even minimal controls to provide reasonable assurance that additional funds are being spent appropriately and to safeguard against fraud and abuse. Currently, the lack of a standardized application form or compliance review process results in inconsistent and inequitable implementation, and insufficient guidelines on expenditures and lack of penalties for willful noncompliance make the PASS program a potential target for abuse. Further, while third-party PASS preparers may play an important role in assisting disability benefit recipients, some of the services provided and fees received could create conflicts of interest and additional potential for abuse. Through its recently assembled work group, SSA is planning to address some of the design and internal control weaknesses we identified, but it is too early to determine whether SSA’s actions will be effective. The Congress may wish to consider whether individuals otherwise financially ineligible for SSI because their DI benefits or other income exceeds the eligibility threshold should continue to gain eligibility for SSI through the PASS program. SSA needs to make major improvements in the management of the PASS program to achieve more consistent administration, better support field staff, collect data sufficient to control and evaluate the program, and provide internal controls against program waste and abuse. We recommend that the Commissioner take the following actions, or, if necessary, seek legislation to do the following: clarify the goals of the PASS program; decide whether fees paid to third parties should continue to be disregarded when calculating benefit payment amounts and whether the amount of disregarded fees should be capped; standardize the PASS program, including the application, reporting guidelines on expenditures for compliance reviews, and informational and educational materials for PASS preparers; improve support to field staff, including enhancing their ability to evaluate the feasibility of proposed work goals, and requiring PASSes to incorporate additional data relevant to determining their feasibility, including the applicant’s disability, previous work experience, if any, and education; gather additional management data on PASS program participation and impact, and use these data to evaluate the impact of PASS program participation on employment; and strengthen internal controls by establishing more specific guidelines on acceptable PASS expenditures, developing penalties for willful noncompliance with the PASS program, including a determination of whether subsequent plans are permissible, examining the role of third-party preparers, including their potential financial conflicts of interest, and considering the strength of existing safeguards against abuse when determining the appropriate limits on the length and number of PASSes individual participants may have. SSA generally concurred with our recommendations, and cited in its comments actions it intends to take to address them, including such actions as developing a standardized application form and providing improved support to field office staff. We deleted a recommendation in our draft report regarding the work credit field office staff receive for PASS tasks, because of the progress SSA has made in this area. SSA commented that it had limited statutory authority to address all of our recommendations. As we had stated in our recommendations, SSA may find it necessary to seek legislation to implement program changes. More details on SSA’s specific proposed actions are included in appendix VI, as well as a full copy of SSA’s comments and our response.

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Social Security Administration's (SSA) Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS) Program, focusing on: (1) SSA management of the program and its impact on employment of the disabled; and (2) the program's vulnerability to abuse. GAO found that: (1) SSA has poorly implemented and managed the PASS program and has not given its field office staff adequate program guidance, support, or training; (2) the diversity of individual plans' goals and expenditures reflects the diversity of the disability population; (3) the PASS program has grown over the past 5 years as program awareness has increased, and further growth is predicted because millions of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Disability Insurance (DI) beneficiaries are eligible; (4) about 40 percent of PASS program participants, who are mainly DI beneficiaries, would not be eligible for SSI benefits if some of their income was not excluded under PASS; (5) the impact of the PASS program cannot be accurately determined because SSA does not have basic data on program participation and has not defined clear program goals; (6) former PASS participants are more likely than other SSI beneficiaries to have earnings that reduce their SSI benefits, but few have left the SSI and DI rolls; (7) PASS participation increases SSI benefit outlays by about $30 million annually; (8) the PASS program is vulnerable to abuse because internal controls are weak, guidelines are vague, applications are not uniform, there is no limit on individuals' participation, compliance monitoring is infrequent and nonstandardized, and few penalties exist for willful noncompliance; and (9) SSA has not addressed the potential financial conflicts of interest caused by professional PASS preparers.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, 42U.S.C. § 5121 et seq. , is designed to provide a means by which the federal government maysupplement state and local resources in major disasters or emergencies where those state and localresources have been or will be overwhelmed. The Act provides separate but similar mechanisms fordeclaration of a major disaster and for declaration of an emergency. Except to the extent that anemergency involves primarily federal interests, both declarations of major disaster and declarationsof emergency must be triggered by a request to the President from the Governor of the affected state. The pertinent provisions with respect to such declarations are set forth in Section 401 of the StaffordAct, 42 U.S.C. § 5170, with respect to major disasters declarations and in Section 501 of the StaffordAct, 42 U.S.C. § 5191, with respect to emergency declarations: § 5170. Procedure fordeclaration All requests for a declaration by the President that amajor disaster exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected State. Such a request shall bebased on a finding that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response isbeyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments and that Federal assistanceis necessary. As part of such request, and as a prerequisite to major disaster assistance under thischapter, the Governor shall take appropriate response action under State law and direct executionof the State's emergency plan. The Governor shall furnish information on the nature and amount ofState and local resources which have been or will be committed to alleviating the results of thedisaster, and shall certify that, for the current disaster, State and local government obligations andexpenditures (of which State commitments must be a significant proportion) will comply with allapplicable cost-sharing requirements of this chapter. Based on the request of a Governor under thissection, the President may declare under this chapter that a major disaster or emergency exists. (1) § 5191. Procedure fordeclaration (a) Request anddeclaration All requests for a declaration by the President that anemergency exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected State. Such a request shall be basedon a finding that the situation is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond thecapabilities of the State and the affected local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary.As a part of such request, and as a prerequisite to emergency assistance under this chapter, theGovernor shall take appropriate action under State law and direct execution of the State's emergencyplan. The Governor shall furnish information describing the State and local efforts and resourceswhich have been or will be used to alleviate the emergency, and will define the type and extent ofFederal aid required. Based upon such Governor's request, the President may declare that anemergency exists. (b) Certain emergencies involving Federal primaryresponsibility The President mayexercise any authority vested in him by section 5192 of this title or section 5193 of this title withrespect to an emergency when he determines that an emergency exists for which the primaryresponsibility for response rests with the United States because the emergency involves a subject areafor which, under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the United States exercises exclusiveor preeminent responsibility and authority. In determining whether or not such an emergency exists,the President shall consult the Governor of any affected State, if practicable. The President'sdetermination may be made without regard to subsection (a) of this section. (2) When an incident occurs or is imminent which the state official responsible for disasteroperations determines may exceed state and local response capabilities, the state will request theFEMA Regional Director to perform a joint FEMA-state preliminary damage assessment (PDA). This provides a means to determine the impact and magnitude of damage and resulting unmet needsof individuals, businesses, the public sector, and the affected community as a whole. Informationcollected in this way is used by the state as a basis for the Governor's request for a presidentialproclamation and by FEMA to document its recommendation to the President in response to theGovernor's request. The requirement for a joint PDA may be waived for those incidents of unusualseverity and magnitude that do not require field damage assessments to determine that supplementalfederal assistance will be needed, or in other situations determined by the Regional Director inconsultation with the State. An assessment may still be needed to determine unmet needs formanagerial response purposes. (3) Once a request from the Governor of an affected state is received by the FEMA RegionalDirector whose region covers that state, the Regional Director provides a written acknowledgmentof receipt of the request. Based on the joint PDA(s) and consultation with appropriate state andfederal officials and other interested parties, the Regional Director then promptly prepares asummary of the PDA findings. An analysis of this information, including an examination of stateand local resources and capabilities and other assistance available to meet the needs associated withthe emergency or major disaster, is submitted with a recommendation to the Director of the RecoveryDivision of FEMA. (4) Based on available information, the Director of FEMA makes a recommendation on the Governor'srequest to the President. A major disaster recommendation is based upon a finding that the situationis or is not of such severity and magnitude as to be beyond the capabilities of the state and localgovernments. It also contains a determination of whether or not supplemental federal Stafford Actassistance is necessary and appropriate. (5) An emergency recommendation is based on a report indicatingwhether or not federal emergency assistance is necessary to supplement state and local efforts to savelives, protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe. FEMA will only recommend an emergency declaration if it has been determined that all otherresources and authorities to meet the crisis are inadequate and that Stafford Act emergency assistancewould be appropriate. A modified federal emergency recommendation would be made based on areport as to whether an emergency does or does not exist for which Stafford Act emergencyassistance would be appropriate. Such a recommendation would not be forthcoming in situationswhere the authority to respond or coordinate is within the jurisdiction of one or more federalagencies without a Presidential declaration. A modified federal emergency recommendation byFEMA for an emergency declaration by the President would not be foreclosed by other federalagency involvement if there are significant unmet needs of sufficient severity and magnitude, notaddressed by other assistance, which could appropriately be addressed under the Stafford Act. (6) The President may respond to a Governor's request for a declaration of a major disaster bya declaration of an emergency, a declaration of a major disaster, or a denial of the request. Inresponse to a Governor's request for a declaration of emergency, the President's options are limitedto declaration of an emergency or denial of the request. (7) A denial of a declaration request may be appealed within 30 daysof the date of the denial letter, submitted with additional information to the President through theRegional Director. (8) Anextension of the time limit may be sought within the 30 day time frame from the Director of theRecovery Division upon written request citing the reasons for the delay. (9) Once the decision is made, the FEMA Director or his or her designee must promptly notifythe Governor. If the President has declared a major disaster or an emergency, FEMA must alsonotify other federal agencies and interested parties. Following either type of declaration, theRegional Director or Director of the Recovery Division (10) is to promptly notify the Governor of the designations ofassistance and of the areas eligible for such assistance. (11) The determinations of the types of assistance to be madeavailable and the areas eligible to receive such assistance are made by the Director of the RecoveryDivision of FEMA. (12) A denial of the types of assistance or areas eligible to receive assistance may be made in writingwithin 30 days of the date of the denial letter, accompanied with justification and/or additionalinformation to the Director, Recovery Division, through the Regional Director. (13) The Director of theRecovery Division may extend the time for filing the appeal upon written request received duringthe 30 day time frame citing reasons for the delay. (14) Once a declaration of an emergency or a major disaster is made by the President, the Directorof FEMA, or, in his absence the Deputy Director or the Director, Recovery Division, must appointa Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) who shall immediately initiate action to assure that federalassistance is provided in accordance with the declaration, applicable laws and regulations, and theFEMA-state agreement entered into pursuant to 44 C.F.R. §206.44. The FEMA Regional Directorwill designate a Disaster Recovery Manager to exercise all of the Regional Director's authority ina major disaster or emergency. Once a declaration is made, the Governor is to designate a StateCoordinating Officer to coordinate state and local assistance efforts with federal efforts. TheGovernor's Authorized Representative designated by the Governor in the FEMA-state agreement isto administer federal disaster assistance programs on behalf of the state and local governments andother grant or loan recipients and is also responsible for state compliance with the FEMA-stateagreement. (15) TheFCO's responsibilities following a declaration of a major disaster or emergency are to: (a) . . . (1) Make an initial appraisal of the types ofassistance most urgently needed; (2) Incoordinationwith the SCO,establish fieldoffices andDisasterApplicationCenters asnecessary tocoordinate andmonitorassistanceprograms,disseminateinformation,acceptapplications,and counselindividuals,families andbusinessesconcerningavailableassistance; (3) Coordinatetheadministrationof relief,includingactivities ofState and localgovernments,activities ofFederalagencies, andthose of theAmerican RedCross, theSalvationArmy, theMennoniteDisasterService, andother voluntaryrelieforganizationswhich agree tooperate underthe FCO'sadvice anddirection; (4) Undertakeappropriateaction to makecertain that allof the Federalagencies arecarrying outtheirappropriatedisasterassistance rolesunder theirown legislativeauthorities andoperationalpolicies; and (5) Take otheraction,consistent withthe provisionsof the StaffordAct, asnecessary toassist citizensand publicofficials inpromptlyobtainingassistance towhich they areentitled. (b) The SCOcoordinates State and local disaster assistance efforts with those of the Federal Government workingclosely with the FCO. The SCO is the principal point of contact regarding coordination of State andlocal disaster relief activities, and implementation of the State emergency plan. The functions,responsibilities, and authorities of the SCO are set forth in the State emergency plan. It is theresponsibility of the SCO to ensure that all affected local jurisdictions are informed of thedeclaration, the types of assistance authorized, and the areas eligible to receive such assistance. The FCO may activate emergency support teams of federal program and support personnel to bedeployed to the affected areas to assist the FCO in carrying out his or her Stafford Actresponsibilities. (16) If the Governor so requests, the Director of the Recovery Division of FEMA (17) may lend or advance to thestate, either for its own use or for the use of public or private nonprofit applicants for disasterassistance under the Stafford Act, the portion of assistance for which the state or other eligibledisaster assistance applicant is responsible under the cost-sharing provisions (18) in any case in which: (1) The State or other eligible disaster assistanceapplicant is unable to assume their financial responsibility under such cost sharing provisions: (i) As a resultof concurrent,multiple majordisasters in ajurisdiction, or (ii) Afterincurringextraordinarycosts as aresult of aparticulardisaster; (2) The damagescaused by such disasters or disaster are so overwhelming and severe that it is not possible for theState or other eligible disaster assistance applicant to immediately assume their financialresponsibility under the Act; and (3) The State and theother eligible disaster applicants are not delinquent in payment of any debts to FEMA incurred asa result of Presidentially declared major disasters or emergencies. Such loans must be repaid to the United States with interest, and the Governor must include arepayment schedule as part of the request for the advance. (19) Denial of a Governor'srequest for an advance of a non-federal share may be appealed in writing within 30 days of the dateof the denial letter accompanied by justification and/or additional information sent to the Directorof the Recovery Division through the Regional Director. (20) The Director of the Recovery Division may extend the time forfiling upon written request filed with reasons for the delay within the original 30 day timeperiod. (21) Eligibility for disaster assistance begins on the date of the occurrence of the event whichresults in a declaration a major disaster exists, except that reasonable expenses incurred inanticipation of and immediately preceding the event may also be eligible for federal assistance. (22) A major disasterdeclaration by the President opens the door to two types of federal disaster assistance: general federalassistance under Section 402(a) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5170a, and essential federalassistance under Section 403 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5170b. These provide: § 5170a. General Federal assistance In any major disaster, the President may -- (1) direct any Federalagency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize its authorities and the resources granted to it underFederal law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and managerial, technical, andadvisory services) in support of State and local assistance efforts; (2) coordinate alldisaster relief assistance (including voluntary assistance) provided by Federal agencies, privateorganizations, and State and local governments; (3) provide technicaland advisory assistance to affected State and local governments for -- (A) theperformance ofessentialcommunityservices; (B) issuance ofwarnings ofrisks andhazards; (C) public health and safety information,including dissemination of such information; (D) provisionof health andsafetymeasures; and (E)management,control, andreduction ofimmediatethreats topublic healthand safety; and (4) assist State andlocal governments in the distribution of medicine, food, and other consumable supplies, andemergency assistance. § 5170b. Essentialassistance (a) In general Federal agencies mayon the direction of the President, provide assistance essential to meeting immediate threats to life andproperty resulting from a major disaster, as follows: (1) Federalresources,generally Utilizing, lending, or donating to State andlocal governments Federal equipment,supplies, facilities, personnel, and otherresources, other than the extension of credit,for use or distribution by such governments inaccordance with the purposes of this chapter. (2) Medicine,food, and otherconsumables Distributing orrenderingthrough Stateand localgovernments,the AmericanNational RedCross, theSalvationArmy, theMennoniteDisasterService, andother relief anddisasterassistanceorganizationsmedicine,food, and otherconsumablesupplies, andother servicesand assistanceto disastervictims. (3) Work andservices tosave lives andprotectproperty Performing onpublic orprivate lands orwaters anywork orservicesessential tosaving livesand protectingand preservingproperty orpublic healthand safety,including -- (A)debrisremoval; (B)searchandrescue,emergencymedical care,emergencymasscare,emergencyshelter,andprovision offood,water,medicine, andotheressentialneeds,includingmovement ofsupplies orpersons; (C)clearance ofroadsandconstruction oftemporarybridgesnecessary totheperformanceofemergencytasksandessentialcommunityservices; (D)provision oftemporaryfacilities forschoolsandotheressentialcommunityservices; (E)demolition ofunsafestructureswhichendanger thepublic; (F)warning offurtherrisksandhazards; (G)disseminationofpublicinformationandassistanceregardinghealthandsafetymeasures; (H)provision oftechnicaladviceto Stateandlocalgovernmentsondisastermanagementandcontrol;and (I)reduction ofimmediatethreatsto life,property, andpublichealthandsafety. (4)Contributions Making contributions to State or localgovernments or owners or operators of privatenonprofit facilities for the purpose of carryingout the provisions of this subsection. (b) Federal share The Federal shareof assistance under this section shall be not less than 75 percent of the eligible cost of suchassistance. (c) Utilization ofDOD resources (1) Generalrule During theimmediateaftermath of anincident whichmay ultimatelyqualify forassistanceunder thissubchapter orsubchapterIV-A of thischapter, theGovernor ofthe State inwhich suchincidentoccurred mayrequest thePresident todirect theSecretary ofDefense toutilize theresources ofthe Departmentof Defense forthe purpose ofperforming onpublic andprivate landsany emergencywork which ismadenecessary bysuch incidentand which isessential forthepreservation oflife andproperty. If thePresidentdetermines thatsuch work isessential forthepreservation oflife andproperty, thePresident shallgrant suchrequest to theextent thePresidentdeterminespracticable.Suchemergencywork may onlybe carried outfor a period notto exceed 10days. (2) Rulesapplicable todebris removal Any removalof debris andwreckagecarried outunder thissubsectionshall be subjectto section5173(b) of thistitle, relating tounconditionalauthorizationandindemnification for debrisremoval. (3)Expendituresout of disasterrelief funds The cost of anyassistanceprovidedpursuant to thissubsectionshall bereimbursed outof funds madeavailable tocarry out thischapter. (4) Federalshare The Federalshare ofassistanceunder thissubsectionshall be notless than 75percent. (5) Guidelines Not later than180 days afterNovember 23,1988, thePresident shallissueguidelines forcarrying outthis subsection.Suchguidelinesshall considerany likelyeffectassistanceunder thissubsection willhave on theavailability ofother forms ofassistanceunder thischapter. (6) Definitions For purposesof this section-- (A)Department ofDefense The term "Department of Defense" hasthe meaning the term "department" hasunder section 101 of Title 10. (B)Emergencywork Theterm"emergencywork"includesclearance andremoval ofdebrisandwreckage andtemporaryrestoration ofessentialpublicfacilities andservices. (23) The declaration of an emergency by the President makes federal emergency assistanceavailable. The pertinent statutory provision, Section 502 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5192,states: § 5192. Federal emergency assistance (a) Specified In any emergency, the President may -- (1) direct anyFederalagency, with orwithoutreimbursement, to utilize itsauthorities andthe resourcesgranted to itunder Federallaw (includingpersonnel,equipment,supplies,facilities, andmanagerial,technical andadvisoryservices) insupport ofState and localemergencyassistanceefforts to savelives, protectproperty andpublic healthand safety, andlessen or avertthe threat of acatastrophe; (2) coordinateall disasterreliefassistance(includingvoluntaryassistance)provided byFederalagencies,privateorganizations,and State andlocalgovernments; (3) providetechnical andadvisoryassistance toaffected Stateand localgovernmentsfor -- (A) theperformanceofessentialcommunityservices; (B)issuance ofwarnings ofrisks orhazards; (C)publichealthandsafetyinformation,includingdisseminationof suchinformation; (D) provision of health and safetymeasures; and (E)management,control,andreduction ofimmediatethreatstopublichealthandsafety; (4) provide emergency assistance throughFederalagencies; (5) remove debris in accordance with theterms and conditions of section 5173 of thistitle; (6) provide assistance in accordance withsection 5174 of this title; and (7) assist Stateand localgovernments inthe distributionof medicine,food, and otherconsumablesupplies, andemergencyassistance. (b) General Whenever theFederal assistance provided under subsection (a) of this section with respect to an emergency isinadequate, the President may also provide assistance with respect to efforts to save lives, protectproperty and public health and safety, and lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe. The Stafford Act includes specific provisions dealing with hazard mitigation, 42 U.S.C. §5170c; repair, reconstruction, restoration, or replacement of United States facilities, 42 U.S.C. §5171; repair, reconstruction, restoration, or replacement of damaged state, local, or private nonprofitfacilities, 42 U.S.C. § 5172; debris removal, 42 U.S.C. § 5173; federal assistance to individuals andhouseholds, 42 U.S.C. § 5174; unemployment assistance, 42 U.S.C. § 5177; emergency grants toassist low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers, 42 U.S.C. § 5177a; food coupons anddistribution, 42 U.S.C. § 5179; food commodities, 42 U.S.C. § 5180; relocation assistance, 42 U.S.C.§ 5181; legal services, 42 U.S.C. § 5182; crisis counseling assistance and training, 42 U.S.C. § 5183;community disaster loans, 42 U.S.C. § 5184; (24) emergency communications, 42 U.S.C. § 5185; emergency publictransportation, 42 U.S.C. § 5186; fire management assistance, 42 U.S.C. § 5187; and timber sharingcontracts, 42 U.S.C. § 5188. Each of these statutory provisions specifies the circumstances to whichit applies. The Stafford Act provides for appeals of assistance decisions within 60 days after the dateon which the applicant for assistance is notified of the award or denial of award of the assistance. A decision on an appeal is to be made within 90 days of the date the official designated to administersuch appeals received notice of the appeal. (25)

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288 , asamended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206, and implementing regulations in 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.31-206.48,provide the statutory framework for a Presidential declaration of an emergency or a declaration ofa major disaster. Such declarations open the way for a wide range of federal resources to be madeavailable to assist in dealing with the emergency or major disaster involved. The Stafford Actstructure for the declaration process reflects the fact that federal resources under this act supplementstate and local resources for disaster relief and recovery. Except in the case of an emergencyinvolving a subject area that is exclusively or preeminently in the federal purview, the Governor ofan affected state, or Acting Governor if the Governor is not available, must request such adeclaration by the President. This report will review the statutory and regulatory requirementsapplicable to the affected state seeking the declaration and to the Presidential declaration, and willnote the different types of resources that may be made available in the response to the two types ofdeclarations. This report will updated as needed.

Sonoma County sheriff's deputies shot and killed a 13-year-old boy Tuesday afternoon during an encounter in a southwest Santa Rosa neighborhood. The boy's father, Rodrigo Lopez, identified the teen as Andy Lopez and said he had been carrying a toy gun that belonged to a friend. Santa Rosa and Petaluma police detectives are investigating the shooting. Interviews were conducted throughout Tuesday night, Santa Rosa Lt. Paul Henry said Wednesday morning. Fatal Deputy-Involved Santa Rosa Shooting Santa Rosa Police Lt. Lance Badger holds an actual AK-47, right, next to the replica "airsoft" carried by Andy Lopez, 13, when he was shot and killed by a Sonoma County sheriff's deputy on Tuesday. The guns were displayed during a press conference in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (John Burgess / The Press Democrat) Santa Rosa Police Lt. Lance Badger holds an actual AK-47, left, next to the replica "airsoft" carried by Andy Lopez, 13, when he was shot and killed by a Sonoma County sheriff's deputy on Tuesday. The guns were displayed during a press conference led by Lt. Paul Henry, left, in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (John Burgess / The Press Democrat) Santa Rosa Police Lt. Lance Badger holds an actual AK-47, left, next to the replica "airsoft" carried by Andy Lopez, 13, when he was shot and killed by a Sonoma County sheriff's deputy on Tuesday. The guns were displayed during a press conference in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (John Burgess / The Press Democrat) Santa Rosa Police Lt. Paul Henry holds a press conference about the Sonoma County sheriff's office shooting of Andy Lopez, 13, on Tuesday. A Sonoma County deputy confronted and shot Lopez, who was carrying a replica AK-47 "airsoft" rifle. (John Burgess / The Press Democrat) Santa Rosa Police Lt. Paul Henry holds a press conference about the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office shooting of Andy Lopez, 13, on Tuesday. A Sonoma County deputy confronted and shot Lopez, who was carrying a replica AK-47 "airsoft" rifle. (John Burgess / The Press Democrat) Santa Rosa Police Lt. Paul Henry holds a press conference about the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office shooting of Andy Lopez, 13, on Tuesday. A Sonoma County deputy confronted and shot Lopez, who was carrying a replica AK-47 "airsoft" rifle. (John Burgess / The Press Democrat) Parents Sujey Annel Cruz Cazarez, left, and Rodrigo Lopez mourn their son Andy Lopez, 13, Wednesday Oct. 23, 2013, a day after he was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies at Moorland and West Robles avenues in southwest Santa Rosa. Behind them are friends and classmates from Cook Middle School. (Kent Porter / Press Democrat) Rodrigo Lopez comforts his wife, Sujey Annel Cruz Cazerez, at an impromptu gathering in front of Santa Rosa City Hall on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. Their son Andy Lopez was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies Tuesday afternoon on Moorland Avenue in Santa Rosa. (Kent Porter / Press Democrat) Christina Avila, left, comforts Magaly Bejaran, a friend and classmate of Andy Lopez, 13, following a press conference by Santa Rosa police at the Finley Community Center in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (Christopher Chung / The Press Democrat) Ryan Podesta, owner of Thirty First Outfitters, an airsoft and paintball store, holds an airsoft BB gun designed to look like a Glock 18C, at his store in Cotati on Oct. 23, 2013. (Alvin Jornada / The Press Democrat) Ryan Podesta, owner of Thirty First Outfitters, airsoft and paintball supplies store, holds an AK-47-style airsoft rifle at his store in Cotati on Oct. 23, 2013. Podesta, a professional paintball player, also owns Playland, an airsoft, Lazer Tag, and paintball arena and field with locations in Cotati and Petaluma. (Alvin Jornada / The Press Democrat) A picture of Andy Lopez, 13, is shown on his father's phone on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. Lopez was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies after being seen carrying what appeared to be a pellet gun modeled after an AK-47. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Law enforcement investigators photograph the body of a 13-year-old boy was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) An image released by the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office shows the toy or replica gun that Andy Lopez, 13, was carrying when he was shot and killed by two sheriff's deputies. (SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ) Family and friends of 13-year-old Andy Lopez walk holding hands to his home after Sonoma County sheriff's deputies shot and killed the teenager on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Law enforcement investigators walk by the body of a 13-year-old boy who was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Investigators in a CHP helicopter take video and photos of the crime scene where a 13-year-old boy was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Police officers from the Santa Rosa Police Department leave the home of 13-year-old Andy Lopez who was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Officers explain why residents cannot return to their home while investigating a deputy-involved shooting near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Law enforcement officers speak with EMTs on the scene of a deputy-involved shooting near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Law enforcement investigators cover the body of a 13-year-old boy shot and killed by Sonoma County deputies near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Officers from the Santa Rosa Police Department leave the home of 13-year-old Andy Lopez who was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Law enforcement officials investigate the scene of a deputy-involved shooting near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) A school bus stuck along Moorland Avenue finally leaves past the a crime scene where 13-year-old boy was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Officers from the Santa Rosa Police Department leave the home of 13-year-old Andy Lopez who was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Law enforcement investigators cover the body of a 13-year-old boy was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) An EMT waits by the scene of a deputy-involved shooting near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Officers from the Santa Rosa Police Department leave the home of 13-year-old Andy Lopez who was shot and killed by Sonoma County sheriff's deputies earlier in the day on Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013. (CONNER JAY/ PD ) Cook Middle School students mourn the death of eighth grader Andy Lopez, who was shot and killed in an encounter with Sonoma County sheriff's deputies Tuesday. Photo taken in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (BETH SCHLANKER/ PD ) Cook Middle School students mourn the death of eighth grader Andy Lopez, who was shot and killed in an encounter with Sonoma County sheriff's deputies Tuesday. Photo taken in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (BETH SCHLANKER/ PD ) Cook Middle School students mourn the death of eighth grader Andy Lopez, who was shot and killed in an encounter with Sonoma County sheriff's deputies Tuesday. Photo taken in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (BETH SCHLANKER/ PD ) Maria Chavez comforts her daughter Yaritza Ramirez, 14, as they visit a makeshift memorial for Andy Lopez, 13, in an empty lot near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Ros on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (BETH SCHLANKER/ PD ) Maria Sanchez places roses at a makeshift memorial for Andy Lopez, 13, in an empty lot near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (BETH SCHLANKER/ PD ) Maria Lopez holds flowers near a makeshift memorial for Andy Lopez, 13, in front of a number of television new trucks in an empty lot near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (BETH SCHLANKER/ PD ) A cross of candles was placed at a makeshift memorial for Andy Lopez, 13, in an empty lot near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (BETH SCHLANKER/ PD ) A makeshift memorial for Andy Lopez, 13, was started in an empty lot near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (BETH SCHLANKER/ PD ) Anselmo Villegas walks his 10-month-old granddaughter, Cindy Villegas, on their usual route past a makeshift memorial for Andy Lopez, 13, in an empty lot near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (BETH SCHLANKER/ PD) Anselmo Villegas walks his 10-month-old granddaughter, Cindy Villegas, on their usual route past a makeshift memorial for Andy Lopez, 13, in an empty lot near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (BETH SCHLANKER/ PD ) Ezau Ruiz holds a plastic pellet gun a makeshift memorial for Andy Lopez, 13, in an empty lot near the corner of Moorland and West Robles avenues in Santa Rosa on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2013. (BETH SCHLANKER/ PD ) X Police officials were meeting Wednesday morning to get debriefed on the investigation and then planned to release more information, Henry said. Sheriff's officials early Wednesday declined to comment on the case, referring questions to Santa Rosa police. The names of the deputies involved also haven't been released. They've been placed on administrative leave, which is standard in such cases. It was unclear Tuesday whether the rifle, which sheriff's officials characterized as a replica, was capable of firing BBs or other projectiles. Rodrigo Lopez said the last time he saw his son was Tuesday morning before he left for work. “I told him what I tell him every day,” he said in Spanish, standing in the doorway of his mobile home near Moorland Avenue and Todd Road. “Behave yourself.” The family had just returned home at about 9:15 p.m. from identifying Andy Lopez's body. The boy's mother, Sujey Annel Cruz Cazarez, was grief-stricken in the living room. “Why did they kill him? Why?” she said. At 3 p.m., two sheriff's deputies patrolling in the area of Moorland and West Robles avenues observed Lopez walking with what sheriff's officials said appeared to be some type of rifle. View as one page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next (page 2 of 4) The deputies called for backup and repeatedly ordered the boy to drop the rifle, Sheriff's Lt. Dennis O'Leary said in a news release. At some point after the deputies told Lopez to drop the rifle, they fired several rounds from their handguns at the boy, who was hit multiple times, O'Leary said. After telling Lopez to move away from the rifle, deputies approached the unresponsive teen as he lay on the ground and handcuffed him before administering first aid and calling for medical assistance, O'Leary said. Lopez was later pronounced dead at the scene. Neither deputy was injured, said Sheriff's Lt. Steve Brown. Sheriff's officials did not release the names of the deputies Tuesday, but said both had been placed on administrative leave. After securing the scene, deputies discovered the rifle the teen was carrying was a replica of an assault weapon, O'Leary said. Deputies also found a plastic handgun in the teen's waistband. The shooting took place at the edge of a field. The area was cordoned off for hours with yellow police tape. An ambulance and numerous patrol cars from both the Santa Rosa Police Department and Sheriff's Office surrounded the area. Moorland Avenue was initially closed from West Robles to Corby avenues. Neither the Sheriff's Office, nor the Santa Rosa Police Department, which is leading the investigation into the shooting, would release the boy's name Tuesday. Eduardo Diaz, a friend of Rodrigo Lopez, said Tuesday evening that he received a phone call and learned the boy was dead. Diaz said the boy's family lived near the corner of Todd Road and Moorland Avenue. The family said the boy recently attended Cook Middle School but had transferred to another school. Moorland Avenue was blocked at Todd Road late Tuesday night. At a little after 9 p.m., a police investigator's SUV pulled up to the family's home, a mobile home located on a property that has at least two other homes. The boy's mother, distraught and in tears, came out of the SUV accompanied by someone who appeared to be a family member. View as one page Prev 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next (page 3 of 4) She walked back to her home escorted by police investigators. Neighbors said she had been taken to identify the body of her son. Two law enforcement chaplains arrived soon afterward. The mother's cries could be heard from the dark driveway as the chaplains walked back to the residence in the rear of the property. It was unclear Tuesday whether the weapon recovered at the scene was an operational pellet or BB gun. Lopez's family called the gun a “toy,” but the Sheriff's Department's news release called it only a “replica” of an assault rifle. There are dozens of Airsoft guns on the market designed to look like real assault rifles but are electric and fire plastic, nonlethal projectiles similar to BBs. The gun recovered at the scene closely resembled an AK-47 style rifle, a replica of which can be purchased online for as little as $34.99 for a plastic version or more than $200 for ones with real metal and wood. Such guns are often used recreationally, similar to paintball guns. Ian Davis, who lives on Moorland Avenue, just north of West Robles Avenue, was on his way home, driving north on Moorland, when he encountered a sheriff's patrol car parked in the southbound lane of Moorland, the front of the car pointed in the opposite direction of traffic. Two sheriff's deputies were crouched and taking cover behind the driver's side and passenger side front doors. Davis turned right on West Robles, drove to the end of the street and then turned around and drove back to the intersection of West Robles and began shooting video of the scene. Davis said he likely pulled up moments after the shots were fired because he could see someone lying on the ground, several yards in front of the patrol car. In his video, Davis can be heard saying, “Police standoff ... gunpoint. He said, 'Don't reach for the rifle.'” Moments later, Davis says, “I don't want to be here, actually. I need to get out of here. I'm in the line of fire.” View as one page Prev 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next (page 4 of 4) As Davis quickly crosses Moorland to get away from the scene, the video shows two sheriff's deputies taking cover near their patrol car. In front of the patrol car, a body lies partially on the sidewalk and in a field of dry grass. The shooting took place just as neighborhood residents were on their way home from work and school. Others were home when they heard gunfire. “First I heard a single siren and within seconds I heard seven shots go off, sounded like a nail gun, is what I thought it was,” said Brian Zastrow, a resident on Horizon Way. “After that I heard multiple sirens.” Tuesday's incident was the third fatal officer-involved shooting in Sonoma County this year. In February, Sonoma County Sheriff's deputies shot and killed Richard Shreckengaust, 37, of Novato following a pursuit that ended near Guerneville. In June, Windsor police officers shot and killed Urbano Moreno Morales, 48, near the Windsor Town Green after he stabbed and wounded his 60-year-old former domestic partner and approached them wielding a knife. The investigation into Tuesday's shooting will be handled by the Santa Rosa and Petaluma Police departments, as well as the District Attorney's Office, sheriff's officials said. Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas and Santa Rosa Police Chief Tom Schwedhelm did not return calls late Tuesday seeking comment. Staff Writers Kevin McCallum and Julie Johnson contributed to this report. View as one page Prev 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ||||| California sheriff's officials and family members say deputies shot and killed a 13-year-old boy who was carrying a replica assault weapon. Two Sonoma County deputies saw the boy walking with the replica weapon at about 3 p.m. local time Tuesday in Santa Rosa. Lt. Dennis O'Leary says they repeatedly ordered him to drop what appeared to be a rifle before firing several rounds. The boy fell to the ground. Deputies handcuffed him and began administering first aid, but he was pronounced dead at the scene. O'Leary says deputies also found a plastic handgun in his waistband. The boy's father, Rodrigo Lopez, told the Press Democrat of Santa Rosa (http://bit.ly/1h8bWbt) the victim was his 13-year-old son, Andy. The deputies have not been identified. ___ Information from: The Santa Rosa Press Democrat, http://www.pressdemocrat.com

A 13-year-old boy in Santa Rosa, California, is dead after deputies mistook the replica assault rifle he was carrying for the real thing, reports the AP. Two deputies encountered Andy Lopez walking yesterday afternoon with what looked like an AK-47, reports the local Press Democrat. Police say they repeatedly ordered the youth to drop the weapon and opened fire when he didn't do so. It was only after the teen was fatally shot that deputies learned the assault rifle was a replica, as was the plastic handgun in his waistband. The shooting is under investigation.

It takes an average of 15 years from the moment a manufacturer first approaches the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with an idea for a new drug to its final approval for marketing. Steps in the development and approval of a drug or biologic (e.g., a vaccine) involve actions by both the manufacturer and FDA. First, a manufacturer (sometimes referred to as the sponsor) submits to FDA an Investigational New Drug (IND) application for permission to conduct clinical studies in humans. Second, the manufacturer completes Phase I, II, and III clinical trials to establish that a product is safe and effective for a specific purpose and population. Third, the manufacturer submits to FDA a New Drug Application or a Biologics Licensing Application (noted as NDA/BLA throughout this report) for permission to market the product. Fourth, FDA reviews the NDA/BLA for evidence of safety and effectiveness, a process that sometimes includes requests to the sponsor for additional information, the sponsor's response, and further FDA review. Finally, FDA decides whether to approve the application. For drugs and biologics that address unmet needs or serious diseases or conditions, FDA regularly uses three formal mechanisms to expedite the development and review process: Fast Track product development, Priority Review, and Accelerated Approval. This report briefly describes (in text and in Table 1 ) those mechanisms, including their intended effects and statutory and regulatory bases, and examines whether Fast Track accomplishes two goals: making approval more likely and shortening approval time. For the treatment of a serious or life-threatening illness, FDA regulations, promulgated in 1992, allow "accelerated approval" of a drug or biologic product that provides a "meaningful therapeutic benefit ... over existing treatments." The rule covers two situations. The first allows approval to be based on clinical trials that, rather than using standard outcome measures such as survival or disease progression, use "a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely ... to predict clinical benefit." The second situation addresses drugs whose use could be deemed safe and effective only under set restrictions that could include limited prescribing or dispensing. FDA usually requires postmarketing studies of products approved this way. Accelerated Approval involves different concerns than do the other programs designed to speed the normal process for important new products, and therefore this paper will not discuss it further. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA, P.L. 105-115 ) directed the Secretary to create a mechanism whereby FDA could designate as "Fast Track" certain products that met two criteria. First, the product must concern a serious or life-threatening condition; second, it has to have the potential to address an unmet medical need. Once FDA grants a Fast Track designation, it encourages the manufacturer to meet with the agency to discuss development plans and strategies before the formal submission of an NDA/BLA. The early interaction can help clarify elements of clinical study design and presentation whose absence at NDA/BLA submission could delay approval decisions. However, FDA makes similar interactions available to any sponsor who seeks FDA consultation throughout the stages of drug development. A unique option within Fast Track is the opportunity to submit sections of an NDA/BLA to FDA as they are ready, rather than the standard requirement to submit a complete application at one time. Unlike Fast Track or Accelerated Approval, the Priority Review process begins only when a manufacturer officially submits an NDA/BLA. Priority Review, therefore, does not alter the timing or content of steps taken in a drug's development or testing for safety and effectiveness. For products believed to address unmet needs, however, it shortens the average amount of time from completed application until approval decision from 10 months to 6 months. Although Priority Review is not explicitly required by law, FDA has established it in practice, and various statutes, such as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), refer to and sometimes require it. Are products that receive Fast Track designation more likely to have their NDA/BLA approved by FDA than products that receive no such designation? The answer is we don't know, because, while FDA provides statistics on the products it designates as Fast Track, it does not make public information on the NDA/BLAs it receives unless and until the product is approved/licensed. What we do know from material on the FDA website: Manufacturers have requested Fast Track designation for 569 drugs and 195 biological products since the Fast Track program was set into law. FDA granted the designation to 74.5% of those drug requests and 63.6% of those biologics requests. Of products with Fast Track designation, FDA eventually approved 10.6% of the drugs and licensed 17.7% of the biologics. What that means is obscured by what we do not know: For what percentage of products with Fast Track designation do sponsors submit NDA/BLAs? How many NDA/BLAs submitted each year are for Fast Track products? With only the numerator (approved products), one cannot calculate the percentage of NDA/BLA submissions that are approved among Fast Track products. FDA receives approximately 100-130 applications a year, and has stated that "close to 80 percent of all filed applications will eventually be approved." The 10.6 and 17.7% figures for Fast Track are not a comparable statistic because they include the apparently large, but unquantified, number of product development attempts that manufacturers discontinue (for safety problems, lack of effectiveness, business decisions, competing projects). A useful analysis would account for the percentage of Fast Track and non-Fast Track products of which FDA is aware (e.g., that have INDs) that result in submitted NDA/BLAs. How long it takes from the time a sponsor applies for marketing permission to the moment FDA makes its decision varies greatly. The length matters to the sponsor and its stockholders, to potential consumers and healthcare providers, and to FDA. Two factors contribute to longer review times: review staff constraints at FDA, and the quality and completeness of applications when they are first submitted. PDUFA and its three reauthorizations have addressed the staffing issue by authorizing industry user fees to support FDA reviewers. FDA's Web pages on the use of its Fast Track and Priority Review programs provide the review times for successful applications. Table 2 compares the review times, by year and type of review procedure, for all 787 approved NDA/BLAs applications that were submitted from FY1998 through FY2006. These applications received either a Standard Review or a Priority Review , and the review times for these two procedures are summarized in the first two pairs of data columns in the table. The third pair of columns summarizes review times for approved NDA/BLA applications for products that received a Fast Track designation. As discussed below, most, though not all, of these 55 applications received a Priority Review and thus are counted in the Priority Review columns; the remainder are captured in the Standard Review data. The final pair of columns provide data on Priority Review times for NDAs of New Molecular Entities (NMEs) and New BLAs . These applications represent a subset of all those subject to Priority Review, and are the group of products most similar to Fast Track products. Each row of Table 2 corresponds to approved applications submitted during a specific year. The total approval time includes the time FDA spends to review an application, plus the time the sponsor takes to respond to questions, if necessary, plus the time FDA spends on any additional review. The table provides the median approval time for each submission year group, which is the value at the mid-point of times in a group. FDA uses the median in its reports, stating, "It provides a truer picture of our performance than average time, which can be unduly influenced by a few very long or short times." Fast Track submissions in theory differ from routine NDA/BLA submissions because they address unmet needs in the treatment of life-threatening or serious conditions. Similar criteria apply to drugs that FDA gives Priority Review status. In fact, 80% of Fast Track NDA approvals were also given Priority Review, as were all of the approved Fast Track BLAs. Again, FDA makes public detailed data only regarding the products that it approves/licenses. Using the data in Table 2 to determine the impact Fast Track designation has on approval time is complicated by limitations in the data available. These include the following: Inadequate data: Available FDA tables aggregate applications by year and present only the median approval time value for each year. This precludes using the individual application times in subsequent calculations. Missing data: Data available for analysis come from approved applications. Inclusion of numbers of applications and total time to review decision (approval or not) would allow examination of additional aspects of the Fast Track program that may provide advantages that do not affect total approval time. Unavailable documentation of decisions: Without detailed documentation of the many decisions embedded in the FDA summary tables, accuracy or consistency in assignment to year of submission rather than year of approval cannot be assessed. If an application is assigned to one year in the Fast Track column and to another in the All Priority column, for example, relying on the annual median approval times could distort the comparisons. Overlapping categories: The All Priority and All Standard groups sum to the total number of approved applications in each submission year. The other categories, however, overlap. By definition, the Priority NMEs and New BLAs category is a subset of the All Priority NDAs and BLAs. For the Fast Track NDAs, at least 87% are counted in the Priority NDA group and at least 68% are also counted in the Priority NME group. (FDA lists some Fast Track NME applications as assigned to Standard Review.) As expected, based on program goals, times are shorter for Priority Review than for Standard Review. For seven of the nine years, median Fast Track times were shorter than Priority Reviews, suggesting that Fast Track may have reduced time-to-market beyond the shortening of review time afforded by Priority Review. A more detailed analysis of individual application data might indicate how group differences may be due to obvious exceptions, different procedures or application completeness or quality, or unknown factors or chance. For example, how does the wide range of approval times—from 2.4 to 34.1 months—for the eight Fast Track product NDA/BLAs submitted in 2001 affect group averages? Finally, review time from submission to approval is only one measure of Fast Track effect. If a Fast Track designation enables a sponsor to submit a completed NDA/BLA sooner than it would otherwise, that advantage would not be evident in this comparison of review times that begins with submission.

By statutory requirements and by regulation, guidance, and practice, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) works with several overlapping yet distinct programs to get to market quickly new drug and biological products that address unmet needs. FDA most frequently uses three mechanisms for that purpose: Accelerated Approval, Fast Track, and Priority Review. The first two affect the development process before a sponsor submits a marketing application. Accelerated Approval allows surrogate endpoints in trials to demonstrate effectiveness and is relevant in fewer situations than the others. The Fast Track program encourages a sponsor to consult with FDA while developing a product. Unlike the others, Priority Review involves no discussions of study design or procedure; it relates only to an application's place in the review queue. Analysis of total approval time for approved applications under the Fast Track and Priority Review programs shows that for seven of the past nine years, Fast Track products have shorter median approval times than do all those applications assigned to Priority Review.

With one stroke, entrepreneur Robert R. Taylor made a fortune, changed the way America washed up and doomed the bathroom soap dish to virtual obsolescence. It was Taylor who turned hand soap from a slippery lump to a dab from a pump. Taylor, who created Softsoap, the first mass-marketed liquid soap pumped from a plastic bottle, died of cancer Aug. 29 in Newport Beach, family members said. He was 77. Softsoap was one of his many successful ventures, which included Obsession, a fragrance he developed with Calvin Klein and promoted in steamy ads that stimulated both sales and controversy. But it was Taylor's famously bold gamble on Softsoap that still is the stuff of business school case studies. The problem, as he saw it, was that larger competitors would quickly copy his idea and sweep Softsoap off the shelves. In 1980, the small Minnesota company he founded, Minnetonka Corp., introduced his new soap line with a $7-million ad campaign. By comparison, the yearly ad budget for Dial, the biggest soap of the day, was $8.5 million. While the ad blitz drew consumers, "the threat of imitation was real," wrote business professors Adam M. Brandenburger and Barry Nalebuff in their 1997 book "Co-Opetition." "Softsoap was hardly a patentable invention," they noted. "Pumps had been around since Archimedes." In what the authors called a "bet-the-company move," Taylor secretly ordered 100 million of the little plastic pumps that were at the time used to dispense various lotions. That tied up a full year's production of the pumps' only manufacturers, giving Taylor time to establish his brand without rivals. In 1987, a few years after the soap giants caught up, he sold Softsoap to Colgate-Palmolive for $61 million. "The best way for an entrepreneur to compete in today's marketplace," he told the New York Times, "is to avoid competition — or at least find ways to circumvent it." Born in Baltimore on Sept. 1, 1935, Robert Ridgely Taylor grew up in Cincinnati and displayed a flair for business early in life. As a boy, he sold a homing pigeon to a pet store several times, family members said. After graduating from Miami University in Ohio and receiving an MBA from Stanford in 1959, he worked for Johnson & Johnson before starting his own business with a $3,000 investment in 1963. Run at first from Taylor's Minnesota home, Village Bath Products made hand-rolled soap balls marketed in homey glass jars and baskets. There also were fruit-scented shampoos, cocoa-butter soap designed to look like candy bars, body "paints" for kids taking baths and hundreds of other upscale variations on the workaday soap cake. "My dad and I did all different kinds of formulations in the kitchen night after night," Taylor's daughter, Lori Lawrence, told the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday. When she was 7 or 8, she helped mix up batches of bath-oil-filled soap balls called Soap Puffs, squeezing them onto a cookie sheet through a pastry bag and baking them in the family oven. "Some days they'd be too flat or they'd get too big and explode like popovers," she said. After her nightly bath, her father would tell her: "Tomorrow's a new day. There's always a new formula." For years, Taylor marketed the soaps by jokingly fashioning himself as the "Prof. Taylor" on the soaps' old-time labels and driving to department stores in a vintage Ford truck. "It was normal for us to do brainstorming sessions at the dinner table, to come up with product names, to give him our evaluation of scents, consistencies and colors," Lori Lawrence said. "We thought all families were like ours." Village Bath eventually became Minnetonka, which grew into a publicly held business that Taylor would promote on weekend jaunts in his hot-air balloon. Unilever bought most of the company in 1989 for $376 million. Taylor, who founded and sold 14 consumer product businesses, acquired Calvin Klein's failing cosmetics line for about $1 million in 1980. Although he and Klein did not get along, according to the Wall Street Journal, their signature Obsession perfume brought in $30 million in 1985, the first year it hit the stores. Taylor bankrolled a glitzy $15-million ad campaign that hyped Obsession — "Between love and madness lies Obsession"— well before it was available. Its erotic imagery was lambasted by critics and lampooned on "Saturday Night Live" in segments that "Dad just loved," his daughter said. Taylor moved to California in the 1990s, buying homes in Indian Wells and Newport Beach and running his business interests from an office in Carlsbad. In his later years, Taylor teamed with London stylist Graham Webb on hair-care products and developed the Monterey Bay Clothing Co. In addition to Lori Lawrence, Taylor is survived by his wife, Mary Kay Taylor; daughter, Karen Brandvold; and six grandchildren. A son, David Taylor, died in a 1984 avalanche in Utah. [email protected] ||||| Sex has long been at the heart of marketing. Pretty women decorated Coca-Cola calendars back in the 1890's. But sexual themes -- particularly involving the undraped body -- are being used by Madison Avenue as never before to cut through commercial clutter and grab the consumer's attention. And if advertising trends in Europe, where sexy ads often appear first before migrating to the United States, are any indication, Americans are going to see ever more daring ads on television, in magazines and even on billboards in coming years. Some of the ads would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Their increasing presence now underscores the risks of using sex, skin and shock to sell products and is raising fundamental questions in the advertising industry about taste, image and marketing strategy. Consider these examples, which are just a sampling of what has been appearing of late: * A spot for a Lever Brothers soap uses peek-a-boo shots of men and women lathering their stomachs, chests and legs. * The camera in a commercial for the Shower Massage, made by Teledyne Water Pik, ogles a nude muscular man from a variety of angles. * A print ad for Obsession, one of Calvin Klein's fragrances, features a naked man and woman standing face to face on a swing, pressed together from the waist down. Much of the advertising is lighthearted and innocent, showing a few more inches of chest or thigh, say, but nothing that can't be seen on a family beach. The soap ad, for Lever 2000, offers "a kind of mild naughtiness," said Brian Sitts, a senior vice president and group creative director at J. Walter Thompson, the agency that produced the commercial. But a few ads, like those for Obsession and other Calvin Klein products, are nearly as steamy as R-rated movies. The search for the boundary lines of propriety has evolved into a process that is part test, part tease and part double-dare, say industry executives, consumer behaviorists, advertising critics and academics. The goal is for the advertiser and agency to find the right tone -- and shock level -- for their product. When that happens, sex can sell in a big way. Lever 2000, for example, has had one of the most successful soap introductions in years. But there is a danger in being risque at the wrong time and possibly turning off consumers or mispositioning a product. Consumers sent outraged letters a couple of years ago, for example, when some magazines ran a Nivea skin-cream ad that exposed a woman's breast. On the Fringes "There's very little to gain, and a lot to lose, by doing something just to be provocative," Mr. Sitts said. Added Dan Fox, executive vice president of Foote, Cone & Belding in Chicago, "If you aim to be a large, successful mass-marketed brand, you can't work the fringes. If you work the fringes, you by definition alienate the big potential market out there." What's more, the fringe keeps getting further out as ads that have shock value today lose their sting by tomorrow. A notorious 116-page ad supplement from Calvin Klein now defines the outer limits. Distributed with some copies of the October issue of Vanity Fair, the supplement was chockablock with images of men and women touching themselves and each other. As advertisers push the boundaries to find new shocks, some in the industry fear, they risk polluting the entire advertising environment. If readers are offended and throw down a magazine, say, other advertisers lose their audience as well. Risky or not, the new emphasis on showing the human body in ads is being pushed by a variety of changes in society at large, including the health and fitness craze, the influence of franker European attitudes on American culture and the growing preponderance of homoerotic imagery in the mainstream. Sexually graphic material in movies and on television has also played a role, as has the slickly sensual quality of music videos shown on MTV. And some of the push stems from a growing need for release, at least on a fantasy level, at a time when people are becoming more guarded about the real thing. "We are a society going in different directions at the same time," said Judith Langer, who heads Langer Associates, a market research consulting firm in New York. Ms. Langer noted that sexual behavior and attitudes seem to be more conservative of late, due in part to the AIDS epidemic. Yet "if people are becoming more monogamous," she added, "their fantasy lives, their desire to act out vicariously, will be even greater. We at least want to flirt with the idea that there is a more risque type of life." Curbing the Urge For now, the flirtation is still tame, at least compared with European advertising, where there is no bar to full frontal male and female nudity. Indeed, there is plenty of self-censorship going on here, a reflection of the industry's traditional timidity and fear of getting too far ahead of the society it is selling to. "I'd hate to use the phrase 'a cowardly institution,' but advertising seldom swims against the tide," said Eric Zanot, who teaches advertising at the University of Maryland. "It will go as far as society goes." "Advertising is a distorted mirror; it isn't always accurate," he added. "But in general, it's a reflection of society." The reflection appears to be close to the mark when it comes to sexual material, judging by the level of consumer acceptance. Unlike the furor that usually greets television programming with sexually explicit content, there has generally been little public outcry against skin-filled advertising, notwithstanding the letters inspired by the Nivea ad. For the most part, ads that controversial never reach the public, or at least the part of the public that might be outraged by them. That is because the media, playing their part in the tug-of-war over how explicit advertising will be, sometimes refuse to accept them. A recent example came in July, when skiing magazines rejected print ads for Nordica Sports Systems that showed a man and a woman in profile, nude except for their Nordica ski boots. (It was no accident, after all, that the Calvin Klein supplement was distributed by Vanity Fair, a soul mate of the trendy designer. The supplement almost certainly would have been rejected or heavily altered by other mainstream publications.) To keep matters within bounds, many advertisers are stepping up the pre-testing of material with small consumer panels called focus groups. Earlier this year, for example, J. Walter Thompson brought the nascent Lever 2000 campaign to Nashville -- "not exactly the liberal heart of America," as Mr. Sitts put it -- for pre-testing. The response? People in the focus groups felt the teasing body shots "fit in," Mr. Sitts said. Given permission, as it were, by the people of Nashville to use skin to sell soap, Thompson began rolling out the ads across the country. The reaction in Nashville represents "a general loosening in people's attitudes toward bodies," Mr. Sitts said, a shift that will find increasing expression in advertising. Could Mr. Sitts envision a time when an ad for Lever 2000 would show buttocks, which are now only alluded to in its campaign? "Sure, I could see that," he said. Buttocks and More But some in the industry fear that Calvin Klein's Vanity Fair supplement, produced in-house by Mr. Klein, has dangerously raised the stakes by already showing buttocks -- and more. "If anything goes in programming and in print, how long before anything goes in advertising?" asked DeWitt F. Helm Jr., president of the Association of National Advertisers, in a speech at the group's recent annual meeting in Phoenix. "I think we've already reached that point" in the Calvin Klein supplement. Mr. Klein has been the agent provocateur in pushing advertising's boundaries for a decade, ever since his TV spots for jeans had Brooke Shields disclosing that nothing came between her and her "Calvins." Yet even seasoned advertising professionals were taken aback by the Vanity Fair supplement, which consisted of photographs by Bruce Weber, known for his frankly sexual work in both the realms of art and commerce. Among its images: two men lying near each other on a bed, one with his hand on his knee, the other with his hand inside his pants. Another: a man pressing a bare-bottomed woman against a fence. Professor Zanot thinks that most people would find Mr. Klein's ads "over the edge." But, he hastened to add, "I can see why he is doing it." Indeed, a trend-setter like Mr. Klein wants to be as controversial as possible, industry experts say. "When he's seeming to be provocative and outrageous to most people, he's right on strategy for young people," said Mr. Sitts. "He's perpetuating this image that everything with the Calvin Klein name on it is hip and contemporary." Other advertisers who target younger and hipper consumers are following Mr. Klein's lead. In most cases, these, too, are companies selling products, like cosmetics, fragrances and clothing, that lend themselves to racy presentations. "A fragrance doesn't do anything," said Robert Green, vice president of advertising for the Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corporation, which markets Obsession and other Calvin Klein fragrances. "It doesn't stop wetness. It doesn't unclog your drain. To create a fantasy for the consumer is what fragrance is about. And sex and romance are a big part of where people's fantasies tend to run." Bodies Beautiful The fantasies also tend to run these days to perfectly sculpted bodies, courtesy of the growing emphasis on health and fitness in recent years. Ads that put spectacular bodies on display give consumers a chance to see "what they are working out to get to," said Dick Tarlow, president of Tarlow Advertising in New York, which creates advertising for Revlon's cosmetics and beauty products. "They'd like to believe they're looking at their body in the future." This attitude is "more like a European interest and reverence for the body than we've had in the past," added David May, vice president for marketing for Lancaster Group U.S.A., which is introducing cosmetics and fragrance products in the United States with a spate of provocative campaigns. Mr. May's company is a subsidiary of a German concern, Lancaster A.G. Indeed, nudity in advertising has been far more common in Europe than in this country; closing the nudity gap is a sign that in advertising, as in fashion and food, America is becoming more European, in part simply because more American ad agencies and consumer products companies are now owned by Europeans. Print ads that Lancaster Group is running in American publications to introduce a men's fragrance called Davidoff Cool Water show a muscular, undressed young man in artfully cropped and shadowed poses. These ads, Mr. May said, are the same ones that Lancaster A.G. has run in Europe in the three years since the brand went on sale there. Still, America is not yet entirely Europeanized. Advertising for a Lancaster A.G. fragrance called Davidoff Relax "probably could not run in this country," said Mr. May, "because of the nudity" of the three men and two women in those ads. Meanwhile, Calvin Klein is staking out territory all over the marketing spectrum. For consumers who balk at the graphic imagery in Obsession ads, there is a much toned-down campaign for Eternity, a fragrance Calvin Klein brought out in 1988. The latest television spots for Eternity show a couple with children cavorting at the beach, as Blossom Dearie sings a wistful, child-like song. That "dichotomy in Klein's advertising," according to Martin Puris, president and chief executive of the Ammirati & Puris Inc. agency in New York, has a counterpart in his clothing lines. As shocking as the Vanity Fair supplement was, he said, the ads for Mr. Klein's expensive designer clothing are just as "conservative and straight." And he has just introduced Escape, his third line of fragrances, with imagery that combines elements of the Obsession and Eternity pitches. Escape's advertising paints it as "definitely romantic," said Mr. Green of Klein Cosmetics, "but not a wanton, orgy-like thing like at the launch of Obsession." Its hottest moment? An embrace that evokes the beach scene in "From Here to Eternity." The fragrance is reported to be selling very well. Escape's ads are "very erotic," Mr. Green said, "but they're not in any way perverse." Perverse, erotic or simply a little bit naughty, sexy ads are clearly here to stay. "There is always going to be sex in advertising," Professor Zanot said, "for the simple reason that it's just one of our basic strong emotions. And advertisers are always looking for basic emotions to attach to products in order to sell them." What is not clear is just how perverse, erotic or naughty ads will have to be to sell products next year, the year after that and the year after that . . . LOOKING AT MALE BODIES One trend that nudity in advertising grows out of is the increasing presence of homoerotic elements in American culture. It was Calvin Klein's ads for Obsession -- built around the photography of Bruce Weber, who is known for his artful portraits of handsome, naked young men in lavish coffeetable books like "Bear Pond" -- that introduced homoeroticism into American advertising, said Barbara Lippert, advertising critic for the trade publication Adweek. The breakthrough was a confirmation of what she termed Mr. Klein's "marketing genius -- he tries to embrace all things in the culture." Mr. Klein has demonstrated that "this kind of homoerotic view appeals to a lot of people," she continued, "and that it works." With the Vanity Fair ad supplement for Calvin Klein Jeans, Ms. Lippert said, the designer is adding "sexual ambivalence" to the mix. The story line for the supplement, which was photographed by Mr. Weber, is built around a rock band that evokes the are-they-or-aren't-they imagery of acts like Guns 'n' Roses. The attention to male bodies has aspects of heteroeroticism, too. "Women are recognizing they like men's bodies," said Judith Langer, head of Langer Associates, a market research firm in New York. "It used to be that men offered power and women offered beauty," she added. "Now, men have to be on their toes and in shape. They can't allow themselves to go to pot." CALVIN KLEIN SHOCKS EVEN MADISON AVE. Calvin Klein's controversial ad supplement promoting his jeans was distributed to readers of Vanity Fair by means of plastic shrink-wrapping that covered both magazine and supplement -- a "polybagged outsert" in the colorful jargon of publishing. From the reaction of industry professionals, though, it seems a plain brown wrapper would have been more appropriate. "Distasteful," said Martin Puris, president and chief executive of the Ammirati & Puris Inc. advertising agency in New York. "Looking at it in the office, we were shocked," said Judith Langer, who heads a market research consulting firm in New York, "even for pretty liberated New Yorkers." "I frankly think most people don't like it," said Dick Tarlow, president of Tarlow Advertising in New York. What bothered everyone were 116 pages of Bruce Weber photographs telling a story of a rock band and its fans before, during and after a concert. Among the more provocative portraits: a muscular young man taking a shower, naked but for a pair of jeans clutched to a strategic portion of his anatomy; a shirtless young man looking into a mirror, applying eye makeup; a young woman drawing a young man toward her by pulling on his unbuckled belt; a nude woman leaning against a tree, her hand on her breast, and, as the final image, a young man at a urinal, looking over his shoulder and smiling. The tally: nude male posteriors, 2; nude female posteriors, 4; bare-chested men, 27; topless women, 2. Photos: Skin helps sell Lever 2000 soap; From Calvin Klein's Vanity Fair "outsert." (pg. 6) Drawing (pg. 1) Chart: "A Fresh Approach," shows a sampling of companies that have used nude models or sexually suggestive photographs in their advertisements.

The man who took a huge gamble to bring you hand soap via pump has died at 77. Robert Taylor wanted to clean up the mess bar soap left in the soap dish, and so his company, Minnetonka, introduced Softsoap in a pump-topped plastic bottle in 1978. But in order to stave off competitors who he expected to quickly reproduce his creation, Taylor took a big risk: He ordered 100 million hand pumps—to the tune of $12 million—and kicked off a $7 million ad campaign. His order was enough to overwhelm production facilities for more than a year, delaying the likes of Procter & Gamble and sealing his own success, the New York Times reports. The Los Angeles Times puts a price tag on that success: He sold Softsoap to Colgate-Palmolive for $61 million nine years later; Unilever snatched up the rest of Minnetonka for $376 million two years after that. He founded and later sold a total of 14 consumer products businesses, and grabbed Calvin Klein's floundering cosmetics line in 1980. He notably brought the fragrance Obsession to the public via mini-movie ads that made waves; an NYT columnist at the time said they were "nearly as steamy as R-rated movies." The LAT speaks to daughter Lori Lawrence, who recounts childhood evenings with her father spent concocting "Soap Puffs," balls of soap they cooked in their kitchen's oven. She shares this sweet remembrance: After her evening bath he'd say, "Tomorrow's a new day. There's always a new formula." Taylor died of cancer on Aug. 29.

In 1988, Congress enacted the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (10 U.S.C. 1034) to prohibit anyone from retaliating or taking reprisals against servicemembers who disclose information concerning government fraud, waste, and abuse to designated persons. Examples of retaliatory actions or reprisals against these whistleblowers are transfers, low performance appraisals, and referrals for involuntary mental health evaluations. The law also provides for after-the-fact protection; that is, it provides an avenue to correct a reprisal against a whistleblower. Specifically, the law seeks to assist those military servicemembers who make a protected disclosure by communicating with or preparing a communication to certain designated officials, for example, a Member of Congress, the DOD IG, or an IG; disclose information that they reasonably believe constitutes a violation of law or regulation, mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, or a danger to public health or safety; and have an unfavorable personnel action taken or threatened to be taken, or have a favorable action withheld or threatened to be withheld, as a result of the disclosure. The act requires the DOD IG to expeditiously investigate a whistleblower’s allegations of reprisal that it receives within 60 days of the servicemember’s initial awareness of the adverse action. If an investigation cannot be completed within 90 days of the date of receipt of the allegation, the IG is to notify the Secretary of Defense and the member concerning the reason and the expected date of the report. The DOD IG submits the results of an investigation to the Secretary of Defense, the service secretary, and the servicemember. The law also allows the BCMR to review the results of the investigation in considering a servicemember’s request for correction of records. Furthermore, the law permits the servicemember to appeal to the Secretary of Defense the final disposition of the service secretary’s decision concerning the correction of records. In 1989, DOD issued Directive 7050.6, “Military Whistleblower Protection,” to implement the whistleblower act, which was incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 32 CFR, part 98a, in 1990. The directive set forth various responsibilities and requirements for handling whistleblower complaints, including both DOD IG and service IG investigation and reporting procedures. The directive allowed the DOD IG to delegate the responsibility to conduct the investigation to a service IG, in which case the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1034 applied. Not all military whistleblowers’ allegations of reprisal, however, are processed under 10 U.S.C. 1034; some may be processed under service IGs’ general authority. In December 1991, section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 required the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations prohibiting members of the armed forces from retaliating against whistleblowers who make disclosures to specified individuals. In September 1992, DOD reissued Directive 7050.6, which, among other things, required the services to develop the regulations called for in section 843. In October 1992, Congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, section 546, which established procedures for referring servicemembers for inpatient and outpatient mental health evaluations, and also set forth the rights of servicemembers referred by their commands for such evaluations. It also strengthened protection for whistleblowers by prohibiting the use of mental health evaluations as reprisals against whistleblowers who make protected disclosures under 10 U.S.C. 1034. Congress recently enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (P.L. 103-337), which amended 10 U.S.C. 1034 in several respects. The legislation has amended section 1034 to protect communications not only to a Member of Congress or an Inspector General but also to a member of a DOD audit, inspection, investigation, or law enforcement organization, and certain other designated persons. It essentially has placed the protected disclosure coverage from section 843 into 10 U.S.C. 1034. The legislation also requires the DOD IG to ensure that the investigating service IG is outside the immediate chain of command of both the whistleblower and the individual alleged to have taken the retaliatory action. Another important change is that allegations of sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination are now covered by 10 U.S.C. 1034. Under DOD’s current procedures, whistleblowers receive 10 U.S.C. 1034 statutory protection pertaining to reprisals only if they report their allegations to the DOD IG. In effect, there is a two-track system for investigating and processing allegations of reprisal against whistleblowers—one for allegations submitted to the DOD IG and one for allegations made to service and local IGs. DOD’s current directive implementing the law provides that only allegations of reprisals made directly to the DOD IG are entitled to the law’s protections. The DOD IG may delegate responsibility for conducting investigations to service IGs, who in turn often delegate this responsibility to installation-level IGs. When the DOD IG delegates an investigation, it maintains an oversight role to ensure that the criteria contained in its Guide to Investigating Military Reprisals are followed and that the act’s statutory protection is accorded to the whistleblower. The investigating guide details the procedures for conducting investigations of alleged reprisal and documenting the evidence (see app. I for additional details). We reviewed 25 files of investigations conducted by the DOD IG or under its oversight and found that the investigators had generally followed the criteria in the DOD IG guidance. Of the 25 cases, reprisals were substantiated in 11 cases; not substantiated in 11 cases; and partially substantiated in 3 cases (see Scope and Methodology section for discussion of cases selected). We also determined that a military member applied to a BCMR in six cases. Of those six, the BCMR recommended action in two (one was in process during our review). We also researched a number of reprisal allegations that came to our attention during this assignment. However, we were unable to determine if those servicemembers had filed applications for correcting their records due to whistleblower reprisals. Between enactment of 10 U.S.C. 1034 in September 1988 and February 1994, 233 cases of alleged reprisals against whistleblowers were filed with the DOD IG. Of those, 159 were investigated and closed, and 74 were open or under investigation. Of the total cases, DOD had received and completed investigations of 14 cases alleging the use of mental health evaluations as reprisals and was investigating an additional 17 cases. Of the 14 completed investigations, 2 of the allegations were substantiated, and 1 was partially substantiated. Service and local IGs are authorized to investigate alleged reprisals for whistleblowing independent of and without the DOD IG’s knowledge. Accordingly, DOD IG officials informed us that they were unaware of the number of investigations of reprisal that service or local IGs had initiated since September 1988. According to DOD IG officials, servicemembers who report alleged reprisal for whistleblowing activities to the DOD IG have the following benefits that servicemembers who report to a service or local IG do not: The reprisal complaint is handled through a formal statutory process. Upon completion of the DOD IG investigation or approval by the DOD IG of an investigation done by a service or local IG, the servicemember automatically receives a redacted copy of the investigation report, copies of documents considered in the report, and redacted summaries of testimonies taken during the investigation. Although some service IGs can recommend that appropriate disciplinary action be taken by the military service department against anyone who takes action of reprisal, this type of recommendation is more likely to be made by the DOD IG. When the DOD IG investigation report recommends corrective action to relieve harm done to the servicemember by the reprisal, the servicemember, after applying to the BCMR for relief, can appeal the disposition of the service secretary’s decision to the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the service secretary must reach a decision on the servicemember’s application for relief within 180 days. We identified several other benefits or advantages of reporting to the DOD IG, which are higher visibility of the case within the service department because the DOD IG investigation report is sent to the service secretary, greater assurance that the DOD IG’s Guide to Investigating Military Reprisals will be followed during the reprisal investigation, and advice from the service secretary that assistance in preparing an application to the BCMR may be sought from the legal office supporting the applicant’s command in those cases in which the DOD IG investigation (1) substantiates an allegation of reprisal and (2) makes recommendations that require BCMR action. To complicate matters, the whistleblower procedures described in the CFR provision (until late August 1994) required service and local IGs to notify the DOD IG when they initiated whistleblowers’ reprisal investigations. This provision provided the DOD IG with the opportunity to determine whether whistleblower allegations made to local or service IGs should be handled under 10 U.S.C. 1034-type procedures. The original DOD directive, issued in 1989, also required that the DOD IG be notified, but the 1992 revision eliminated the requirement. DOD IG officials said they recently revised the CFR to make it consistent with the 1992 DOD Directive 7050.6, which does not require notification. According to the DOD IG official in charge of reprisal investigations, the 1992 directive did not include the notification requirement because it could not be enforced. The DOD IG, however, had not previously changed the CFR provision due to an administrative oversight. Servicemembers who are not aware of the distinctions between the levels of protection may not have their allegations handled to their best advantage. In one case, for example, a servicemember made his reprisal allegations to the local IG. The local IG’s investigation did not substantiate the allegations, and the local IG did not notify the DOD IG of the case and investigation. Due to his dissatisfaction with the local IG investigation, this servicemember later filed the same allegations of reprisal with the DOD IG. The subsequent DOD IG investigation substantiated his allegations and recommended that the service take corrective actions. Until recently, servicemembers may not have been aware of their rights under 10 U.S.C. 1034 because the military services had not issued implementing regulations. The Air Force and the Army only recently issued required regulations to implement DOD Directive 7050.6 on whistleblower protection, and none of the services have issued the specific regulations to implement DOD Directive 6490.1 dealing with mental health evaluations. As a result, servicemembers also may not be aware of their rights under section 546. Section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 required DOD to issue regulations prohibiting reprisals against whistleblowers by June 1992. DOD Directive 7050.6 (Sept. 1992) cited section 843 in requiring the services to implement regulations establishing procedures and policies for safeguarding whistleblowers by March 1993. In March 1994, the Army issued an updated regulation on Inspector General activities and procedures. It details prohibited activities, including reprisals against whistleblowers, and specifies that such actions are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In May 1994, the Air Force issued its revised Inspector General complaints instruction, which includes steps for protecting whistleblowers and makes reprisals punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Although the Navy has not issued an instruction covering whistleblower activities, in August 1994, the Navy instructed its members to follow the DOD IG Guide to Investigating Military Reprisals when handling whistleblower reprisal investigations. As of July 1994, none of the services had implemented specific regulations detailing procedures regarding involuntary mental health evaluations, even though DOD Directive 6490.1 required them to do so by January 1994. The Navy and the Air Force have issued instructions to their IGs and mental health professionals, stating that section 546 and DOD Directive 6490.1 must be adhered to until specific regulations are issued. According to Army officials, however, the Army is not required to implement section 546 or DOD Directive 6490.1 until it issues its own regulation. The Army has not provided interim guidance pending the issuance of regulations. In our 1992 report on military whistleblowing, we reported that in the past, the DOD IG had told the service IGs that they were required to explain the whistleblower act to the servicemember alleging reprisal only if the member specifically mentioned the law. Subsequently, in letters dated January 31, 1992, the DOD IG instructed service IGs to inform all whistleblowers that they are afforded statutory protection only if they make their allegation to the DOD IG. Furthermore, the Air Force IG instruction includes specific comments about informing the servicemember of the differences between filing a reprisal allegation with the DOD IG or the service IG. DOD IG officials said they have received numerous referrals from service and local IGs. However, the DOD IG’s tracking system does not identify referred cases; therefore, we could not substantiate claims of referrals. Since our last report, the DOD IG has developed a poster on whistleblower protection for distribution to military installations. According to DOD IG officials, three posters were allotted for each location and were intended for display at the local IG’s office, the legal assistance office, and the office of the military police. The poster advises servicemembers to request information about the whistleblower act from the local IG, legal assistance officer, or the DOD hotline, but it excludes information about the process of obtaining relief from reprisals. With so few available, the usefulness of the posters seems limited. The BCMR system provides a mechanism for servicemembers to challenge reprisals that occurred before 10 U.S.C. 1034 was enacted in 1988. The general authority for correction of military records contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552 authorizes a BCMR to take appropriate action, including the correction or removal of records from the servicemember’s personnel files, if it determines that personnel actions were taken in reprisal against the whistleblower. A BCMR can also make recommendations to the service secretary on the appropriateness of disciplinary actions against the individual(s) who committed the reprisal. Although servicemembers are required to request corrections to their records within 3 years after they discover reprisals, the Boards are authorized to waive the time limit if the case has merit. BCMR officials said that the Boards are usually lenient regarding the time limit. The BCMRs are unique within DOD in that they function as super-appellate organizations. The civilian federal workforce has no equivalent. Each BCMR comprises civilians appointed by the respective service secretary. In general, upon application from the servicemember, a BCMR can correct any military record when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or to remove an injustice. BCMR officials said they could not recall a case in which a whistleblower had requested relief for an alleged reprisal in the form of a mental health evaluation before the act was effective. Each service BCMR annually receives several thousand petitions for corrections and changes, which are coded and logged into the BCMRs’ system. BCMR officials were unable to identify any specific whistleblower cases or cases involving involuntary mental health evaluations because their systems do not include codes for whistleblower reprisal or involuntary psychiatric referral or evaluation. The BCMRs categorize cases by action sought—for example, changes to discharges, pay grades, and dates of rank and the elimination of missed promotions and low performance appraisals—and by broad categories of reasons for which actions are sought. Yet, as a result of a settlement in a 1977 court action, DOD and service directives require the BCMRs to establish a single index system for all BCMR cases except those involving characterizations of discharge. The system is to provide a means for applicants to identify or isolate cases that may be similar to theirs and indicate the grounds for which the BCMR or Secretary granted or denied relief. The Department of the Army was responsible for developing the initial format of the index system, establishing joint facilities for inspection, and copying opinions. The Executive Secretary of the Army BCMR told us that no code had been established for identifying whistleblower reprisal cases or any subcategory such as involuntary mental health evaluations because only a few of these cases had come to the Board’s attention. To ensure that all whistleblowers are afforded the type of protections provided under 10 U.S.C. 1034 and section 546, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense revise DOD Directive 7050.6 to require that (1) the military service and local IGs refer allegations of reprisal against whistleblowers to the DOD IG if an initial screening indicates that an allegation may have substantial merit and (2) the DOD IG use the same procedures for referred cases of reprisal allegations as it uses for cases it investigates or delegates for investigation and approve all resulting reports; direct the service secretaries to expeditiously develop and implement regulations establishing clear and specific procedures related to whistleblower reprisals, including mental health evaluations, as required by DOD directives; instruct the service secretaries and the DOD IG to develop strategies to ensure that servicemembers are informed of their rights, the extent of protection afforded, and the proper filing procedures relating to reprisal allegations for whistleblowing; and instruct the BCMRs to establish a code and/or a subcode within the BCMRs’ index system for identifying cases and decisions involving whistleblower reprisal and involuntary mental health referrals and evaluations, as administratively required. In written comments on a draft of our report, DOD concurred with our four recommendations and said that a proposed revision to DOD Directive 7050.6 requires the services’ Inspectors General to notify complainants who allege reprisal for whistleblowing that to receive statutory protection, they must make their complaints to DOD’s Inspector General. The revised directive is expected to be published by January 1995. DOD stated that all services have now issued regulations to implement the current DOD Directive 7050.6 and that the services will be required to issue additional implementing instructions within 120 days following publication of the new directive. However, DOD stated that the services have not yet issued regulations, which were due in January 1994, to implement DOD Directive 6490.1 concerning mental health evaluations. Considering that the legislation underlying this directive was passed in October 1992, we believe that the delay in issuing implementing regulations is unreasonable and that DOD should require the services to expedite issuance of appropriate regulations. Regarding our recommendation that a code be established within the BCMR index system to identify whistleblower reprisal and involuntary mental health referrals and evaluations, DOD stated that the Army should develop a code by June 1995 and that the other services should implement a code within 120 days of receipt of the Army modification. DOD made other comments on our draft report, which we have incorporated as appropriate. We interviewed officials from the DOD and service IG offices and mental health offices and from each BCMR. We also reviewed the legislative history of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, DOD and service policies and procedural guidance, pertinent legislation and congressional hearings, and 25 investigative case files at the office of the DOD IG. We tested each case file for completeness by applying DOD’s criteria in the Guide to Investigating Military Reprisals. We also determined whether whistleblowers had petitioned the BCMR if their allegations had been upheld. The 25 whistleblower cases we reviewed were divided into two groups: (1) the 14 cases involving involuntary mental health evaluations that were closed between 1988 and January 1994 and (2) 11 cases involving allegations of reprisals that had been substantiated after September 1992. Of the 25 investigations, 14 were conducted by the DOD IG, 4 were conducted by the service IG, and 7 were conducted by a local IG. Although our review of 25 cases cannot be projected to the universe of all whistleblower cases, we believe the 25 cases are indicative of reprisal investigations being conducted either by or for the DOD IG. We conducted our work from January through September 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy and interested congressional committees. We will also provide copies to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Foy D. Wicker, Galen L. Goss, MaeWanda Michael-Jackson, and Raymond J. Wyrsch. The Guide to Military Reprisal Investigations is designed to help those assigned to investigate allegations of reprisal against military whistleblowers. It details four questions and the steps that investigators should take to answer each question. The questions are: 1. Did the military member make a disclosure protected by statute? 2. Was an unfavorable personnel action taken or threatened, or was a favorable action withheld or threatened to be withheld following the protected disclosure? 3. Did the official(s) responsible for taking, withholding, or threatening the personnel action know about the protected disclosure? 4. Does the evidence establish that the personnel action would have been taken, withheld, or threatened if the protected disclosure had not been made? the first three questions are relatively straightforward and usually quite simple to resolve. The last question is different from most investigations because investigators must focus on the question, ‘Why?’ In most other investigations, investigators stop investigating if they find that management acted within applicable guidelines and had the authority to act as they did. In reprisal investigations, investigators go one step further and ask ‘why’ management acted as they did. The fourth question, because it incorporates the question of management’s motive and justification for the action, makes reprisal investigations very difficult. even if the action was warranted given the military member’s performance and/or conduct and even if management had the authority to take the actions, the action could still have been reprisal if management would not have taken the action if the military member had not made a protected disclosure. The burden of proof is on management to show they would have acted as they did with any military member given similar circumstances without the protected disclosure. The burden is on the investigator to ensure all the necessary evidence has been gathered to objectively decide this question. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the reprisal protection given to military whistleblowers, focusing on whether: (1) the system provides effective means for the investigation and disposition of alleged whistleblower reprisals; and (2) service members have a mechanism to challenge alleged reprisals that occurred before enactment of the whistleblower act. GAO found that: (1) only those whistleblowers who report alleged reprisals to the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG) are protected under the act; (2) service members who report alleged reprisals to a service or local IG are not fully protected; (3) few service members have reported the use of mental health evaluations as reprisals for whistleblowing; (4) the services have not issued required regulations to ensure that whistleblowers are protected from reprisal; (5) the services have not adequately informed service members of the proper procedures for filing allegations of reprisals, particularly to DOD IG; and (6) a service member who was subject to reprisal prior to the whistleblower act can seek relief from the Board for the Correction of Military Records (BCMR) if the request is made within 3 years after the member discovers the error or the Board determines that the case has merit.

The foster care system has grown dramatically in the past two decades, with the number of children in foster care nearly doubling since the mid- 1980s. Concerns about children’s long stays in foster care culminated in the passage of ASFA in 1997, which emphasized the child welfare system’s goals of safety, permanency, and child and family well-being. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at HHS is responsible for the administration and oversight of federal funding to states for child welfare services under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. In 2000, ACF established a new federal review system to monitor state compliance with federal child welfare laws. One component of this system is the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR), which assesses state performance in achieving the three goals ASFA emphasized. The CFSR process includes a self-assessment by the state, an analysis of state performance in meeting national standards established by HHS and an on- site review by a joint team of federal and state officials. Two titles under the Social Security Act provide federal funding targeted specifically to foster care and related child welfare services. Title IV-E provides an open-ended individual entitlement for foster care maintenance payments to cover a portion of the food, housing, and incidental expenses for all foster children whose parents meet certain federal eligibility criteria. Title IV-E also provides payments to adoptive parents of eligible foster children with special needs. Special needs are characteristics that can make it more difficult for a child to be adopted and may include emotional, physical or mental disabilities, emotional disturbance, age, being a member of a sibling group, or being a member of a minority race. Title IV-B provides limited funding for child welfare services to foster children, as well as children remaining in their homes. In federal fiscal year 2001, total Title IV-E spending was $5.6 billion and total Title IV-B spending was $576 million. Two key provisions introduced by ASFA were intended to help states move into safe, permanent placements those foster children who are unable to safely return home in a reasonable amount of time. Under the fast track provision, states are not required to pursue efforts to prevent removal from home or to return a child home if a parent has (1) lost parental rights to that child’s sibling; (2) committed specific types of felonies, including murder or voluntary manslaughter of the child’s sibling; or (3) subjected the child to aggravated circumstances, such as abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, or sexual abuse. In these egregious situations, the courts may determine that services to preserve or reunite the family—that is, the “reasonable efforts” requirement established in the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-272)— are not required. Once the court makes such a determination, the state must begin within 30 days to find the child an alternative permanent family or other permanent arrangement. In addition, the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988, as amended in 1996, requires states to expedite the termination of parental rights for abandoned infants in order to receive priority to obtain certain federal funds. The second provision requires states to file a TPR with the courts if (1) an infant has been abandoned; (2) the parent committed any of the felonies listed in the fast track provision; or (3) the child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. States may exempt children from this requirement if the child is placed with a relative; the state has not provided services needed to make the home safe for the child’s return; or the state documents a compelling reason that filing a TPR is not in the child’s best interest. ASFA also contained other provisions to help states focus on the length of time children were remaining in care. For example, ASFA requires states to hold a permanency planning hearing for each child in foster care at least every 12 months, during which the court determines the future plans for a child—for example, whether the state should continue to pursue reunification with the child’s family or begin to pursue some other permanency goal. Prior to ASFA, these permanency hearings had been required to occur by the 18th month of a child’s stay in care. For those children who will not be reunified with their families, ASFA also requires that the permanency plan document the steps taken to place the child and finalize the adoption or legal guardianship. At a minimum, the permanency plan must document any child-specific recruitment efforts taken to find an adoptive family or legal guardian for a child. In addition, ASFA includes three provisions that are specific to interjurisdictional adoption issues. These provisions (1) require assurances in state plans that a state will not delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption when an approved family is available in a different state or locality, (2) require assurances that the state will develop plans for the effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate permanent placements of waiting children, and (3) make ineligible for certain federal funds any state that is found to deny or delay the placement of a child for adoption when an approved family is available in another jurisdiction. ASFA also authorized a new funding source dedicated to adoption-related activities. Prior to ASFA, the Congress established the family preservation and family support program under subpart 2 of Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, authorizing funds to provide two categories of services: family preservation and community-based family support services. ASFA reauthorized the program, renaming it Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) and adding two new funding categories: adoption promotion and support services and time-limited family reunification services. HHS program instructions specify that states must have a strong rationale for spending less than 20 percent of their PSSF funds on each of the four defined categories. The Congress authorized $305 million for the PSSF program in fiscal year 2001. A research firm found that state expenditures of federal PSSF funds on adoption promotion and support activities increased from $50 million in fiscal year 1999 to $79 million in fiscal year 2001, representing a 58 percent increase. In January 2002, the PSSF program was reauthorized, authorizing $305 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, along with an additional $200 million in discretionary grant funds for each of those years. ASFA created the adoption incentive payment program, which financially rewards states for increasing numbers of finalized adoptions. The states have the flexibility to use the incentive payment funds for any child welfare related initiative. To benefit from the incentive payment, states must exceed an adoption baseline established for their particular state. The baseline for the initial award year— fiscal year 1998—was each state’s average number of finalized adoptions in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. After fiscal year 1998, a state’s baseline is based on any previous fiscal year that has the largest number of finalized adoptions, beginning with fiscal year 1997. States receive a fixed payment of $4,000 for each foster child who is adopted over the baseline and an extra $2,000 for each adopted child characterized as having a special need. States have earned a total of more than $127 million in incentive payments for adoptions finalized in fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000. ASFA expanded the use of federal child welfare demonstration waivers that allow states to test innovative foster care and adoption practices. In 1994, the Congress gave HHS the authority to establish up to 10 child welfare demonstrations that waive certain restrictions in Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act and allow broader use of federal funds. ASFA authorized 10 additional waivers in each year between fiscal years 1998 and 2002 to ensure that more states had the opportunity to test innovations. States with an approved waiver must conduct a formal evaluation of the project’s effectiveness and must demonstrate the waiver’s cost neutrality—that is, a state cannot spend more in Title IV-B and IV-E funds than it would have without the waiver. Projects generally are to last no more than 5 years. Although funding for this program is scheduled to end in fiscal year 2002, the Congress expects to consider its reauthorization later this year. HHS compiles data on children in foster care and children who have been adopted from state child welfare agencies in the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). HHS is responsible for collecting and reporting data and verifying their quality. States began submitting AFCARS data to HHS in 1995. Twice a year, states are required to submit data on the characteristics of children in foster care, foster parents, adopted children and adoptive parents. Prior to AFCARS, child welfare data was collected in the Voluntary Cooperative Information System (VCIS), operated by what was then called the American Public Welfare Association. Since reporting to VCIS was not mandatory, the data in the system were incomplete. In addition, the data submitted were inconsistent because states used reporting periods and definitions for various data elements that differed from each other. The number of annual adoptions has increased since the implementation of ASFA; however, data limitations restrict comparative analysis of other outcomes and characteristics of children in foster care. Foster care adoptions grew from 31,004 in fiscal year 1997 to 48,680 in fiscal year 2000, representing an increase of 57 percent since ASFA was enacted.However, current data constraints make it difficult to determine what role ASFA played in this increase. The lack of reliable and comparable pre- and post-ASFA data at this time limits our ability to analyze how other foster care outcomes or children’s characteristics have changed. For example, reliable pre-ASFA child welfare data are available from the University of Chicago for a limited number of states, but they cannot be matched against the post-ASFA data available from HHS. Current data do, however, provide some information about the characteristics and experiences of foster children after ASFA. For example, children leaving care between 1998 and 2000 spent a median of approximately 1 year in care. Of these children, those who were adopted spent more time in foster care—a median of approximately 3 1/2 years. Children most frequently returned home after a stay in care, but about 33 percent of those children re-entered foster care within 3 years. Adoptions from state child welfare foster care programs have increased nationwide by 57 percent since ASFA was implemented, while changes in other outcomes are less clearly discernible. Adoptions began to increase prior to the enactment of federal child welfare reforms (see fig. 1). For example, between 1995 and 2000, annual adoptions of children in foster care increased by 89 percent from approximately 26,000 to nearly 49,000.Adoptions generally increased between 8 percent and 12 percent year to year between 1995 and 2000, except in 1999 when they increased by 29 percent over 1998 adoptions. This increase in overall adoptions of children in foster care is accompanied by a parallel increase in the adoptions of children with special needs. In at least one of the 3 years following the implementation of ASFA, all states increased their adoptions over the average number of adoptions finalized between 1995 and 1997. This average represents the baseline established for each state for participation in the adoption incentive program. A comparison of the states’ baselines with their average number of adoptions for the 3 years following ASFA shows that 10 states at least doubled the annual average number of adoptions between 1998 and 2000 (see table 1). The role ASFA played in the increase in adoptions after 1997, however, is unclear. Similarly, whether the number of foster children being adopted will continue to rise in the future is unknown. While ASFA may have contributed to the adoptions of these children, other factors may have also played a role. For example, HHS officials have noted that earlier state child welfare reform efforts may be linked to the observed increase in adoptions. To better understand why adoptions have increased and to evaluate ASFA’s impact, HHS has asked the University of Chicago to use its data from several states to track groups of foster children over time to determine if the percentage of children adopted from foster care has changed and if adoptions occur more quickly now. Since it can take several years for foster children to be adopted, and ASFA has only been in existence for a few years, evidence of ASFA’s effect may not be available for some time. ASFA’s effect on other foster care outcomes, such as family reunifications, is also difficult to determine. Lack of comparable and reliable data on foster children, before and after ASFA, make it difficult to know how ASFA has affected the child welfare system. While HHS officials report that some data are reliable and can provide a picture of children in foster care post-ASFA, they state that the child welfare data covering pre-ASFA periods are not reliable. According to HHS data specialists, early data available suffered from problems such as low response rates and data inconsistencies. Since 1998, however, HHS data specialists have observed marked improvements in the data submitted to HHS by states and attribute the changes to several factors. These factors include the provision of federal technical assistance to the states on data processing issues and the use of federal financial penalties and incentives. HHS data specialists also note that states are improving their data in response to the use of outcome measures in the Child and Family Services Reviews and the annual publication of child welfare outcomes for each state. According to HHS, these data improvements make it impossible to determine whether observed changes in outcomes from one year to the next are the result of changes in data quality or changes in state performance. HHS expects that the data will stabilize over time and can eventually be used as a reliable measure of state performance. Although HHS cannot provide reliable pre-ASFA data, research conducted at the University of Chicago provides reliable pre-ASFA information on some foster care outcomes for 12 states. However, the University of Chicago’s pre-ASFA data cannot be compared with HHS’s post-ASFA data. Unlike other child welfare data sources that collect periodic data on children in care, the University of Chicago’s system follows all of the children entering foster care in an individual year and collects data on them until they leave to determine their final outcomes. This approach provides accurate information on the experiences of all foster children over time and does not over represent the experiences of certain children, such as those who stay in care for extended periods of time. However, the use of this different measurement technique prevents comparisons of the University of Chicago’s pre-ASFA data with HHS’s post-ASFA data. Although pre-ASFA data are limited and more time is needed to determine how ASFA has affected the child welfare system, current data do shed some light on the characteristics and experiences of the more than 741,000 children who exited foster care between 1998 and 2000. According to HHS data for this time period, children left foster care after a median length of stay of approximately 1 year. Prior to leaving foster care, children typically lived in 1 or 2 foster care placements and a very small portion of them were abused or neglected by their foster care providers. Most foster children reunified with their families; however, approximately 33 percent of the children who went home to their families in 1998 subsequently returned to foster care within 3 years, for reasons such as additional abuse and neglect at home. A smaller percentage of children left foster care through adoption. The majority of children adopted from foster care were under age 12 and classified as having special needs. Limited evidence suggests that few adopted children returned to the child welfare system. About half of the children leaving foster care exit within one year; however, the data show slight changes in the length of children’s stays during 1998-2000 (see table 2). In 1998, the median length of stay for children exiting care was 11 months—by 2000, it had risen to 12 months. In contrast, the median length of stay for adopted children dropped from 43 months in 1998 to 39 months in 2000 (see table 3). Determining whether these shifts represent real changes in the amount of time children spend in foster care or whether they simply reflect the recent improvements in HHS data is difficult. Twenty-three states reported in our survey that in fiscal year 2000 adopted children spent an average of 18 months living with the family that eventually adopted them prior to their adoption being finalized. The amount of time children spend in foster care varies from state to state. For example, the median length of stay for children exiting care in Delaware was about 5 months in 2000, while in Illinois it was close to 4 years in 2000. Differences in state foster care stays may be linked to child welfare practices. For example, higher adoption rates can play a role in increasing the median length of stay figures, since adopted children stay in foster care for longer periods of time. Conversely, higher reunification rates can play a role in decreasing the median length of stay, since reunified children spend less time in foster care. In Delaware, most children who left care reunified with their families and only a small percentage were adopted. In contrast, Illinois had lower reunification rates and one of the highest yearly adoption rate averages in the country. Illinois officials explained that they work extensively with families to prevent the need for foster care and only bring children into care when these efforts have failed. Consequently, although data are not available, Illinois officials believe that the children in their care are less likely to reunify with their families than foster children in other states that they believe may not work as extensively with families before children are removed from their homes. Before they leave foster care, most children live in one or two different placements (see table 4). Many children have only one placement during their foster care stay, but a few experience five or more placements. Adopted children tend to experience a greater number of foster care placements (see table 5). Adopted children may have more foster care placements than other children, in part, because of their longer foster care stays. According to some researchers, children experience more placements the longer they are in foster care. During their foster care stays, a small percentage of children are abused or neglected by their caregivers. Our survey results indicate that the median percentage of children abused or neglected while in foster care during 1999 and 2000 was 0.60 percent and 0.49 percent, respectively. Maltreatment rates in foster care in 2000 ranged from a high of 2.74 percent in the District of Columbia to a low of 0.02 percent in Nebraska. On average, less than one-third of the children in foster care exit each year. Children exit foster care in a number of ways, including reunifying with their families, being adopted, emancipation, or entering a guardianship arrangement (see table 6). Upon leaving foster care, most children returned home to the families they had been living with prior to entering foster care. However, a number of these children re-entered foster care for a number of reasons, such as additional abuse and neglect by their families (see table 7). Although most children reunify with their families, the second most common way of exiting foster care is through adoption. The children adopted from foster care have a wide variety of characteristics, yet the data indicate some general themes. Most children adopted from foster care have at least one special need that may make placing a child with an adoptive family challenging. On average, 85 percent of the children adopted in 1998, 1999, and 2000 were classified as having at least one special need that would qualify them for adoption subsidies under Title IV- E. Eighteen states reported in our survey that, on average, 32 percent of the children adopted from foster care in 2000 had three or more special needs. In addition, according to HHS data, children adopted from foster care are equally likely to be male or female, slightly more likely to be black (see table 8), and much more likely to be under age 12 (see table 9). The gender and race/ethnicity distributions of children in foster care are similar to those for children who are adopted. However, the age distribution differs between the two groups of children. For example, in 1999, approximately 46 percent of the children in foster care were 11 years or older. As noted for other outcomes, the lack of reliable and national pre-ASFA data make it difficult to determine whether the rate at which adoptions encountered problems has changed since ASFA was enacted. However, limited data suggest that problems occur in a small percentage of foster care adoptions. According to our survey, about 5 percent of adoptions planned in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 disrupted prior to being finalized.States also reported that approximately 1 percent of adoptions finalized in these years legally dissolved at a later date and that about 1 percent of the children who were adopted in these years subsequently re-entered foster care. However, little time has elapsed since these adoptions were finalized and some of these adoptions may legally dissolve at a later date. HHS data similarly indicate that about 1 percent of the children entering foster care each year have previously been adopted. States reported in our survey that adopted children return to foster care for different reasons, including abuse or neglect by their adopted families, behavior problems which are too difficult for their adoptive families to handle, or a child’s need for residential care. While few states were able to provide data on the numbers of children affected by ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions, some reported on circumstances that make it difficult to use these provisions for more children. In addition, HHS collects very little data on the use of these provisions. Data from four states that provided fast track data in response to our survey indicate that they do not use this provision frequently. Officials at our site visits told us that they use the fast track provision for a small number of children, primarily those who have experienced serious abuse or whose parents had involuntarily lost parental rights for other siblings. However, they described several court-related issues that make it difficult to fast track more children, including court delays and a reluctance on the part of some judges to relieve the state from reunification efforts. Survey responses from the few states that provided data on the 15 of 22 provision indicate that these states do not file TPRs for many children who are in care for 15 months. Officials at the six states we visited believe that ASFA’s 15 of 22 time standard has helped them make more timely permanency decisions, but reported that they exempt many children from this requirement for a number of reasons, including difficulties in finding adoptive parents. Few states were able to provide data on their use of the fast track provision in response to our survey and HHS does not collect this data from the states. As a result, we do not have sufficient information to discuss the extent to which states are using this provision. As shown in table 10, the data from a handful of states suggest the infrequent use of fast track. In fiscal year 2000, for example, about 4,000 children entered the child welfare system in Maryland, but only 36 were fast tracked. Child welfare officials in the six states we visited told us that they used ASFA’s fast track provision for a relatively small number of cases. Three states indicated that they fast tracked abandoned infants, while four states reported using fast track for cases involving serious abuse, such as when a parent has murdered a sibling; however, some state officials also noted that few child welfare cases involve these circumstances. In addition, five states reported that they would fast track certain children whose parents had involuntarily lost parental rights to previous children if no indication exists that the parents have addressed the problem that led to the removal of the children. Officials in five of the states we visited described several court-related issues that hindered the greater use of the fast track provision. However, because of the lack of data on states’ use of fast track, we were unable to determine the extent of these problems. Officials in these states told us that some judges or other legal officials are at times reluctant to approve a state’s fast track request. According to officials in Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Maryland, some judges believe that parents should always be given the opportunity to reunify with their children. According to child welfare staff for a county in North Carolina, the courts had recently denied the county’s request to fast track several cases and ordered the county to provide services to the families involved. In one case, a judge approved a fast track request involving a child who had suffered from shaken baby syndrome, but refused a similar request on a sibling who was born a few months after the shaking episode. County staff stated that the judge’s decision was based on the fact that the parents had not hurt the newborn and should be given an opportunity to demonstrate their ability to care for this child. Three states we visited described other court problems related to the fast track provision. For example, state officials in North Carolina told us that delays in scheduling TPR trials in the state undermine the intent of fast tracking. They noted that the agency may save time by not providing services to a family, but the child may not be adopted more quickly if it takes 12 months to schedule the TPR trial. Officials in Massachusetts expressed similar concerns about court delays experienced in the state when parents appeal a court decision to terminate their parental rights. Finally, a Massachusetts official explained that the state is cautious about using the fast track provision due to concerns that not providing services to parents could undermine their TPR case. According to a Massachusetts official, the state obtained court approval to fast track a case, but subsequently lost the TPR trial in part because the judge found that the parents did not receive services to help them reunify with their child. Other difficulties in using fast track to move children out of foster care more quickly are related to the specific categories of cases that are eligible to be fast tracked. Officials in five states told us that they look at several factors when considering the use of fast track for a parent who has lost parental rights for other children. In some of these cases, a different birth father may be involved. Child welfare officials told us that they are obligated to work with the father to determine if he is willing and able to care for the child. According to Maryland officials, if the agency is providing services to the father to facilitate reunification, pursuing a fast track case for the mother will not help the child leave foster care more quickly. In addition, child welfare officials in Massachusetts and Illinois emphasized that a parent who has addressed the problems that led to a previous TPR should have an opportunity to demonstrate the ability to care for a subsequent child. For example, they would not necessarily fast track a substance-abusing mother who lost custody of a previous child if she has engaged in treatment and addressed her parenting issues. Regarding the fast track category involving parents who have been convicted of certain felonies, child welfare officials in Massachusetts and Texas described this provision as impractical due to the time it takes to obtain a conviction. Massachusetts officials told us that, in most cases, the children are removed at the time the crime is committed and judges will not approve the fast track in these cases until the parent is actually convicted, which is usually at least a year after the actual crime. As a result, the state must provide services to reunify the family until further evidence of the parent’s unfitness is documented. Finally, in Massachusetts, Texas, and Maryland, officials reported that it can be difficult to prove that a parent subjected a child to aggravated circumstances, such as torture or sexual abuse. According to these officials, the time and effort to go through additional court hearings to demonstrate the aggravated circumstances is not worthwhile; instead, the child welfare agency chooses to provide services to the family. In response to our survey, three states provided information about why they did not fast track cases that fell into one of the fast track categories, citing reasons that were similar to those reported by our site visit states. For example, Minnesota estimated that in 25 percent of the cases, the state was working to reunify the children with the noncustodial parent. In an additional 25 percent of the cases, the court did not approve the state’s request to fast track the case. In the remaining cases, Minnesota did not consider fast track to be in the child’s best interests. A Minnesota official explained that in certain circumstances, the agency would try to reunify a family, even if the parents had subjected the child to aggravated circumstances or lost custody of a previous child. For example, if a parent assaulted a child resulting in a broken bone—which would be considered aggravated circumstances under Minnesota law—the agency might not consider a TPR to be in the child’s best interests if the assault was a single incident for which the parent accepted responsibility and the child has otherwise had a positive relationship with his or her parent. In addition, the state might not fast track a child born to a mother who had lost custody of a previous child, if the TPR occurred years before and the mother’s circumstances had since improved. Most states do not collect data on their use of ASFA’s 15 of 22 provision. In response to our survey, only nine states were able to provide information on the number of children for whom the state filed a TPR due to the 15 of 22 provision or the number of children who were exempted from this provision. In addition, HHS does not systematically track this data. As part of its Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR), HHS collects some limited information on the 15 of 22 provision. Specifically, HHS asks each state to discuss its compliance with the 15 of 22 provision and directly assesses compliance during its on-site review of a limited number of case records, if the case under review involves a child who has been in care for 15 months. For most of the states that provided data on their use of the 15 of 22 provision in response to our survey, the number of children exempted from the provision greatly exceeded the number of children to whom it was applied (see table 11). For example, while Oklahoma filed over 1,000 TPRs primarily because the child had been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, it did not file a TPR for an additional 2,900 children. Similarly, in 1999, we reported on states’ efforts to review all children who were already in foster care for 15 months when ASFA was enacted to determine if a TPR should be filed or to document an exemption if a TPR was not appropriate, as required by ASFA. The 12 states that had data reported exempting 60 percent of the children they reviewed. Officials in all six site visit states told us that establishing specific timeframes for making permanency decisions about children in foster care has helped their child welfare agencies focus their priorities on finding permanent homes for children more quickly. Two of the states we visited—Texas and Massachusetts—created procedures prior to ASFA to review children who had been in care for a certain length of time and decide whether continued efforts to reunify a family were warranted. Other states had not established such timeframes for making permanency decisions before the 15 of 22 provision was enacted. The director of one state child welfare agency told us that, prior to ASFA, the agency would work with families for years before it would pursue adoption for a child in foster care. In response to ASFA’s requirement to hold permanency hearings every 12 months for children in foster care, five of the states we visited emphasized that they now try to make decisions about a child’s permanent placement by the time the child has been in care for 12 months. The director of one state child welfare agency noted that the 15 of 22 provision does not fit well with other child welfare timeframes—he stated that having more frequent permanency hearings would force states to make more timely decisions and would be less administratively awkward to implement. Officials in Oregon, Maryland, and North Carolina stated that that the pressure of these new timeframes has helped child welfare staff work more effectively with parents, informing parents up front about what actions they have to take in the next 12 to 15 months in order to reunify with their children. Conversely, private agency staff in three states expressed concern that pressure from these timeframes could push the child welfare agency and the courts to make decisions too quickly for some children. In one state, for example, staff with a private agency that recruits adoptive families for the state were worried that making decisions so quickly may lead to more children re-entering foster care after being adopted or reunified with their families. Child welfare officials in the six states we visited described several circumstances under which they would not file a TPR on a child who was in care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. In five of the six states, these officials told us that the provision is difficult to apply to children with special needs for whom adoption may not be a realistic option, such as adolescents and children with serious emotional or behavioral problems. Officials from Maryland and North Carolina reported that, in many cases, the child welfare agency exempts these children from the provision because either the agency or the courts do not consider it to be in their best interest to be legal orphans—that is, to have their relationship to their parents legally terminated, but have no identified family ready to adopt them. State officials in Oregon told us that state law requires that parental rights be terminated solely for the purpose of adoption, so as to avoid creating legal orphans. Officials in other states said that while the child welfare agency would like to pursue a TPR, some courts are not willing to do so unless a potential adoptive family has been identified for the child. Officials in four states noted that many adolescents remain in long-term foster care. In some cases, they have strong ties to their families, even if they cannot live with them, and will not consent to an adoption. In other cases, the teenager is functioning well in a stable situation with a relative or foster family that is committed to the child but unwilling to adopt. For example, officials in a child welfare agency for a county in North Carolina told us about a potentially violent 16-year old foster child who had been in a therapeutic foster home for 10 years. The family was committed to fostering the child, but did not want to adopt him because they did not have the financial resources to provide for his medical needs and because they did not want to be responsible for the results of his actions. Similarly, four states reported difficulties in recruiting adoptive families for children with severe behavioral or medical problems who will require long-term treatment in a residential facility. State officials in Massachusetts told us that some of these children have such severe problems that they are not ready to live in a family setting. Staff in a county child welfare office in North Carolina told us that mentally ill children whose parents voluntarily place them in state custody because they cannot afford the residential services their children require are generally exempted from the 15 of 22 provision. In Illinois, child welfare staff told us that some parents need a little more than 15 months to address the problems that led to the removal of their children. If the child welfare agency is reasonably confident that the parents will be able to reunify with their children in a few months, the agency will not file a TPR for a child who has been in foster care for 15 months. Similarly, staff in a county child welfare office in North Carolina told us about two cases involving adolescent children in long-term foster care who became pregnant and had a child while in foster care. In these cases, the adolescent mothers remained in foster care with their children. Staff explained that these young mothers needed more than 15 months to be able to parent their children independently, given their own troubled pasts. As long as the mothers were making reasonable progress in parenting their children, the state would not file a TPR on these infants even though they were in foster care for more than 15 months. One of the mothers had recently reunified with her child, now 2 years old, and was expected to regain legal custody of the child shortly. Child welfare officials in four states observed that parents must have access to needed services, particularly substance abuse treatment, soon after a child enters care in order for the child welfare system to determine if reunification is a realistic goal by the time a child has been in care for 15 months. Officials in Texas, Oregon, and Maryland reported that the lack of appropriate substance abuse treatment programs that address the needs of parents makes it difficult to get parents in treatment and stable by the 15th month. Juvenile court judges in Massachusetts and Oregon told us that they would not necessarily pursue a TPR when a child has been in care for 15 of the most recent 22 months if parents are engaged in substance abuse treatment and showing progress toward reunification. State officials in Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Maryland noted that delays in scheduling TPR trials and delays in hearing appeals of TPR decisions can undermine the use of the 15 of 22 provision to achieve permanency for children in a timely manner. For example, Massachusetts officials noted that appeals of TPR decisions face significant delays— simply scheduling the appeal trial can take a year. In response to our survey, a few states provided explanations regarding why they did not file a TPR on children who had been in care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. The reasons reported by seven states were similar to those reported during our site visits, although they varied significantly among the seven states (see table 12). For example, the District of Columbia estimated that it did not file a TPR for about 60 percent of the children who were in care for 15 months because the state expected that these children would soon be reunified with their parents. In contrast, Rhode Island reported that 600 children were in care for 15 months without having a TPR filed and estimated that 67 percent of them were adolescents with permanent plans of either independent living or long- term foster care. States reported in our survey that they most commonly used their adoption incentive payments and PSSF adoption promotion and support services funds to recruit adoptive parents and to provide post adoption services. For example, Arizona has used its incentive payments to fund performance-based contracts that reward agencies for finding adoptive families for groups of siblings, children aged 10 or older and those from minority groups. Utah, on the other hand, has used its PSSF funds to sponsor a post adoption Web site for adoptive families. In addition to recruitment and post adoption services, we found that states have spent these ASFA funds on a variety of other child welfare activities, including hiring and training social workers. Our survey results on states’ use of new adoption-related funds mirror findings from a recent study, which found that the top two uses of incentive payments were for the recruitment of adoptive families and the provision of post adoption services (see table 13). For example, states are using ASFA’s adoption-related funds to pursue a variety of activities to recruit adoptive parents. Child welfare officials in all of the states we visited reported that they are struggling to recruit adoptive families for older children and those with severe behavioral or medical problems. To meet this challenge, states are investing in activities designed to match specific foster children with adoptive families, as well as general campaigns to recruit adoptive families. Child specific recruitment efforts include: featuring children available for adoption on television, hosting matching parties for prospective adoptive parents to meet children available for adoption, and taking pictures and videos of foster children to show to prospective families. Massachusetts used its incentive payments to fund recruitment videos to feature the 20 children who had been waiting the longest for adoptive families, while Nebraska used its incentive funds to improve the profiles of waiting children on its state Web site. General recruitment efforts being funded by states include: promoting adoption through National Adoption Month events, hiring additional recruiters, and partnering with religious groups. For example, Maryland has used its PSSF funds to partner with faith-based organizations to recruit adoptive families primarily for black children, while Colorado used its incentive payments to hire a public relations firm to develop a campaign to recruit minority parents. According to our survey results, 18 states are using PSSF funds to create or expand both child specific recruitment efforts and general recruitment programs. States are also investing adoption incentive payments and PSSF funds in services to help adoptive parents meet the challenges of caring for children who have experienced abuse and neglect. Adoptive parents sometimes have difficulties managing the emotional and behavioral problems of children from foster care. Some researchers believe that post adoption services may help stabilize these adoptive families. However, available research on post adoption services is largely descriptive, with little information on the effectiveness of such services. During our site visits, officials in Massachusetts and Illinois pointed out that the population of adopted children had increased significantly in recent years and that the availability of post adoption services was essential to ensure that these placements remain stable. Approximately 60 percent of the states responding to our survey used their adoption incentive payments or their PSSF funds or both for post adoption services. Our survey results show that 21 states used PSSF dollars to initiate or expand post adoption counseling and support groups. In addition, 20 states reported using PSSF dollars to create or expand services to preserve adoptions and help adoptive families maintain their new relationships. Thirteen states also reported that they are providing respite services with PSSF adoption promotion and support services dollars. In addition to these core post adoption services, some states noted both in our survey and in other reports that they are providing a range of other services to adoptive families, including information and referral networks, mentoring, and recreational opportunities. For example, California has used some of its adoption incentive funds to pay for therapeutic camps and tutoring sessions for adopted children. In addition, Minnesota has used PSSF funds to teach adoptive parents how to care for children with fetal alcohol syndrome and children who find it difficult to become emotionally attached to caregivers. Although the 46 states responding to our survey reported that they are most frequently using the money for the activities described above, over two-thirds of them also reported that they are investing some of these funds in other services. Many states are using PSSF funds to provide preadoptive counseling to help children and parents prepare for the emotional challenges of forming a new family. Similarly, some states are using incentive payments and PSSF funds to train foster families, adoptive families, and service providers. For example, Arkansas used incentive money to help families attend an adoptive parent conference and Nevada used PSSF dollars to fund an adoption-training curriculum in Spanish. Likewise, Montana used incentive payments to provide adoption training to therapists who agree to provide services to children in foster care. Kentucky, on the other hand, has used incentive funds to train judges and attorneys on adoption matters. In addition, we found that some states are taking advantage of the flexibility allowed in the use of adoption incentive payments to increase the number of people working on child welfare cases. During our site visit to Oregon, child welfare officials told us that the lack of legal resources has inhibited the state’s ability to quickly pursue court cases against birth parents to terminate their parental rights and thereby free a child for adoption. To address this issue, Oregon has used its adoption incentive payments to contract for additional lawyers to litigate these cases. According to our survey results, 6 states have used the incentive payments to hire or contract additional legal staff and 13 states have used these funds to hire or contract additional social workers. Noting that state adoption numbers may level off in the future, a recent report questioned the sustainability of investments made with adoption incentive payments.Similarly, three states we visited told us that they did not believe they would continue to increase adoption levels and would therefore not earn future incentive payments, and one of these states had limited its use of incentive funds to one time, nonrecurring expenses. States have been developing a range of practices to address long-standing barriers to achieving permanency for children in a timely manner—many of which have been the subject of our previous reports. Both independently and through demonstration waivers approved by HHS,states are using a variety of practices to address barriers relating to the courts, recruiting adoptive families for children with special needs, placing children in permanent homes in other jurisdictions, and the availability of needed services. For example, with a demonstration waiver, Maryland is testing whether the provision of comprehensive and coordinated drug treatment services to parents will improve their access to services and reduce the length of time their children spend in foster care. Because few of these practices have been rigorously evaluated, however, limited information is available on their effectiveness. Our previous work, all the states we visited, and over half of our survey respondents identified problems with the court system as a barrier to moving children from foster care into safe and permanent homes. For example, 29 states reported in our survey that the child welfare system did not have enough judges or court staff, 28 reported that not enough training was available for judges or other court personnel, and 23 reported the existence of judges who were not supportive of ASFA’s goals. In 1999, we reported on systemic problems that hinder the ability of courts to produce decisions on child welfare cases in a timely manner that meet the needs of children. The barriers included inadequate numbers of judges and attorneys to handle large caseloads, the lack of cooperation between the courts and child welfare agencies, and insufficient training of judges and attorneys involved in child welfare cases. During our visit to Massachusetts, state officials told us that the courts experienced significant delays in court hearings and appeals due to a lack of court resources. As an alternative to court proceedings, Massachusetts implemented a permanency mediation program—a formal dispute resolution process in which an independent third party facilitates permanency planning between family members and potential adoptive parents in a nonadversarial setting. Three other states we visited—Texas, Oregon, and Maryland—have implemented similar mediation programs. By avoiding trials to terminate parental rights, Massachusetts officials reported that permanency mediation helps reduce court workloads and more effectively uses limited court resources. In addition, they told us that the mediation process eliminates appeals because a joint permanency decision is made between the birth parents and the adoptive parents that both parties can accept. For example, an open adoption between the birth and adoptive parents is a common outcome of permanency mediation, allowing the birth parents to continue some type of relationship with their child after adoption. A preliminary evaluation of the Massachusetts program suggested that cases involved in the mediation program needed less time and fewer court resources to reach an agreement than cases that go to trial. However, the evaluation did not directly compare outcomes, such as the length of time a child spent in foster care, for mediation and nonmediation cases. To improve collaboration between child welfare and court staff, two states we visited developed ongoing committees to address barriers to achieving permanency for children in foster care. For example, Massachusetts created a committee comprised of staff from the courts, the Attorney General’s office, and the child welfare agency to identify and address court delays affecting child welfare cases. This committee has studied delays in the process for appealing child welfare decisions and has implemented several changes to streamline the process. Illinois has several ongoing committees composed of court and child welfare agency staff to address a variety of legal barriers that delay the placement of a child in a safe and permanent home. Texas officials identified court barriers in rural areas that negatively affect both the timeliness and quality of child welfare proceedings—specifically, the lack of court time for child welfare cases and the lack of judges with training and experience in child welfare issues. In response to these barriers, Texas developed the visiting judge cluster court system, an approach in which a judge trained in child welfare issues is assigned to a cluster of rural counties. The judge travels from county to county presiding over all child welfare cases. This approach can create more court time in rural areas and allows knowledgeable and experienced judges to make the best possible decisions for children in foster care. While Texas officials believe this approach has been helpful in moving children to permanency, no formal evaluation of the approach has been conducted. Officials in five states we visited, along with the majority of the respondents to our state survey, reported that difficulties in recruiting families to adopt children with special needs is a major barrier to achieving permanent placements for these children. The National Center for Resource Family Support notes that the lack of foster and adoptive families to meet the needs of children in care is one of the biggest challenges facing child welfare agencies across the nation. In Texas and Illinois, social work staff and state officials noted that the children currently in foster care are older and have more severe problems, making it increasingly difficult in find adoptive homes for the children in care. Our survey revealed that states relied on three main activities to recruit adoptive families for children who are waiting to be adopted: listing a child’s profile on state and local Web sites, exploring adoption by adults significantly involved in the child’s life, and featuring the child on local television news shows. Other recruitment efforts cited by the states we visited included profiling children in need of adoptive families in local newspapers, holding regular meetings during which social workers across the state exchange information on children in their communities who need an adoptive family and local families available to adopt, and holding adoption parties during which children available for adoption are introduced to families who are waiting to adopt a child. In Massachusetts, the child welfare agency established a successful collaboration with a local company that sponsored adoption fairs for children with special needs, donated space for meetings, and provided advice on effective marketing techniques. In Illinois and Maryland, staff use databases to match children with a goal of adoption with families waiting to adopt a child. Several states we visited are also using recruitment campaigns targeted to particular individuals who may be more likely to adopt children with special needs. However, a report on recruitment efforts in Illinois noted that little information exists on what kinds of families are likely to adopt children with specific characteristics. The child welfare agencies in Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, and Illinois are collaborating with local churches to recruit adoptive families specifically for minority children. In addition, Illinois conducted a recruitment campaign at local hospitals to identify adoptive families for children with complex medical needs; however, of the 14 children adopted as a result of the campaign, only one had a complex medical need. While the states we visited used a variety of recruitment efforts to find families for special needs children, they generally did not collect data on the effectiveness of their recruiting efforts. During our site visit, Illinois social workers discussed the importance of consulting with people involved in a child’s life, such as coaches and teachers, to identify those who might be interested in adopting a child. However, the Illinois recruitment report found that many adoption workers did not have the experience or skills to carry out such child- specific recruitment activities effectively. To address this, the state has established a training program for social workers on specialized recruitment activities. ASFA requires states to document the individualized recruitment efforts undertaken for a child waiting for an adoptive family. The states we visited used several documentation methods, such as making notes in a child’s case record, using tracking forms, and using computerized databases that document all actions taken on a child’s case. For example, state officials in Oregon recently created a new document that social workers must use to record efforts made to recruit adoptive families for foster children. In Massachusetts, if a child has a goal of adoption and no identified adoptive family, the social worker is required to submit an electronic referral form within a specified timeframe to the regional recruitment office. In addition to the activities described above, some demonstration waivers are testing different approaches to finding permanent homes for children in foster care. Seven states are using demonstration waivers to pay subsidies to relatives and foster parents who become legal guardians to foster children in their care. These states hope to reduce the number of children in long-term foster care by formalizing existing relationships in which relatives or foster parents are committed to caring for a child but adoption is not a viable option. For example, older children may not consent to an adoption because they still have a relationship with their parents who are unable to care for them. In other cases, a grandmother may be committed to caring for her grandchildren, but may not want to be involved in terminating the parental rights of her child. Evaluation results from Illinois’s waiver suggest that offering subsidized guardianship can increase the percentage of children placed in a permanent and safe home. Results from most of the other guardianship waiver projects are not yet available. Texas is using a waiver to test a new strategy for placing children in adoptive homes, with a goal of recruiting more prospective adoptive families and increasing the percentage of children with a filed or approved TPR that are placed in adoptive families. Texas hopes to better match children and families and improve the stability of these placements by providing training for potential adoptive families and having mental health professionals assess the child’s readiness to bond with a family and the family’s ability to meet the emotional needs of the child. This project was implemented in 2001 and preliminary evaluation results are expected by the end of 2003. Many states encounter long-standing barriers in placing children with adoptive families in other states and across jurisdictions within the same state. As we reported previously, these interjurisdictional adoptions take longer and are more complex than adoptions within the same child welfare jurisdiction. Interjurisdictional adoptions involve recruiting adoptive families from other states or other counties within a state, conducting comprehensive home studies of adoptive families in one jurisdiction, sending the resulting home study reports to another jurisdiction, and ensuring that all required legal, financial, and administrative processes for interjurisdictional adoptions are completed. Five states we visited reported frequent delays in obtaining from other states the home study reports necessary to place a child with a potential adoptive family in another state. According to recent HHS data, children adopted by out-of-state families typically spend about 1 year longer in foster care than children adopted by in-state families. Child welfare agencies have implemented a range of practices to facilitate adoptions across state and county lines. In our survey, the most common practices for recruiting adoptive families in other jurisdictions in fiscal year 2000 included publicizing profiles of foster children on Web sites, presenting profiles of children in out-of-state media, and contracting with private agencies to recruit adoptive parents in other states. The majority of states using these strategies rated them as very or somewhat effective. States have also developed practices to expedite the completion of home studies and shorten the approval processes for interstate adoptions. The two primary practices cited by states on our survey were working with neighboring states to facilitate interstate placements and contracting with private agencies to conduct home studies in other states. Other practices cited by a smaller number of states include increasing the number of staff to work on and approve interstate placements, using home study forms similar to the ones used in other states, and developing agreements with other states to allow social workers to perform home studies across state lines. In rating these practices, states reported in our survey that increasing the number of staff was the most successful strategy and using common home study forms was the least effective solution. States we visited have implemented several of these practices to overcome barriers to interjurisdictional adoptions. In Oregon, the state child welfare agency works with neighboring states in the Northwest Adoption Exchange to recruit adoptive parents for children with special needs. In Texas, the state contracts with private agencies to place foster children with out-of-state adoptive families. In Illinois, the state works with a private agency in Mississippi to conduct home studies because many Illinois children are adopted by families in Mississippi. Officials in four states told us that making decisions about a child’s permanent home within a year is difficult if the parent has not had access to the services necessary to address their problems, particularly substance abuse treatment. We have previously reported on barriers to working with parents who have a substance abuse problem, including inadequate treatment resources and a lack of collaboration among substance abuse treatment providers and child welfare agencies. Similarly, 33 states reported in our survey that the lack of substance abuse treatment programs is a barrier to achieving permanency for children. To address this issue, four states have developed waiver projects to address the needs of parents with substance abuse problems. By testing ways to engage parents in treatment and to provide more supportive services, these states hope to increase the number of substance abusing parents who engage in treatment, increase the percentage of children who reunify with parents who are recovering from a substance abuse problem, and reduce the time these children spend in foster care. For example, Delaware’s waiver funds substance abuse counselors to help social workers assess potential substance abuse problems and engage parents in treatment. The final evaluation report, published in March 2002, concluded that while the project did not achieve many of its intended outcomes, one-third of families in the project were effectively linked to substance abuse treatment, foster children in the project spent 14 percent less time in foster care than similar non-waiver children, and total foster care costs were reduced. Interim evaluation results for two of the other states are expected by the end of 2002. The fourth state will not have interim results until 2004. Two states we visited are working to improve access to services and collaboration among service providers through a collaborative approach called family group conferencing. Oregon law requires the child welfare agency to consider holding a family conference within the first 30 days a child is in care. At these meetings, parents, relatives, child welfare agency staff, and other professionals, such as therapists, work together to develop appropriate plans that address the child’s need for safety and permanency and to ensure that the family has access to services needed to implement the permanency plan. North Carolina uses similar meetings for children who are at risk of being placed in foster care, during which the child’s birth family, relatives, and other involved adults develop plans for protecting the child, which must be approved by the child welfare agency. In both states, the goal of these meetings is to empower families to participate in the planning process for their children and to foster cooperation and communication between families and the child welfare professionals. While North Carolina officials believe the family conferences have been useful, little data exists to demonstrate whether children who are the subjects of these meetings have better outcomes than other children in the child welfare system. Several states, including North Carolina, have incorporated family group conferencing into their waiver projects and may produce some information on the effectiveness of this approach. Most of the states we visited reported that ASFA has played an important role in helping them focus on achieving permanency for children within the first year that they enter foster care. However, numerous problems with existing data make it difficult to assess at this time how outcomes for children in foster care have changed since ASFA was enacted. While an increasing number of children have been placed in permanent homes through adoption during the last several years, we know little about the role ASFA played in the adoption increases or other important outcomes, such as whether children who reunify with their families are more or less likely to return to foster care or whether these adoptions are more or less stable than adoptions from previous years. The availability of reliable data, both on foster care outcomes and the effectiveness of child welfare practices, is essential to efforts to improve the child welfare system. In the past few years, HHS and the states have taken important steps to improve the data available to assess child welfare operations. In addition, evaluation data from the demonstration waivers should be available in the next few years, providing key information on child welfare practices that are effective and replicable. However, important information about ASFA’s impact on children in foster care is still unavailable. For example, the lack of comprehensive and consistent data regarding the fast track and 15 of 22 provisions make it difficult to understand the role of these new provisions in reforming the child welfare system and moving children into permanent placements. To obtain a clearer understanding of how ASFA’s two key permanency provisions are working, we recommend that the Secretary review the feasibility of collecting data in the most cost-effective way on states’ use of ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions. Information, such as the number of children exempted from the 15 of 22 provision and the reasons for the exemptions, could help HHS better target its limited resources to key areas where the states may need assistance in achieving ASFA’s goals. We obtained comments on a draft of this report from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF). These comments are reproduced in appendix III. ACF also provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated when appropriate. ACF generally agreed with the findings of our report, pointing out the difficulty in understanding ASFA’s effect on child welfare outcomes, given that many states had implemented child welfare reforms prior to ASFA and that some states implemented ASFA more quickly than others. ACF also said that states continue to revise AFCARS data for early as well as for recent years, thereby improving the accuracy of the information. ACF concurred with our recommendation and reported that it has established a team to review AFCARS data issues. This team plans to evaluate the feasibility of including data on ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions in the AFCARS system. ACF also noted that states are required to report the number of terminations of parental rights and use of exceptions in the statewide assessment portion of their CFSR. However, the statewide assessment form states are required to complete prior to the CFSR does not request data on the number of TPRs filed and does not specifically request data on the state’s use of the 15 of 22 provision. Instead, it asks states to discuss the extent to which the state complies with the 15 of 22 provision. Four of the states we visited had undergone a CFSR prior to our site visit and we reviewed the statewide assessment forms they submitted to HHS. Two states provided some data on their use of the 15 of 22 provision in their statewide assessment and two states did not. In addition, few states were able to provide this data in response to our survey, including states that have undergone a CFSR. We also provided a copy of our draft to child welfare officials in the six states we visited (Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas). Illinois, Maryland, and Texas generally agreed that the draft accurately portrayed the experiences of their states. Oregon and North Carolina provided a few technical comments to clarify information presented about their states, which we incorporated when appropriate. In addition, Oregon determined that it had submitted inaccurate data for a survey question that appeared in a table in the report. We revised the table based on its corrected data submission. Massachusetts did not provide any comments. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, state child welfare directors, and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others on request. If you or your staff have any questions or wish to discuss this material further, please call me at (202) 512-8403 or Diana Pietrowiak at (202) 512-6239. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. To determine how the characteristics of children in foster care and their outcomes, such as adoption, have changed since ASFA was enacted, we reviewed national child welfare data sets and statistical reports. Specifically, we examined data from HHS’s Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) for federal fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. To understand these data in a historical context, we reviewed early child welfare data from the Voluntary Cooperative Information System (VCIS) administered by the American Public Human Services Association (formerly known as the American Public Welfare Association). In addition, we reviewed longitudinal analyses of child welfare trends from the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. To gauge how useful states have found ASFA’s fast track and 15 of 22 provisions, as well as to explore foster care outcomes in greater detail, we surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We pretested the survey instrument in Delaware and Vermont and received input from HHS officials. In November 2001, we sent a copy of the survey to the child welfare director in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We received responses from 45 state agencies and the District of Columbia. While we requested survey data for federal fiscal years 1999 and 2000, in some cases, states provided data for alternative timeframes. Twenty-four states reported data by federal fiscal year; 2 states reported data by calendar year; and 20 states used a combination of reporting periods, including federal fiscal year, state fiscal year, and calendar year. We did not independently verify the information obtained through the survey. In addition, we visited 6 states to obtain more detailed and qualitative information regarding ASFA’s effect on state child welfare agencies. We conducted site visits in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas. We selected these states to represent a range of geographic locations, performance under the adoption incentive program, and child welfare system innovations. During our site visits, we interviewed state and local child welfare staff, nonprofit service providers, and judges. We also collected and reviewed relevant documentation from these site visits. To determine how states are spending new adoption-related funds provided by ASFA, we included questions on this issue in our national survey. We also reviewed descriptions of adoption incentive payment and PSSF adoption promotion and support services fund expenditures in excerpts of the Annual Progress and Services Reports states submitted to the Children’s Bureau in June 2001. As a supplement to these reports, we gathered information on the use of these funds from regional ACF contacts and during our site visits. In addition, we reviewed related reports from the Cornerstone Consulting Group, Inc. and James Bell Associates. To identify what states are doing to address barriers to achieving permanency, we interviewed HHS officials and child welfare experts, as well as addressed this issue in our national survey and 6 site visits. The child welfare experts we spoke with included individuals from the Child Welfare League of America, the National Adoption Center, the American Public Human Services Association, the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, the Urban Institute, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. We also reviewed relevant child welfare reports, such as the National Governor’s Association report on best practices and the Cornerstone Consulting Group, Inc.’s report on HHS’s child welfare waivers. We conducted our work between June 2001 and April 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Eighteen states are currently using Title IV-E demonstration waivers to test child welfare innovations, such as providing extensive post adoption services to encourage adoptions and maintain their stability. However, most of the evaluation results from the current waivers are not yet available. The first waivers were approved in 1996, but the waiver projects last for 5 years and many of them were not implemented until 1999 or later. An HHS official also told us that some of the waivers experienced unexpected difficulties and took longer to implement than expected. As a result, about half of the waiver projects have not yet submitted interim evaluation results. In addition, some of the waiver projects have enrolled fewer participants than expected, which has delayed the availability of conclusive evaluation results. Final evaluation results for the first three waiver projects approved are expected to be published this year (see table 14 for a list of waiver projects and when their evaluations are expected). According to an HHS official, subsidized guardianship is the only waiver practice that has sufficient evidence thus far to warrant the consideration of policy changes to support the broader use of this practice. While some other waivers may have promising preliminary results, none are strong enough to warrant a change in policy at this time. The waivers currently underway focus primarily on four practice areas: subsidized guardianship, managed care approaches, services for substance abusing parents, and the flexible use of Title IV-E funds. Seven states are using waivers to pay subsidies to relatives and foster parents who become legal guardians to foster children in their care. These states hope to reduce the number of children in long-term foster care by formalizing existing relationships in which relatives or foster parents are committed to caring for a child but adoption is not a viable option. This option is considered useful particularly for older children and children placed with relatives. Results from Illinois’s waiver suggest that offering subsidized guardianship can increase the percentage of children placed in a permanent and safe home without reducing the number of children being adopted. Results from most of the other guardianship waiver projects are not available either because the project just started or because too few children have participated in the waiver project thus far. Five states are testing managed care approaches for financing child welfare services. Under these waivers, states and localities prospectively pay fixed amounts to providers to coordinate and meet all the service needs of referred children. For example, Connecticut is using a managed care approach for children between the ages of 7 and 15 with severe behavioral and mental health problems. The state pays a fixed fee to agencies to provide and coordinate services for referred children with the goal of placing them in the least restrictive setting and reducing the time they spend in foster care. Preliminary findings from a 1-year period indicate that children in the waiver project were less likely to be placed in restrictive foster care settings and psychiatric hospitals, compared to similar children who were not in the waiver project. Results from the other managed care projects are not yet available, primarily because the projects were only recently implemented. Four states developed waiver projects to address the needs of parents with substance abuse problems. Using these waivers, the states hope to increase the number of substance abusing parents who engage in treatment, increase the percentage of children who reunify with parents who are recovering from a substance abuse problem, and reduce the time these children spend in foster care. For example, Delaware has used Title IV-E funds to pay for a substance abuse counselor to accompany social workers who investigate allegations of abuse or neglect. The substance abuse counselor assists in assessing potential substance abuse problems and engaging parents in treatment. Final evaluation results were published in March 2002 and concluded that the project successfully engaged parents in substance abuse treatment and resulted in foster care cost savings, although it did not achieve many of its intended outcomes. For example, children participating in the waiver project spent 14 percent less time in foster care than similar children who were not part of the waiver project, although the project’s goal was a 50 percent reduction. Interim evaluation results for two of the other states are expected by the end of 2002. The fourth state will not have interim results until 2004. Four states have designed waiver projects allowing counties or other local entities to use Title IV-E funds more flexibly for prevention and community-based services not traditionally reimbursed by Title IV-E, with the goal of preventing foster care placements and facilitating reunification. These waivers provide counties with a fixed Title IV-E budget and allow them to provide any services that will improve outcomes for children. For example, Indiana counties involved in the waiver provided a variety of services, including in-home family counseling, child care, mentoring, respite services, and financial assistance, such as paying for transportation or utilities. Preliminary results from Indiana indicate that children in waiver counties spent less time in foster care, were more likely to be reunified, and were less likely to re-enter care compared to similar children in nonwaiver counties. In contrast, preliminary analyses from Oregon do not demonstrate any significant differences in reunification rates or the incidence of re-abuse after reunification between children who participated in the waiver program and similar children who did not. In North Carolina, a preliminary report indicates that waiver counties are experiencing a reduction in first time entry into foster care compared to non-waiver counties; however, the report also points out that further analysis is necessary to demonstrate that this outcome is a result of the waiver activities. North Carolina reports that findings on the reduction in length of stay and re-entry into care are inconclusive at this time. In addition to those named above, Melissa Emrey-Arras, Danielle Jones, Sara L. Schibanoff, and Jennifer Torr-Smith made key contributions to this report. Joel Grossman and Corinna Nicolaou also provided key technical assistance. Barth, Richard P., Deborah A. Gibbs, and Kristin Siebenaler. Assessing the Field of Post-Adoption Service: Family Needs, Program Models, and Evaluation Issues. A literature review prepared at the request of the Department of Health and Human Services. April 10, 2001. Barth, Richard P., and others. “Contributors to Disruption and Dissolution of Older-Child Adoptions.” Child Welfare, vol. LXV, no. 4 (1986): 359-371. Congressional Research Service. Child Welfare: Implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Washington, D.C., 2001. Cornerstone Consulting Group, Inc. A Carrot Among the Sticks: The Adoption Incentive Bonus. Houston, 2001. Cornerstone Consulting Group, Inc. Child Welfare Waivers: Promising Directions, Missed Opportunities. Houston, 1999. Elmore, Jane and Diane DeLeonardo. Report on the Status Of Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment In the Illinois Child Welfare System. N.p., 2002. Festinger, Trudy. After Adoption: A Study of Placement Stability and Parents’ Service Needs. New York: Shirley M. Ehrenhranz School of Social Work, New York University, 2001. Goerge, Robert M., and others. Adoption, Disruption, and Displacement in the Child Welfare System, 1976-1995. Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, 1995. Harden, Allen, Fred Wulczyn, and Robert Goerge. Adoption from Foster Care: The Dynamics of the ASFA Foster Care Population. Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, 1999. James Bell Associates. Analysis of States’ Annual Progress and Services Reports and Child and Family Services Plans (1999-2001). Arlington, Va., 2002. Maza, Penelope L. “Recent Data on the Number of Adoptions of Foster Children.” Adoption Quarterly, vol. 3 (1999): 71-81. National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices. A Place to Call Home: State Efforts to Increase Adoptions and Improve Foster Care Placements. Washington, D.C., 2000. Oppenheim, Elizabeth, Shari Gruber, and Doyle Evans. Report on Post- Adoption Services in the States. Washington, D.C.: The Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance, Inc., 2000. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. Child Welfare Outcomes 1999: Annual Report. Washington, D.C., n.d. Wulczyn, Fred H., and Kristin Brunner Hislop. Foster Care Dynamics in Urban and Non-Urban Counties. An issue paper from the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago at the request of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. February 2002. Wulczyn, Fred H., and Kristin Brunner Hislop. Growth in the Adoption Population. An issue paper from the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago at the request of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. March 2002. Wulczyn, Fred H., Kristen Brunner Hislop, and Robert M. Goerge. An Update from the Multistate Foster Care Data Archive: Foster Care Dynamics 1983-1998. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, 2000. Child Welfare: New Financing and Service Strategies Hold Promise, but Effects Unknown. GAO/T-HEHS-00-158. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2000. Foster Care: HHS Should Ensure That Juvenile Justice Placements Are Reviewed. GAO/HEHS-00-42. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2000. Foster Care: States’ Early Experiences Implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act. GAO/HEHS-00-1. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 1999. Foster Care: HHS Could Better Facilitate the Interjurisdictional Adoption Process. GAO/HEHS-00-12. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 1999. Foster Care: Effectiveness of Independent Living Services Unknown. GAO/HEHS-00-13. Washington, D.C.: November 5, 1999. Foster Care: Kinship Care Quality and Permanency Issues. GAO/HEHS-99-32. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 1999. Foster Care: Increases in Adoption Rates. GAO/HEHS-99-114R. Washington, D.C.: April 20, 1999. Juvenile Courts: Reforms Aim to Better Serve Maltreated Children. GAO/HEHS-99-13. Washington, D.C.: January 11, 2000. Child Welfare: Early Experiences Implementing a Managed Care Approach. GAO/HEHS-99-8. Washington, D.C.: October 21, 1998. Foster Care: Agencies Face Challenges Securing Stable Homes for Children of Substance Abusers. GAO/HEHS-98-182. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 1998. Foster Care: State Efforts to Improve the Permanency Planning Process Show Some Promise. GAO/HEHS-97-73. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 1997. Child Welfare: States’ Progress in Implementing Family Preservation and Support Activities, GAO/HEHS-97-34. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 1997. Permanency Hearings for Foster Children. GAO/HEHS-97-55R. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 1997. Child Welfare: Complex Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services. GAO/HEHS-95-208. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 1995. Child Welfare: HHS Begins to Assume Leadership to Implement National and State Systems. GAO/AIMD-94-37. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 1994.

In response to concerns about the length of time children were spending in foster care, Congress enacted the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). The act contained two key provisions intended to help states more quickly move the more than 800,000 children estimated to be in foster care each year to safe and permanent homes. One of these provisions, referred to as "fast track," allows states to bypass efforts to reunify families in certain egregious situations. The other provision, informally called "15 of 22," requires states to file a petition to terminate parental rights when a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. Although the number of adoptions has increased by 57 percent since the act was enacted, changes in other foster care outcomes and the characteristics of children in foster care cannot be identified due to the lack of comparable pre- and post-ASFA data. Although data on states' use of the act's two key performance provisions are limited, some states described circumstances that hinder their use. Survey data suggest that a few states used the fast track provision infrequently. In general, states are most frequently using the new adoption-related funds provided by the act to recruit adoptive parents and provide post adoption services. The states involved in the survey are addressing long-standing barriers to achieving permanency for foster children such as court delays and insufficient court resources, difficulties in recruiting adoptive families for children with special needs, obstacles and delays in placing children in permanent homes in other jurisdictions, and poor access to some services families need to reunify with their children. States are testing different approaches, but the data are limited on the effectiveness of these practices.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion and guarantees citizens the right to freely exercise their religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified the scope of these broad guarantees. This report provides an overview of the governing principles of the law of church and state. It explains the legal requirements for challenges under the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause and the standards used to evaluate such challenges. The report includes current interpretations of these clauses and summarizes related statutes ( P.L. 103-141 , the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, and P.L. 106-274 , the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA). Alleged violations under the religion clauses must meet two threshold requirements: government action and standing. In order to bring a claim to enforce rights provided by the religion clauses, an individual must show that government action has interfered with those rights. In other words, actions by private actors cannot violate the religion clauses. The individual must also have standing. Cases brought under the religion clauses are governed by general standing rules. Standing is the legal term used to indicate that the person has an individualized interest that has actually been harmed under the law or by its application. For instance, a person who has been barred by the government from attending religious services or required by law to attend religious services would have standing because the individual has been individually affected by the government's action. For some Establishment Clause cases, the Court has recognized special exceptions to the general rules for standing. Generally, taxpayers do not have standing to sue the government on the grounds that their tax money has been spent in a manner that they consider improper. The Court has recognized an exception to this rule, known as the Flast exception. Under the Flast exception, taxpayers may raise Establishment Clause challenges of actions taken by Congress under Article I's Taxing and Spending Clause. The Court has maintained its narrow interpretation of this exception, refusing to extend it to permit taxpayer lawsuits challenging executive actions or taxpayer lawsuits challenging actions taken under powers other than taxing and spending. The Establishment Clause provides for separation of church and state, but advocates differ as to the extent to which it requires such separation. Some argue that government and religion operate best if each conducts its business independently of the other. Others argue that the drafters of the Constitution did not intend strict separation, and strict separation has not been practiced throughout American history. The primary test used to evaluate claims under the Establishment Clause is known as the tripartite test, often referred to as the Lemon test. Under this test, a law (1) must have a secular purpose, (2) must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) must not lead to excessive entanglement with religion. Although the Lemon test is the one commonly employed by the Court, it has been criticized by some Justices who have applied the test in different ways. One application of the Lemon test focuses on whether the government has endorsed religion. The government is prohibited "from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." This application of the Lemon test forbids "government endorsement or disapproval of religion," noting that "endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders ... and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite message." Another application of the Lemon test focuses on neutrality as the governing principle in Establishment Clause challenges. Under this interpretation, the essential element in evaluating challenges under the Lemon test is whether or not the government act is neutral between religions and between religion and non-religion. In addition to the Lemon test, the Court has used two other tests to evaluate Establishment Clause claims. The coercion test forbids the government from acting in a way that may coerce support or participation in religious practices. This test is typically invoked in the school setting because of the impressionability of those affected by possible acts of establishment. Another test permits government acts that involve religion if the Court finds that the religious element has played a part in the history of the nation, or as the Court has phrased it, has become "part of the fabric of our society." When faced with issues regarding religious speech, the Court may also encounter free speech claims under the First Amendment. As a general rule, the government may not limit religious speech without a compelling reason or in a manner that is not viewpoint-neutral, but it may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The Court has held that regulations that broadly prohibit religious speech (e.g., prohibiting First Amendment activities in airports, including a ban on distribution of religious literature, or requiring permits for all door-to-door canvassing, including religious proselytizing) cannot be held constitutional. The Court has also held that privately donated monuments displayed in a public park are a form of government speech and therefore are not limited by the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause, but are limited by other laws such as the Establishment Clause. The Court has held it unconstitutional to deny religious groups access to public facilities, including public schools, if the same facilities are made available at similar times to nonreligious groups. Such circumstances treat religious groups differently in a manner that suggests disapproval of religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court interpreted this requirement of equal access to include access to benefits offered by public institutions when it required a public university to provide student activity funds to student groups regardless of the religious content of the group's activities. The Court has applied a variety of tests in determining the constitutionality of religious displays on public property, and its analysis in such cases is very fact-specific. Generally, the Court will uphold displays that are set in a diversified religious context. For example, a display that included Christian, Jewish, and nonreligious holiday elements at a government building has been held constitutional, but a display of a Christian symbol by itself has been held unconstitutional. The Court generally also will uphold religious displays that are given historical secular context. For example, the Court has upheld a display of the Ten Commandments placed among dozens of other secular historical monuments on the grounds of a state capitol for several decades, but held a display that included the Ten Commandments among other religious items unconstitutional. The Court has addressed the issue of prayer in schools by holding school-sponsored religious activities unconstitutional. The First Amendment prohibits the legislature, teachers, and school districts from initiating prayer during the school day or at school-sponsored events. The Court has also struck down mandatory moments of silence if those moments are required for the purpose of voluntary prayer. It also has held mandatory displays of the Ten Commandments in schools and prohibitions on teaching evolution to be unconstitutional. The permissibility of government aid to religious organizations generally depends on the purpose for which the aid is distributed and the manner in which it is distributed. Generally, the government may not provide direct aid to religious organizations that use the aid for religious purposes, but the Court has allowed aid for non-religious purposes. The Supreme Court currently interprets the Establishment Clause to permit public school teachers to provide remedial and enrichment educational services to sectarian school children on the premises of the schools they attend. It has held the use of federal funds to provide instructional materials and equipment to public and private religious schools to be constitutional. The Court appears to have abandoned a distinction it had previously recognized that prohibited public aid to "pervasively sectarian" organizations, instead suggesting that the purpose of the aid and the types of programs that it was used to fund are the critical factor in its analysis, not the type of organization that received and administered the public funds. If government aid is distributed in an indirect manner, that is, if an individual uses funds received from a federal agency to pay for some sectarian service, the Court has held the aid to be constitutional when the distribution reflects the individual's choice. In other words, if the individual can be seen as intervening in the chain of distribution, the aid is considered to be the individual's, rather than the government's, thereby negating a threat of establishment. The Court has upheld aid programs in which the aid was distributed to the initial recipients on a religion-neutral basis and the initial recipients had a "genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious." For much of the second half of the 20 th century, the Court had held that religious interests were to be considered of paramount importance in the constitutional scheme. Under this interpretation, any government act that infringed on religious practices of citizens had to serve a compelling state interest. In 1990, the Supreme Court significantly altered its interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. It abandoned the compelling state interest test (a strict scrutiny standard) with respect to neutral statutes. The Court held that the Free Exercise Clause never "relieve[s] an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability." The constitutional strict scrutiny standard was not abandoned entirely, though. It still applies to cases that involve religious claims for exemption in programs allowing for individualized assessments and cases that involve deliberate governmental targeting of religion. A standard required by the Constitution is a baseline, which Congress may raise but can never lower. In response to the Court's reinterpretation of the standard necessary under the Free Exercise Clause, Congress brought back the compelling interest test by statute. Congress sought to broaden the legal protection afforded religious exercise with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which prohibited government action that has the effect of substantially burdening religious practice. RFRA provided that a statute or regulation of general applicability could lawfully burden a person's exercise of religion only if it were shown to further a compelling governmental interest and to be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. This statutory requirement for any law, including those of general applicability not aimed at religious practice, would supplement the constitutional protection, which prohibits only government action that intentionally burdens the exercise of religion. RFRA, when originally passed, applied to federal, state, and local government actions. In 1997, the Court held that, because of federalism, Congress lacked the constitutional power to impose such a sweeping requirement on states and localities. Therefore, the strict scrutiny standard imposed by RFRA applies only to actions of the federal government. Congress responded to the inapplicability of RFRA to state and local government by enacting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). To avoid the federalism problems presented by RFRA, Congress limited the scope of RLUIPA's application. RLUIPA applies only where the burden could be linked to situations involving Congress's spending power or commerce power, or to situations involving land use in which individualized assessments are involved. Thus, RLUIPA provides a statutory strict scrutiny test for state and local zoning and landmarking laws that impose a substantial burden on an individual's or institution's exercise of religion and on state and local actions that impair the religious practices of individuals in public institutions such as prisons, mental hospitals, and nursing homes.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion and guarantees citizens the right to freely exercise their religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified the scope of these broad guarantees. This report provides an overview of the governing principles of the law of church and state. It explains the legal requirements for challenges under the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause and the standards used to evaluate such challenges. The report includes current interpretations of these clauses and summarizes related statutes (P.L. 103-141, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, and P.L. 106-274, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA).

The United States has recently completed, or has in progress or intends to enter into,negotiations with foreign countries of a number of bilateral or multilateral trade agreementsestablishing free-trade areas (FTAs); since they contain modifications of nontariff as well as tarifftrade barriers, they require changes in U.S. trade legislation. (1) For the enactment of suchlegislation and its implementation, specific procedures are set out in trade law, which provide forexpedited congressional consideration of the relevant measure if specified conditions required by laware complied with. The expedited consideration, originally called "fast track" procedure, but recentlyalso named "trade authorities procedures (TAPs)," provides for mandatory consideration of themeasure once introduced, with specific deadlines for each legislative phase; allows no amendments;and requires a final up-or-down vote. The statutory authority and requirements (2) for the enactment and implementation of such trade agreements thathave recently been concluded or are in the process of negotiation or in the planning stage arecontained in the provisions of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (TPA Act)(Title XXI of the Trade Act of 2002, as amended by Section 2004(a)(17) of the Miscellaneous Tradeand Technical Corrections Act of 2004; P.L. 108-429 ). The legislative procedure for theirimplementation is set out in Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974; P.L. 93-618 ). The TPA Act authorizes the use of the trade authorities procedures for the enactment of billsimplementing agreements regarding tariff-and-nontariff barriers (including free-trade agreements)entered into with foreign countries by the President before July 1, 2005 (or July 1, 2007, if thePresident requests such extension before April 1, 2005, and either House of Congress does not adoptan "extension disapproval resolution;" see Appendix item (1)). The expedited legislative procedures ("trade authorities procedures" -- TAPs) by which suchagreements would be implemented are set out principally in Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974( P.L. 93-618 ), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2191). Although this statute is permanent law, it has beenenacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of either House and can be changed by either House,with respect to its own procedure, at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent as anyother rule of that House. It applies only to the procedure specifically covered by it (e.g., approvalof trade agreements), but in that context supersedes any other rules to the extent that they areinconsistent with it (Section 151(a); 19 U.S.C. 2191(a)). These permanent procedural provisions areoccasionally supplemented by additional, temporary ones, contained in the legislative authority forthe negotiation of the agreements, such as various disapproval or other resolutions presented in theAppendix. They, too, are considered an exercise of the rulemaking power of either House ofCongress. Since the expedited procedures do not permit any amendments to the legislation once it hasbeen introduced, the final language of the implementing bill is fashioned through advance "mock"or "nonmark" markups by the relevant committees in order to arrive at legislative language thatreflects the provisions of the agreement as well as congressional concerns regarding itsimplementation. The version "marked up" in this manner is then transmitted, together with therequired statement of administrative action and other supporting documents, by the President toCongress for legislative action. The steps in the expedited procedure for the legislative consideration and enactment of animplementing bill, and the implementation of the underlying trade agreement are described belowin their functional time sequence. While care has been taken to reflect accurately the meaning of therelevant, more extensively worded, statutes, consulting the actual language of any statute isrecommended in case of any ambiguity or need for greater detail. Moreover, because theseprovisions are rulemaking statutes, questions concerning the interpretation of these procedures andpossible parliamentary rulings pursuant to them should be referred to the House and Senateparliamentarians' offices. In this description, the provisions of Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 are not specificallyidentified in their alphanumerical designation as contained in that Act; provisions contained in theTrade Act of 2002, however, are identified with the addition of the abbreviation "TA02." (1) Prior consultation, and report regarding U.S. trade remedy laws. Before entering into any tariff-and-nontariff agreement, the President is required (a) toconsult with certain Congressional bodies on the contents of the agreement, and (b) submit a reporton possible effect of the agreement on U.S. trade remedy laws (3) (2) "Mock" mark-ups. Since the implementing bill is not amendable (see item (7)), its draft is submitted to Congressinformally for hearings and "mock" mark-ups by the relevant committees for changes reflecting theCongress's concerns regarding the agreement and the final language of the legislation to betransmitted to Congress formally for legislative action. (3) Enactment necessary. The agreement can take effect only if it is approved by the enactment of an implementing bill(Section 2105(a)(1)(D), TA02); 19 U.S.C. 3805(a)(1)(D)), the specific expedited procedures forwhich are contained in Section 151 (19 U.S.C. 2191). (4) (4) Transmittal of the agreement by the President to Congress. After entering into an agreement, the President is required to submit to Congress the finallegal text of the agreement, together with a draft of the implementing bill, a statement of anyadministrative action proposed to implement the agreement, and sundry supporting information.While the law specifies no deadline for such submission, it must take place on a day on which bothHouses are in session. Failure to comply with this submission requirement would prevent theagreement from entering into force (Section 2105(a)(1)(C) and (a)(2), TA02; 19 U.S.C.3805(a)(1)(C) and (a)(2)). (5) Mandatory introduction of implementing bill. On the day the trade agreement, the implementing bill (5) and the supporting documentsare submitted to the Congress, the implementing bill must be introduced (by request) in both Housesof Congress by their respective majority leaders for themselves and the minority leaders, or by theirdesignees (Section 151(c)(1); 19 U.S.C. 2191(c)(1)). (6) Committee referral. In either House, the implementing bill is referred to the appropriate committee or, in thelikely case that it contains provisions within the jurisdiction of more than one committee, jointly tosuch committees for consideration of matters within their jurisdiction (Section 151(c)(1);19 U.S.C.2191(c)(1)). (7) Amendments prohibited. In either House, no amendment to the bill is in order, nor is a motion to suspend theno-amendment rule, or a request to suspend it by unanimous consent (Section 151(d); 19 U.S.C.2191(d)). (8) Committee consideration in the House. If a committee to which the bill has been referred has not reported it within 45 days (6) after its introduction, suchcommittee is automatically discharged from its further consideration, and the bill is placed on theappropriate calendar (Section 151(e)(1); 19 U.S.C. 2191(e)(1)). (9) Floor consideration in the House. (a) A motion to proceed to the consideration of an implementing bill is highly privileged andnondebatable; an amendment to the motion, or a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the motionis agreed or disagreed to, is not in order (Section 151(f)(1); 19 U.S.C. 2191(f)(1)). (b) Debate on the bill is limited to 20 hours, divided equally between the supporters andopponents of the bill; a motion further to limit debate is not debatable; a motion to recommit the bill,or to reconsider the vote whereby the bill is agreed or disagreed to, is not in order (Section 151(f)(2);19 U.S.C. 2191(f)(2)). (c) Motions to postpone the consideration of the bill, and motions to proceed to theconsideration of other business are decided without debate (Section 151(f)(3); 19 U.S.C. 2191(f)(3)). (d) All appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the Rules of theHouse of Representatives to an implementing bill are decided without debate (Section 151(f)(4); 19U.S.C. 2191(f)(4)). (e) The vote (by simple majority) on final passage of the bill must be taken on or before the15th day (7) after the bill hasbeen reported by the committee(s) to which it had been referred, or such committees had beendischarged from its further consideration (Section 151(e)(1); 19 U.S.C. 2191(e)(1)). (f) In all other respects, consideration of an implementing bill is governed by the Rules ofthe House of Representatives applicable to other bills in similar circumstances (Section 151(f)(5);19 U.S.C. 2191(f)(5)). (10) Committee consideration in the Senate. (a) An implementing revenue bill (8) passed by the House of Representatives and received in the Senateis referred to the appropriate committee (or committees) (Section 151(e)(2); 19 U.S.C. 2191(e)(2)). (b) If the bill has not been reported by the relevant committee(s) within 15 days after itsreceipt from the House, or 45 days (9) after the introduction of the corresponding Senate measure(whichever is later), such committee is automatically discharged from further consideration of thebill, and the bill is placed on the appropriate calendar (Section 151(e)(2); 19 U.S.C. 2191(e)(2)). (11) Floor consideration in the Senate. (a) A motion to proceed to the consideration of the implementing bill is privileged andnondebatable; an amendment to the motion, or a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the motionis agreed or disagreed to, is not in order (Section 151(g)(1); 19 U.S.C. 2191(g)(1)). (b) Debate on the implementing bill and on all debatable motions and appeals connected withit is limited to 20 hours, equally divided between, and controlled by, the majority leader and theminority leader, or their designees (Section 151(g)(2); 19 U.S.C. 2191(g)(2)). (c) Debate on any debatable motion or appeal is limited to one hour, equally divided between,and controlled by, the mover and the manager of the bill, except that if the manager of the bill is infavor of any such motion or appeal, the time in opposition is controlled by the minority leader or hisdesignee; such leaders may, from time under their control on the passage of the bill, allot additionaltime to any Senator during the consideration of any debatable motion or appeal (Section 151(g)(3);19 U.S.C. 2191(g)(3)). (d) A motion to further limit debate on the bill is not debatable; a motion to recommit it isnot in order (Section 151(g)(4); 19 U.S.C. 2191(g)(4)). (e) The vote (by simple majority) on final passage of the bill must be taken on or before the15th day (10) after the billhas been reported, or the committee(s) of referral have been discharged from its further consideration(Section 151(e)(2); 19 U.S.C. 2191(e)(2)). (f) Although, unlike in the case of the House procedure, this is not specifically mentioned inSection 151, the Rules of the Senate govern the consideration of the implementing bill in the Senatein all aspects not specifically addressed in Section 151. (12) Entry into force. The agreement enters into force upon the completion of the necessarydomestic legal procedures by each party to it (11) and exchange of written notices that such procedures have beencompleted. Entry into force may take place on the date of the exchange of such notices or on anylater date set in the agreement or otherwise agreed upon by the parties. (1) Extension disapproval resolutions . (12) (a) By submitting a relevant report, the President may request an extension of the applicationof trade authorities procedures for bills implementing agreements involving tariff-and-nontariffbarriers (e.g., free- trade agreements) entered into after July 31, 2005, and before July 1, 2007(Section 2103(c)(1)(B)(i), TA02; 19 U.S.C. 3803(c)(1)(B)(i)). (b) Trade authorities are extended automatically upon such request if neither House adoptsan extension disapproval resolution before July 1, 2005 (Section 2103(c)(1)(B)(ii), TA02; 19 U.S.C.3803(c)(1)(B)(ii)). (c) An extension disapproval resolution is a resolution of either House, containing languageprescribed by law, which may be introduced by any member, and is referred in the House to thecommittees on Ways and Means, and on Rules (Section 2103(c)(5)(A) and (B), TA02; 19 U.S.C.3803(c)(5)(A) and (B). (13) (Legislation contains no deadline for committee report nor provision for discharge of acommittee of referral; but see item (e) below.) (d) On the floor of either House, the resolution is considered under the specific expeditedprocedure of the Trade Act of 1974 for resolutions disapproving certain actions (Section 152(d) and(e); 19 U.S.C. 2192(d) and (e)), and identical with the procedure for floor consideration of theimplementing bill (see items (7) and (9) above), except that, in the House, no amendment to the resolution is in order; and in the Senate, a motion to proceed to the consideration of the resolution is debatable; thenondebatable motion to further limit debate on the resolution applies also to a debatable motion, orappeal; and no amendment to the resolution is in order. (e) It is not in order to consider an extension disapproval resolution not reported, in theSenate, by the Finance Committee or, in the House, by the Ways and Means, and Rules Committees,or to consider it after June 30, 2005 (Section 2103(c)(5)(D), TA02; 19 U.S.C. 3803(c)(5)(D)). (2) Procedural disapproval resolutions. (14) (a) If the President fails or refuses to notify, or consult with, the Congress regarding thenegotiation of a tariff-and-nontariff agreement, on specific topics as required by Section2105(b)(1)(B)(ii), TA02 (19 U.S.C. 3805(b)(1)(B)(ii)), the Congress may deny the consideration ofthe implementing bill of such agreement under trade authorities procedures by both Houses agreeing,within 60 days from each other, to twin one-House procedural disapproval resolutions with respectto such agreement (Section 2105(b)(1)(A), TA02; 19 U.S.C. 3805(b)(1)(A)). (b) The language of the resolution is prescribed by law (Section 2105(b)(1)(B), TA02; 19U.S.C. 3085(b)(1)(B)). (c) The resolution may be introduced by any Member of either House, is referred to the Waysand Means Committee and the Rules Committee in the House, and to the Finance Committee in theSenate, and is nonamendable (Section 2105(b)(2)(A), TA02; 19 U.S.C. 3805(b)(2)(A)). (15) (d) On the floor of either House, the resolution is considered under the same expeditedprocedure (Section 152, Trade Act of 1974; see item (1)(d) above) as an extension disapprovalresolution, but only if no other procedural disapproval resolution, or no "trade-remedy laws"resolution (see item (3) below) with respect to that trade agreement, has previously been reportedin that House by the respective committee of referral (Section 2105(b)(2)(B), TA02; 19 U.S.C.3805(b)(2)B)). (e) It is not in order to consider a procedural disapproval resolution not reported, in theHouse, by the Ways and Means Committee and the Rules Committee, or, in the Senate, by theFinance Committee (Section 2105(b)(2)(C) and (D), TA02; 19 U.S.C. 3805(b)(2)(C) and (D)). (3) Nonbinding ("trade-remedy laws") resolutions. (16) (a) If the trade-remedy laws provisions of a prospective tariff-and-nontariff trade agreement,as described in the required relevant President's report (17) , are inconsistent with the trade-remedy laws negotiatingobjectives of the Trade Act of 2002, either House may adopt a (one-House) nonbinding resolution,finding that there exists such inconsistency (Section 2104(d)(3)(C)(ii), TA02; 19 U.S.C.3804(d)(3)(C)(ii)). (18) (b) The language of the resolution is prescribed by law (Section 2104(d)(3)(C)(ii), TA02; 19U.S.C. 3804(d)(3)(C)(ii)). (c) The resolution may be introduced by any Member of either House, is referred to the Waysand Means Committee and the Rules Committee in the House, and to the Finance Committee in theSenate, and is nonamendable (Section 2104(d)(3)(C)(iii), TA02; 19 U.S.C. 3804(d)(3)(C)(iii)) (19) (d) On the floor of either House, the resolution is considered under the same expeditedprocedure as an extension disapproval resolution (see items (1)(d) and (2)(d)above), but only if noprocedural disapproval resolution or no other "trade-remedy laws" resolution with respect to thattrade agreement has previously been reported in that House by the respective committee of referral(Section 2104(d)(3)(C), TA02; 19 U.S.C. 3804(d)(3)(C)).

Trade agreements on tariff-and-nontariff barriers, including those establishing free-tradeareas, must be approved and implemented by the enactment of implementing bills, for theconsideration of which expedited legislative procedures have been enacted. The procedures, initiallyreferred to as "fast track" and more recently as "trade authorities procedures," provide for mandatoryintroduction and consideration of an implementing bill with deadlines for individual legislativestages, prohibit any amendments, and require an up-or-down vote. This report presents the individual statutes setting out the authorities and procedures forrelevant legislative action in a functional time-table, together with references to their public-law andU.S. Code alphanumerical designations.

Sexual abuse can have negative consequences for children during the time of abuse as well as later in life, according to several recent research reviews. Initial effects reportedly have included fear, anxiety, depression, anger, aggression, and sexually inappropriate behavior in at least some portion of the victim population. Long-lasting consequences reportedly have included depression, self-destructive behavior, anxiety, feelings of isolation and stigma, poor self-esteem, difficulty in trusting others, a tendency toward revictimization, substance abuse, and sexual maladjustment. In addition, researchers have noted that there is widespread belief that there is a “cycle of sexual abuse,” such that sexual victimization as a child may contribute to perpetration of sexual abuse as an adult. Such a pattern is consistent with social learning theories—which posit that children learn those behaviors that are modeled for them—and also with psychodynamic theories—which suggest that abusing others may help victimized individuals to overcome childhood trauma. Critics have argued that empirical support for the cycle of sexual abuse is weak, and that parents are unduly frightened into thinking that little can be done to mitigate the long-term effects of sexual abuse. There remain many unanswered questions about the risk posed by early sexual victimization, as well as about the conditions and experiences that might increase this risk (such as number of victimization experiences, age of the victim at the time of the abuse, and whether the abuse was perpetrated by a family member). There are also questions about factors that may prevent victimized children from becoming adult perpetrators (such as support from siblings and parents or positive relationships with other authority figures). Answers to such questions would be useful in developing both prevention strategies and therapeutic interventions. Studying the relationship between early sexual victimization and later perpetration of sexual abuse is methodologically difficult. If researchers take a retrospective approach, and ask adult sex offenders whether they experienced childhood sexual abuse, there are problems of selecting a representative sample of offenders, finding an appropriate comparison group of adults who have not committed sex offenses but are similar to the study group in other respects, minimizing errors that arise when recalling traumatic events from the distant past, and dealing with the possibility that offenders will purposely overreport childhood abuse to gain sympathy or underreport abuse to avoid imputations of guilt. A prospective approach—selecting a sample of children who have been sexually abused and following them into adulthood to see whether they become sexual abusers—overcomes some of the problems of the retrospective approach, but it is a costly and time-consuming solution. In addition, researchers choosing the prospective approach still face the challenge of disentangling the effects of sexual abuse from the effects of other possible problems and stress-related factors in the backgrounds of these children (e.g., poverty, unemployment, parental alcohol abuse, or other inadequate social and family functioning). This requires the selection of appropriate comparison groups of children who have not been sexually abused and children who have faced other forms of maltreatment, as well as the careful measurement of a variety of other explanatory factors. We collected, reviewed, and analyzed information from available published and unpublished research on the cycle of sexual abuse. Identifying the relevant literature involved a multistep process. Initially, we identified experts in the sex offense research field by contacting the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Office of Victim Assistance, the National Institute of Mental Health’s Violence and Traumatic Stress Branch, the American Psychological Association, and academicians selected because of their expertise in the area. These contacts helped identify experts in the field, who in turn helped identify other experts. We also conducted computerized searches of several on-line databases, including ERIC (the Education Resources Information Center), NCJRS (the National Criminal Justice Reference Service), PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts, and the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse. We identified 40 articles on the cycle of sexual abuse issued between 1965 and 1996. Four of these reviewed the literature in the area; of these, two were published in 1988, one was published in 1990, and one was published in 1991. Of the remaining articles, 23 presented findings from retrospective research studies, which began with a sample of known adult sex offenders of children and sought to determine (by asking the offenders) whether they were sexually abused during childhood. Another four presented findings from two prospective research studies, which began with samples of sexually victimized children and tracked them into adulthood to determine how many became sex offenders. Of the original 40 articles, we excluded 5 because they presented findings only, or primarily, on adolescent sex offenders against children, and an additional 4 because we were unable to obtain them. For the studies in our review, we recorded the quantitative results, summarized the methodologies used, and summarized the authors’ conclusions about the cycle of sexual abuse. Each study was reviewed by two social scientists with specialized doctoral training in evaluation research methodology. Conclusions in this report are based on our assessment of the evidence presented in these studies. We sent the list of research articles to two experts, both of whom have done extensive research in the field, to confirm the comprehensiveness of our list of articles. In addition, as a final check, we conducted a second search of computerized on-line databases in March 1996 to ensure that no new research articles or reviews had been published since our original search in October 1995. We sent a draft copy of our report for comment to the two experts previously consulted, as well as to one additional expert, to ensure that we had presented the information about the research studies accurately.Their technical comments were incorporated where appropriate. We did not send a draft to any agency or organization because we did not obtain information from such organizations for use in this study. We did our work between October 1995 and August 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. There was no consensus among the studies we reviewed that being sexually abused as a child led directly to the victim’s becoming an adult sexual abuser of children. However, some studies did conclude that it might increase the risk that victims would commit sexual abuse later. A majority of the retrospective studies noted that most sex offenders had not been sexually abused as children, and the two prospective studies showed that the majority of victims of sexual abuse during childhood did not become sex offenders as adults. The 4 review articles we obtained, which collectively covered roughly two-thirds of the 25 studies we reviewed, concluded that the evidence from these studies was insufficient to establish that being sexually abused as a child is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for the victim’s becoming a sexual abuser as an adult. We reviewed 23 retrospective studies. Appendix I provides additional information on these studies. All but one of the retrospective studies focused on adult male sex offenders, and in most studies the offenders sampled were imprisoned or in some type of treatment program. However, these studies varied considerably in the types of child sexual abusers studied, whether control or comparison groups were used, and if so, the types of individuals in these groups. The retrospective studies also varied considerably in their findings and conclusions. The percent of adult sex offenders against children identified as being sexually abused as children themselves ranged from zero to 79 percent. This variation partially reflects differences across studies in how childhood sexual abuse was defined, as well as other differences in study methodology. This variation may also reflect the differences in the types of child sex offenders studied. For example, both Hanson and Slater (1988) and Garland and Dougher (1988) concluded from their reviews of retrospective studies that offenders who selected male children as victims were more likely to have been sexually abused themselves than were offenders against female children. A few of the studies found that sex offenders of children were more likely to have been sexually abused as children than were members of control groups composed of noninstitutionalized nonoffenders. However, many studies found that, when compared with other types of sex offenders (e.g., rapists or exhibitionists) and other types of nonsexual offenders (i.e., men incarcerated for nonsexual crimes), adult sex offenders of children were not necessarily more likely to have been sexually abused as children. According to several researchers, the relationship between childhood sexual victimization and adult perpetration of sexual offenses against children is complex and requires measurement and analysis of a host of factors. For example, it has been postulated that adult sexual offending is not simply a result of the experience of childhood sexual victimization, but also of other factors such as age at onset of the abuse, nature of the abuse, stability of the caregiver, and/or physical abuse. Studies that collect data on such additional factors may add to our understanding of what types of sexual abuse, perpetrated under what conditions against what types of child victims, are associated with what types of adult sexual offending against what types of victims under what types of conditions. However, while such retrospective studies can help explore factors possibly related to adult sexual offending, they cannot establish the importance of these factors in predicting adult sexual offending. The reason for this is discussed in the following section. The retrospective studies we reviewed had several shortcomings that precluded our drawing any firm conclusions about whether there is a cycle of sexual abuse. First, the studies focused on known sex offenders of children (i.e., offenders who have been detected, arrested, or convicted, or who had been referred or had presented themselves for treatment), and these offenders may not be typical or representative of all sex offenders against children. Second, self-reports of childhood sexual abuse obtained from known sex offenders are of questionable validity. Known offenders may be motivated to overreport histories of abuse to gain sympathy or to excuse their own offenses. Third, where comparison or control groups were used, attempts to match group members to sex offenders of children on factors possibly related to being sexually abused or abusive were typically limited; few of the studies attempted to control for such factors statistically. Finally, one of the major shortcomings of these retrospective studies is that they cannot reveal how likely it is that a person who has been sexually abused as a child will become a sexual abuser in adulthood. For example, even if 100 percent of sexual abusers of children were sexually abused as children, this would not necessarily mean that sexual abuse causes abused children to become abusers themselves. It may be that only a small percentage of sexually abused children become sex offenders against children. Determining how likely victims of childhood sexual abuse are to become adult sex offenders requires that a sample of sexually abused children be followed forward in time, rather than the histories of sex offenders be traced backward. Our review of the literature identified two research studies (described in four articles) that have used a prospective approach in examining the cycle of sexual abuse. One of these studies is part of a larger study of the cycle of violence. Widom is the primary researcher in the larger study, which is still ongoing. It involves a cohort of 908 substantiated cases of child abuse (physical and/or sexual) or neglect processed through the courts between 1967 and 1971. These abuse/neglect cases were restricted to children who were 11 years of age or younger at the time of the abuse or neglect incident. They included 153 sexually abused children, 160 physically abused children, and 697 neglected children. This prospective study also includes a control group of 667 individuals who had no record of abuse or neglect and who were either born in the same hospitals or attended the same elementary schools as the abused children. The control and study group members were matched on sex, age, race, and approximate family socioeconomic status. Local, state, and federal official arrest records containing information recorded up to June 1994 were used to determine how many of the study and control group members were arrested for sex offenses. Table 1 shows results pertaining to sex offenses from the most recent analyses based on this larger study. The study did not distinguish whether the sex offense was perpetrated against a child or an adult. Compared to the control group, a higher percentage of those who had been sexually abused, physically abused, or neglected as children were arrested as adults for any sex crime, for prostitution, and (among males) for rape or sodomy. To determine how different the study groups were from the control group, Widom statistically controlled for such differences between the groups as age, race, and sex; calculated odds ratios; and performed statistical tests. The results indicated that the differences between the sexually abused group and the control group in the odds of arrest for any sex crime or for rape or sodomy separately were not statistically significant. Sexually abused children were significantly more likely to have been arrested for prostitution, however. Twenty-three to 27 years later, sexually abused children were nearly four times more likely to have been arrested for prostitution. On the other hand, members of the childhood neglect study group were significantly more likely than members of the control group to have been arrested for any sex crime or for prostitution. Because it could allow researchers to discern the likelihood of victims becoming abusers, the prospective approach is methodologically superior to the retrospective approach. Widom’s study, however, has several limitations. First, published work from the study has so far relied solely on official arrest data, which may fail to identify some offenders (those who avoid detection or arrest). Second, the study groups of victimized children were identified by using records of substantiated cases of abuse or neglect that were processed through the state courts. Such cases may represent only the most severe instances of abuse and may not be generalizable to all children who have been abused or neglected. Finally, the number of sexually abused males in the abused/neglected sample was small (a total of 24). Statistical comparisons based on small numbers of cases should be interpreted with caution, since small sample sizes may not yield reliable estimates. We located one other study that used a prospective design and followed sexually victimized children into early adulthood. This study sampled 147 boys under the age of 14 who were seen in the emergency room of an urban hospital because of sexual abuse between 1971 and 1975. The researchers also collected data on a comparison sample of boys of the same race and roughly the same age who were seen in the same emergency room at roughly the same time for reasons other than sexual abuse. In the period 1992 to 1994, official juvenile and adult arrest records for the entire victim and comparison sample were collected, and the researchers attempted to locate and interview as many of the men as possible. Fifty of the 147 boys in the victim sample, and 56 of the 147 boys in the comparison sample, were interviewed. They were asked to self-report instances of sex-offending, and were also asked a number of other questions about their family of origin, sexual history, history of sexual victimization, psychological functioning, drug and alcohol use, and criminal behavior. As shown in table 2, the study found little difference between the victim and comparison samples in the percentages that were arrested for, or that self-reported, sex offenses. According to the researchers, one explanation for this finding is that the victim and comparison samples are not as different as originally intended with respect to their having been victims of child sexual abuse. For instance, in the comparison group, 40 percent of the 56 men interviewed reported that they had themselves been sexually abused. Furthermore, 55 percent of the men in the victim sample did not recall, or at least did not report to interviewers, that they had been sexually abused. When the researchers reanalyzed the data and compared all victims (from both the victim sample and the comparison sample) with the remaining nonvictimized members of the comparison group, they did not find a significant difference between the two groups in the likelihood of becoming a sex offender. These findings must also be interpreted with caution, however, because no-difference findings are sometimes attributable to comparing small samples rather than to a real absence of difference between groups. The generalizability of these findings may be limited since the sample of sexually abused boys (and the matched comparison group) is neither a random sample nor a sample that is representative of the general population of children at risk of such abuse. Over 80 percent of the boys sampled were African-American, and a disproportionate number of the men who were interviewed were from poor families and had criminal records. About one-third of the interviewed men who were sexually abused as boys, and about one-fifth of all of the men interviewed, were incarcerated at the time of interview. The Williams et al. study is instructive in that it points to a number of difficulties involved in conducting prospective studies of the relationship between childhood victimization and adult offending. These difficulties include (1) the need to determine whether members of comparison groups were victims of sexual abuse, and (2) the need to employ more than a single outcome measure of offending. Of 15 men who self-reported any sex offense, only 5 had an arrest record for a sex offense; and of 14 men who had been arrested for a sex offense, only 5 self-reported a sex-offending behavior. A number of studies have been done on the cycle of sexual abuse, many of which were reviewed in this report. Most of the studies were retrospective in design; that is, they began with a sample of known sex offenders of children and sought to determine whether they were sexually abused during childhood. The chief limitation of the retrospective studies is that studying a known group of sexual offenders cannot provide any direct information about the extent to which children who are sexually abused become sexual offender as adults. The two studies we reviewed that were prospective in design attempted to overcome this limitation by identifying samples of sexually victimized children and tracking them into adulthood to determine how many became sex offenders. These studies also had limitations, which made it difficult to reach any definitive conclusions about the cycle of sexual abuse. However, in spite of their limitations, overall, the retrospective studies, prospective studies, and research reviews did indicate that the experience of childhood sexual victimization is quite likely neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of adult sexual offending. Further research would be necessary to determine what kinds of experiences magnify the likelihood that sexually victimized children will become adult sexual offenders against children and, alternatively, what kinds of experiences help prevent victimized children from becoming adult sexual offenders against children. We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Member of the House Subcommittee on Crime and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. Please call me at (202) 512-8777 if you have any questions about this report.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed research studies regarding the cycle of sexual abuse, focusing on the likelihood that individuals who are victims of sexual abuse as children will become sexual abusers of children in adulthood. GAO found that: (1) there was no consensus among the 23 retrospective and 2 prospective studies reviewed that childhood sexual abuse led directly to the victim becoming an adult sexual abuser; (2) the retrospective studies, which sought to determine whether a sample of known sex offenders had been sexually abused as children, differed considerably in the types of offenders studied, use of control or comparison groups, and definition and reporting of childhood sexual abuse; (3) although some of the retrospective studies concluded that childhood sexual abuse may increase the risk that victims will commit sexual abuse later, most of the studies noted that the majority of sex offenders had not been sexually abused as children; (4) the prospective studies, which tracked sexually abused children into adulthood to determine how many became sex offenders, studied sample populations that may not be representative of the entire population of childhood sexual abuse victims; and (5) the prospective studies found that victims of childhood sexual abuse were not more likely than nonvictims to be arrested for sex offenses.

On May 22, 1998, President William J. Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 62 (PDD 62)—Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas. PDD 62 established a framework for federal department and agency counter-terrorism programs, which addressed terrorist apprehension and prosecution, increased transportation security, enhanced emergency response, and enhanced cyber security. PDD 62 also designated specific federal departments and agencies as the lead agencies in the event of terrorist attacks. The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) was designated as the lead agency with the leadership role in the planning, implementation, and coordination of operational security for events of national significance—as designated by the President. Other lead agencies for counter terrorism activities included the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Health and Human Services. On December 19, 2000, Congress enacted P.L. 106 - 544 , the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000, and authorized USSS—when directed by the President—to plan, coordinate, and implement security operations at special events of national significance. The special events were entitled National Special Security Events (NSSEs). Some events categorized as NSSE include presidential inaugurations, major international summits held in the United States, major sporting events, and presidential nominating conventions. Prior to the establishment of DHS in January 2003, the President determined what events of national significance were designated as NSSEs. Since the establishment of the department, the DHS Secretary—as the President's representative—has had the responsibility to designate NSSEs. NSSE designation factors include: anticipated attendance by U.S. officials and foreign dignitaries; size of the event; and significance of the event. Recent NSSEs include the 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama, the Republican and Democratic Presidential Candidate Nominating Conventions in 2008, and the state funeral of former President Gerald Ford on January 3, 2007. When an event is designated an NSSE, USSS becomes the lead federal agency in developing, exercising, and implementing security operations. The goal of these security operations is to "develop and implement a seamless security plan that will create a safe and secure environment for the general public, event participants, Secret Service protectees, and other dignitaries." The USSS's Major Events Division (MED) is responsible for NSSE planning and coordinates with other USSS headquarters and field offices. Some of the coordination includes advance planning and liaison for venue and air space security, training, communications, and security credentialing. Additionally, MED coordinates and conducts liaisons with other federal, state, and local agencies—primarily law enforcement entities. NSSE security is planned, exercised, and implemented through a unified command model that is comprised of representatives of participating federal, state, and local agencies with NSSE responsibilities. During the NSSE's planning phase, each participating agency is tasked according to their expertise or jurisdictional responsibility. USSS states that, "with the support of hundreds of federal, state, and local law enforcement and public safety organizations, each of these events has successfully concluded without any major incidents." NSSE operational plans include the use of physical infrastructure security fencing, barricades, special access accreditation badges, K-9 teams, and other security technologies. To ensure consequence management, DHS prepositions Domestic Emergency Support Teams, Urban Search and Rescue Teams, national Emergency Response Teams, Nuclear Incident Response Teams, and the Strategic National Stockpile and Mobile Emergency Response System. Specific teams and groupings of teams are designed for each event based on coordination with other federal entities, state and local jurisdictions, available local resources, and mutual aid agreements. Additionally, USSS sponsors training seminars for command-level federal, state, and local law enforcement and public safety officials to provide principles for managing security at major events and strategies for reducing vulnerabilities related to terrorism. The seminars also discuss key strategies and lessons learned from past NSSEs. Even though NSSEs have been conducted since 1998, Congress has only appropriated funding specifically for a general NSSE fund since FY2006. Congress has, however, appropriated funding for five specific NSSEs. The first two were the 2004 Democratic and Republican presidential nominating conventions in Boston, MA, and New York City, NY, respectively. The next two were the 2008 Democratic and Republican nominating conventions in Denver, CO, and Minneapolis - St. Paul, MN, respectively. The 108 th Congress appropriated a total of $100 million for presidential nominating convention security at these two events. This $100 million was administered through the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Enforcement Assistance Programs (the Byrne programs). DOJ used the majority of this funding to reimburse state and local law enforcement entities for overtime costs because USSS did not have a mechanism to reimburse state and local law enforcement entities for NSSE security costs. The most recent NSSE funding was $15 million for "emergency planning and security costs" for the District of Columbia which was used for the January 20, 2009, inauguration of President Barack Obama. Additionally, former President George W. Bush declared a state of emergency for the District of Columbia, which authorizes the federal government to reimburse the District for emergency preparedness activities and expenditures that exceed the $15 million Congress appropriated in P.L. 110 - 329 . Additionally, Congress appropriated, in the FY2009 omnibus, $39.2 million for emergency planning and security costs in the District, however, this funding is not specifically for NSSEs. Federal funding for National Special Security Events (NSSE) costs incurred by federal, state, and local entities is one issue Congress may wish to address. In FY2008, Congress appropriated $1 million for NSSE costs within the Secret Service. Some might argue that the $1 million Congress has annually appropriated for NSSEs in the past couple of fiscal years may not have be adequate to fund NSSE expenditures, such as the recent presidential inauguration. The amount appropriated could be additionally problematic considering that the Secret Service is not authorized to reimburse state and local law enforcement entities' overtime costs associated with NSSEs. Any security costs incurred by the Secret Service could be funded with appropriations specifically designated for the agency, whereas federal reimbursement of any security costs incurred by state and local jurisdictions would have to be appropriated through other federal assistance programs—such as the $100 million appropriated for the 2008 presidential nominating conventions through DOJ's Office of Justice Programs. Congress might consider establishing a program within Secret Service that not only provides the agency with additional funds for unexpected NSSE security costs, but also authorizes the Secret Service to reimburse state and local law enforcement entities for security costs. Presently, state and local jurisdictions can use DHS grants, such as the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) for NSSE security activities. The grant approval process for these programs, however, is not flexible, so the programs have limited application to NSSEs. States and localities would need to plan SHSGP and UASI funding for NSSE security annually in their grant applications. For unexpected NSSEs—which may be the result of an unexpected death of a President or a change in location of a planned NSSE—states and localities are unable to plan use SHSGP or UASI funds to in advance for security costs. DHS does authorize states and localities to reprogram SHSGP and UASI funding with the DHS Secretary's approval; however, that may result in states and localities not funding other planned homeland security activities.

Major events that are considered to be nationally significant may be designated by the President—or his representative, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—as National Special Security Events (NSSE). Beginning in September 1998 through February 2008, there have been 28 events designated as NSSEs. Some of these events have included presidential inaugurations, presidential nominating conventions, major sports events, and major international meetings. The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) is the lead federal agency responsible for coordinating, planning, exercising, and implementing security for NSSEs, and was designated as the lead agency in P.L. 106-544. This report provides information on USSS legislative authority for NSSEs, NSSE designation funding and training, and NSSE funding. This report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions warrant.

An effective military medical surveillance system needs to collect reliable information on (1) the health care provided to service members before, during, and after deployment, (2) where and when service members were deployed, (3) environmental and occupational health threats or exposures during deployment (in theater) and appropriate protective and counter measures, and (4) baseline health status and subsequent health changes. This information is needed to monitor the overall health condition of deployed troops, inform them of potential health risks, as well as maintain and improve the health of service members and veterans. In times of conflict, a military medical surveillance system is particularly critical to ensure the deployment of a fit and healthy force and to prevent disease and injuries from degrading force capabilities. DOD needs reliable medical surveillance data to determine who is fit for deployment; to prepare service members for deployment, including providing vaccinations to protect against possible exposure to environmental and biological threats; and to treat physical and psychological conditions that resulted from deployment. DOD also uses this information to develop educational measures for service members and medical personnel to ensure that service members receive appropriate care. Reliable medical surveillance information is also critical for VA to carry out its missions. In addition to VA’s better known missions—to provide health care and benefits to veterans and medical research and education— VA has a fourth mission: to provide medical backup to DOD in times of war and civilian health care backup in the event of disasters producing mass casualties. As such, VA needs reliable medical surveillance data from DOD to treat casualties of military conflicts, provide health care to veterans who have left active duty, assist in conducting research should troops be exposed to environmental or occupational hazards, and identify service-connected disabilities, and adjudicate veterans’ disability claims. Investigations into the unexplained illnesses of service members and veterans who had been deployed to the Gulf uncovered the need for DOD to implement an effective medical surveillance system to obtain comprehensive medical data on deployed service members, including Reservists and National Guardsmen. Epidemiological and health outcome studies to determine the causes of these illnesses have been hampered due to incomplete baseline health data on Gulf War veterans, their potential exposure to environmental health hazards, and specific health data on care provided before, during, and after deployment. The Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses’ and IOM’s 1996 investigations into the causes of illnesses experienced by Gulf War veterans confirmed the need for more effective medical surveillance capabilities. The National Science and Technology Council, as tasked by the Presidential Advisory Committee, also assessed the medical surveillance system for deployed service members. In 1998, the council reported that inaccurate recordkeeping made it extremely difficult to get a clear picture of what risk factors might be responsible for Gulf War illnesses. It also reported that without reliable deployment and health assessment information, it was difficult to ensure that veterans’ service-related benefits claims were adjudicated appropriately. The council concluded that the Gulf War exposed many deficiencies in the ability to collect, maintain, and transfer accurate data describing the movement of troops, potential exposures to health risks, and medical incidents in theater. The council reported that the government’s recordkeeping capabilities were not designed to track troop and asset movements to the degree needed to determine who might have been exposed to any given environmental or wartime health hazard. The council also reported major deficiencies in health risk communications, including not adequately informing service members of the risks associated with countermeasures such as vaccines. Without this information, service members may not recognize potential side effects of these countermeasures and promptly take precautionary actions, including seeking medical care. In response to these reports, DOD strengthened its medical surveillance system under Operation Joint Endeavor when service members were deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Hungary. In addition to implementing departmentwide medical surveillance policies, DOD developed specific medical surveillance programs to improve monitoring and tracking environmental and biomedical threats in theater. While these efforts represented important steps, a number of deficiencies remained. On the positive side, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) issued a health surveillance policy for troops deploying to Bosnia. This guidance stressed the need to (1) identify health threats in theater, (2) routinely and uniformly collect and analyze information relevant to troop health, and (3) disseminate this information in a timely manner. DOD required medical units to develop weekly reports on the incidence rates of major categories of diseases and injuries during all deployments. Data from these reports showed theaterwide illness and injury trends so that preventive measures could be identified and forwarded to the theater medical command regarding abnormal trends or actions that should be taken. DOD also established the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine—a major enhancement to DOD’s ability to perform environmental monitoring and tracking. For example, the center operates and maintains a repository of service members’ serum samples for medical surveillance and a system to integrate, analyze, and report data from multiple sources relevant to the health and readiness of military personnel. This capability was augmented with the establishment of the 520th Theater Army Medical Laboratory—a deployable public health laboratory for providing environmental sampling and analysis in theater. The sampling results can be used to identify specific preventive measures and safeguards to be taken to protect troops from harmful exposures and to develop procedures to treat anyone exposed to health hazards. During Operation Joint Endeavor, this laboratory was used in Tuzla, Bosnia, where most of the U.S. forces were located, to conduct air, water, soil, and other environmental monitoring. Despite the department’s progress, we and others have reported on DOD’s implementation difficulties during Operation Joint Endeavor and the shortcomings in DOD’s ability to maintain reliable health information on service members. Knowledge of who is deployed and their whereabouts is critical for identifying individuals who may have been exposed to health hazards while deployed. However, in May 1997, we reported that the inaccurate information on who was deployed and where and when they were deployed—a problem during the Gulf War—continued to be a concern during Operation Joint Endeavor. For example, we found that the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) database—where military services are required to report deployment information—did not include records for at least 200 Navy service members who were deployed. Conversely, the DMDC database included Air Force personnel who were never actually deployed. In addition, we reported that DOD had not developed a system for tracking the movement of service members within theater. IOM also reported that the locations of service members during the deployments were still not systematically documented or archived for future use. We also reported in May 1997 that for the more than 600 Army personnel whose medical records we reviewed, DOD’s centralized database for postdeployment medical assessments did not capture 12 percent of those assessments conducted in theater and 52 percent of those conducted after returning home. These data are needed by epidemiologists and other researchers to assess at an aggregate level the changes that have occurred between service members’ pre- and postdeployment health assessments. Further, many service members’ medical records did not include complete information on in-theater postdeployment medical assessments that had been conducted. The Army’s European Surgeon General attributed missing in-theater health information to DOD’s policy of having service members hand carry paper assessment forms from the theater to their home units, where their permanent medical records were maintained. The assessments were frequently lost en route. We have also reported that not all medical encounters in theater were being recorded in individual records. Our 1997 report identified that this problem was particularly common for immunizations given in theater. Detailed data on service members’ vaccine history are vital for scheduling the regimen of vaccinations and boosters and for tracking individuals who received vaccinations from a specific lot in the event health concerns about the vaccine lot emerge. We found that almost one-fourth of the service members’ medical records that we reviewed did not document the fact that they had received a vaccine for tick-borne encephalitis. In addition, in its 2000 report, IOM cited limited progress in medical recordkeeping for deployed active duty and reserve forces and emphasized the need for records of immunizations to be included in individual medical records. Responding to our and others’ recommendations to improve information on service members’ deployments, in-theater medical encounters, and immunizations, DOD has continued to revise and expand its policies relating to medical surveillance, and the system continues to evolve. In addition, in 2000, DOD released its Force Health Protection plan, which presents its vision for protecting deployed forces. This vision emphasizes force fitness and health preparedness and improving the monitoring and surveillance of health threats in military operations. However, IOM criticized DOD’s progress in implementing its medical surveillance program and the failure to implement several recommendations that IOM had made. In addition, IOM raised concerns about DOD’s ability to achieve the vision outlined in the Force Health Protection plan. We have also reported that some of DOD’s programs designed to improve medical surveillance have not been fully implemented. IOM’s 2000 report presented the results of its assessment of DOD’s progress in implementing recommendations for improving medical surveillance made by IOM and several others. IOM stated that, although DOD generally concurred with the findings of these groups, DOD had made few concrete changes at the field level. For example, medical encounters in theater were still not always recorded in individuals’ medical records, and the locations of service members during deployments were still not systematically documented or archived for future use. In addition, environmental and medical hazards were not yet well integrated in the information provided to commanders. The IOM report notes that a major reason for this lack of progress is no single authority within DOD has been assigned responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations and plans. IOM said that because of the complexity of the tasks involved and the overlapping areas of responsibility involved, the single authority must rest with the Secretary of Defense. In its report, IOM describes six strategies that in its view demand further emphasis and require greater efforts by DOD: Use a systematic process to prospectively evaluate non-battle-related risks associated with the activities and settings of deployments. Collect and manage environmental data and personnel location, biological samples, and activity data to facilitate analysis of deployment exposures and to support clinical care and public health activities. Develop the risk assessment, risk management, and risk communications skills of military leaders at all levels. Accelerate implementation of a health surveillance system that completely spans an individual’s time in service. Implement strategies to address medically unexplained symptoms in populations that have deployed. Implement a joint computerized patient record and other automated recordkeeping that meets the information needs of those involved with individual care and military public health. DOD guidance established requirements for recording and tracking vaccinations and automating medical records for archiving and recalling medical encounters. While our work indicates that DOD has made some progress in improving its immunization information, the department faces numerous challenges in implementing an automated medical record. In October 1999, we reported that DOD’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which relies on medical personnel or service members to provide needed vaccine data, may not have included information on adverse reactions because DOD did not adequately inform personnel on how to provide this information. Also, in April 2000, we testified that vaccination data were not consistently recorded in paper records and in a central database, as DOD requires. For example, when comparing records from the database with paper records at four military installations, we found that information on the number of vaccinations given to service members, the dates of the vaccinations, and the vaccine lot numbers were inconsistent at all four installations. At one installation, the database and records did not agree 78 to 92 percent of the time. DOD has begun to make progress in implementing our recommendations, including ensuring timely and accurate data in its immunization tracking system. The Gulf War revealed the need to have information technology play a bigger role in medical surveillance to ensure that the information is readily accessible to DOD and VA. In August 1997, DOD established requirements that called for the use of innovative technology, such as an automated medical record device that can document inpatient and outpatient encounters in all settings and that can archive the information for local recall and format it for an injury, illness, and exposure surveillance database. Also, in 1997, the President, responding to deficiencies in DOD’s and VA’s data capabilities for handling service members’ health information, called for the two agencies to start developing a comprehensive, lifelong medical record for each service member. As we reported in April 2001, DOD’s and VA’s numerous databases and electronic systems for capturing mission-critical data, including health information, are not linked and information cannot be readily shared. DOD has several initiatives under way to link many of its information systems—some with VA. For example, in an effort to create a comprehensive, lifelong medical record for service members and veterans and to allow health care professionals to share clinical information, DOD and VA, along with the Indian Health Service (IHS), initiated the Government Computer-Based Patient Record (GCPR) project in 1998. GCPR is seen as yielding a number of potential benefits, including improved research and quality of care, and clinical and administrative efficiencies. However, our April 2001 report describes several factors— including planning weaknesses, competing priorities, and inadequate accountability—that made it unlikely that DOD and VA would accomplish GCPR or realize its benefits in the near future. To strengthen the management and oversight of GCPR, we made several recommendations, including designating a lead entity with a clear line of authority for the project and creating comprehensive and coordinated plans for sharing meaningful, accurate, and secure patient health data. For the near term, DOD and VA have decided to reconsider their approach to GCPR and focus on allowing VA to view DOD health data. However, under the interim effort, physicians at military medical facilities will not be able to view health information from other facilities or from VA—now a potentially critical information source given VA’s fourth mission to provide medical backup to the military health system in times of national emergency and war. In October 2001, we met with officials from the Defense Health Program and the Army Surgeon General’s Office who indicated that the department is working on issues we have reported on in the past, including the need to improve the reliability of deployment information and the need to integrate disparate health information systems. Specifically, these officials informed us that DOD is developing a more accurate roster of deployed service members and enhancing its information technology capabilities. For example, DOD’s Theater Medical Information Program (TMIP) is intended to capture medical information on deployed personnel and link it with medical information captured in the department’s new medical information system, now being field tested. Developmental testing for TMIP has begun and field testing is expected to begin in spring 2002, with deployment expected in 2003. A component system of TMIP— Transportation Command Regulating and Command and Control Evacuation System—is also under development and aims to allow casualty tracking and provide in-transit visibility of casualties during wartime and peacetime. Also under development is the Global Expeditionary Medical System, which DOD characterizes as a stepping stone to an integrated biohazard surveillance and detection system. Clearly, the need for comprehensive health information on service members and veterans is very great, and much more needs to be done. However, it is also a very difficult task because of uncertainties about what conditions may exist in a deployed setting, such as potential military conflicts, environmental hazards, and frequency of troop movements. While progress is being made, DOD will need to continue to make a concerted effort to resolve the remaining deficiencies in its surveillance system. Until such a time that some of the deficiencies are overcome, VA’s ability to perform its missions will be affected. For further information, please contact Cynthia A. Bascetta at (202) 512- 7101. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Ann Calvaresi Barr, Karen Sloan, and Keith Steck.

GAO, the Institute of Medicine, and others have cited weaknesses in the Defense Department's (DOD) medical surveillance during the Gulf War and Operation Joint Endeavor. DOD was unable to collect, maintain, and transfer accurate data on the movement of troops, potential exposures to health risks, and medical incidents during deployment in the Gulf war. DOD improved its medical surveillance system under Operation Joint Endeavor, providing useful information to military commanders and medical personnel. However, GAO found several problems with this system. For example, incomplete or inaccurate information related to service members' health and deployment status. DOD's has not established a single, comprehensive electronic system to document, archive, and access medical surveillance data. DOD has begun several initiatives to improve the reliability of deployment information and to enhance its information technology capabilities, but some initiatives are several years away from full implementation. Nonetheless, these efforts reflect a commitment by DOD to establish a comprehensive medical surveillance system. The ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to fulfill its role in serving veterans and providing backup to DOD in times of war will be enhanced as DOD increases its medical surveillance capability.

DOD has designated four locations to process DCPS payroll transactions. Three of the locations—Denver, Colorado; Pensacola, Florida; and Charleston, South Carolina—were in operation at the time of our review. The fourth location in Omaha, Nebraska is scheduled to begin processing DCPS transactions in August 1995. DCPS was paying civilian employees from four DCPS databases in December 1993 and was scheduled to increase the number of databases to nine by August 1995. DOD designated the Financial Systems Activity at Pensacola, Florida, as the Central Design Activity responsible for maintaining and updating the payroll system. The Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS)—DOD’s standard personnel system—provides DCPS with most essential personnel information needed to pay Navy civilian employees. DCPDS has an automated interface with the payroll system that is designed to automatically transfer personnel information such as employee name, social security number, job grade or step, and salary. The personnel data is entered into the personnel system by individual Navy Human Resource Offices throughout the country. These Human Resource Offices are the responsibility of the Navy’s Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. Generally, Navy civilian employee time and attendance data for actual hours worked is entered into DCPS separately by the timekeepers at the employee’s work location. To evaluate the propriety and accuracy of Navy civilian payroll payments, we performed computer analyses of pay records to (1) determine if payments were made only to authorized personnel and (2) identify any payments made in excess of authorized amounts. To determine if payments were being made to authorized personnel, we obtained and compared electronic copies of Navy civilian payroll and personnel records for the pay period ending December 25, 1993. At that time, DCPS was paying about 188,000 Navy civilian personnel. In addition, we reviewed the Uniform Financial Management System in Arlington, Virginia, and the Uniform Automated Data Processing System, in Honolulu, Hawaii, which paid about 28,000 and 9,000 Navy civilians, respectively, at that time. In total, we reviewed the propriety and accuracy of payroll payments made to about 80 percent of the 281,000 civilians employed by the Navy in 1993. To ensure that we had all and only the payroll data for that pay period, we matched the total payroll amounts for each payroll office with their corresponding payroll certification report. To identify potential improper payments or overpayments, we conducted various computer matches and searches to identify Navy civilians who received multiple DCPS payments; were paid without an active personnel record; were paid at a higher rate than authorized; had high annual leave balances and did not use annual leave, sick leave, or compensatory time in 1993; and were paid by both DCPS and other civilian pay systems. To determine if any payments in excess of authorized amounts existed within the universe of the potential overpayments identified through our tests discussed above, we provided DFAS with our test results and requested that DFAS contact Navy Personnel and jointly determine whether any payments were made in excess of authorized amounts. Because they had not yet responded after 4 months, we contacted about 60 Navy Human Resource Offices throughout the country and requested a copy of the official personnel record showing the authorized pay rate for each potentially overpaid Navy civilian. We compared this pay rate to the rate each potentially overpaid Navy civilian was paid to determine which Navy civilians were actually overpaid. To assess the vulnerability of DFAS’ and the Navy’s civilian payroll internal controls to loss of funds from fraud and abuse, we observed payroll processing, reviewed applicable DCPS documentation (including reports, policies, and regulations), and interviewed cognizant DFAS and Navy Personnel officials. We performed our work at the three active DCPS locations in Charleston, South Carolina; Pensacola, Florida; and Denver, Colorado. We also performed work at two payroll processing locations using other payroll systems at the time of our review—the Uniform Financial Management System in Arlington, Virginia, and the Uniform Automated Data Processing System, in Honolulu, Hawaii. In addition, we performed audit work at the DCPS Central Design Activity in Pensacola, Florida; the Navy Civilian Personnel Data System Center in San Antonio, Texas; and Navy Human Resource Offices in Charleston, South Carolina; Pensacola and Jacksonville, Florida; and San Diego, California. Our work was performed between August 1993 and February 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from cognizant DFAS and Navy Personnel officials. Their views have been incorporated where appropriate and are further discussed in the agency comments section of this report. Our matching tests of 225,000 payroll and associated personnel records to determine the propriety and accuracy of Navy civilian payroll payments disclosed overpayments to 134 Navy civilians, or less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the accounts tested. This is in contrast to the Army where we found improper payroll payments totaling millions of dollars, including payments to “ghost” soldiers and deserters. As shown in table 1, we confirmed overpayments of $62,500 were made to Navy civilians. However, we also found that total overpayments were actually higher than those we confirmed because some erroneous payments continued for nearly a year. For example, one Navy civilian was paid by DCPS at a rate of $52,217 for 1993, instead of the authorized rate of $47,209. Thus, although the overpayment for the pay period we reviewed was about $190, the total amount overpaid on an annual basis was about $5,000. Because DCPS only keeps payroll records on-line for a 6-month period, and because of the significant amount of resources required to research each overpayment on microfiche, we did not determine the full extent of overpayments associated with the 134 cases we identified. However, the total overpayment amounts are undoubtedly far greater than the amounts shown in table 1. These overpayments were caused, at least in part, because (1) DFAS and Navy Personnel did not reconcile discrepancies between personnel and payroll records and (2) DFAS staff did not compare payments from the various payroll databases to detect unauthorized payments to a single civilian employee. Nonetheless, our examination of payroll records showed that many of the overpayments were identified by DFAS within 6 months of their occurrence. When DFAS detected overpayments, it processed retroactive transactions to change the pay records and to initiate DFAS’ recovery or resolution process. We noted such retroactive adjustments, totaling $50,374, for 45 of the 134 overpaid Navy civilians identified in table 1. As noted previously, we did not determine the extent to which the conditions permitting the specific overpayments we identified resulted in overpayments in other pay periods, nor did we ascertain how DFAS learned of the overpayments for which it initiated retroactive transactions. Instead, in November 1994, we met with cognizant DFAS and Navy Personnel officials and provided them with a comprehensive list of all the overpayments we identified. We requested that they jointly follow up to determine the full extent of overpayments and that DFAS recover these amounts. As of March 1995, DFAS and Navy had not completed their determination of the full extent of overpayments, and as a result had not yet completed necessary recovery actions. Comparisons between the payroll and personnel systems and reconciliations of discrepancies were not routinely done. Specifically, Navy and DFAS compared Navy civilian payroll and personnel files only four times between May 1992 and August 1994. More importantly, discrepancies identified from these comparisons were not resolved because Navy and DFAS had not established procedures for systematic follow-up and correction of identified discrepancies. Had more frequent payroll and personnel comparisons taken place, and any discrepancies systematically researched and their resolution documented, DFAS could have promptly detected and corrected the overpayments we identified. For example, as shown in table 1, we found that DFAS paid 84 civilian employees at a higher pay rate than authorized in their personnel records. These overpayments totaled $5,251 for the one pay period we tested. In addition, table 1 shows that DFAS paid about $7,700 to another 14 individuals who did not have active personnel records. DFAS and Navy Personnel acknowledged that they infrequently reconciled payroll and personnel data. DFAS officials told us that payroll and personnel data reconciliations do occur as part of the conversion process of payroll accounts to DCPS. However, these officials acknowledged that not all discrepancies identified during these reconciliations are researched and resolved prior to the conversion of the payroll account to DCPS. As a result, erroneous information, such as an incorrect pay rates, may be passed from the closing payroll offices to the cognizant receiving DCPS payroll center. The DCPDS/DCPS Payroll Handbook calls for conducting payroll/personnel reconciliations about every 4 months to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the payroll and personnel records. However, DFAS and Navy Personnel officials stated that they had not consistently reconciled differences between payroll and personnel records and pointed out that they did not have procedures to systematically resolve and document the disposition of the discrepancies found during their reconciliations of payroll and personnel records. With the continued rapid consolidation of payroll accounts into the DCPS system, which is discussed later in this report, it is critical that payroll and personnel reconciliations be routinely conducted and that all discrepancies be systematically followed up and resolved. In commenting on this report, DFAS officials told us that they believe the recent addition of edit checks to the electronic interface between DOD’s standard personnel system and DCPS decreased the need for data reconciliation. While not detailing the extent of these changes, DFAS officials told us that DCPS was enhanced to automatically reject and return proposed personnel actions affecting pay if they did not pass recently initiated DCPS edit checks and that this enhancement permitted faster identification of erroneous data. We agree that this improvement in the interface between the personnel and payroll systems could help prevent some of the kinds of overpayments we identified. However, it is unlikely that such edit checks would prevent overpayments arising from Navy civilians receiving multiple DCPS payments or Navy civilians being paid by both DCPS and other payroll systems. In addition, not all personnel information flows through the interface. For example, we noted instances where notices of personnel actions were manually entered into DCPS. Moreover, the reconciliations would be useful for determining the effectiveness of these recently added edit checks. Consequently, we believe that there is a continuing need for data reconciliations between the payroll and personnel systems. As shown in table 1, our audit disclosed that 25 civilian employees were overpaid at least $27,000 because DFAS erroneously paid them from two separate DCPS payroll databases. We found an additional 11 overpayments totaling nearly $22,300 that were caused by payments being processed independently from both DCPS and another payroll system for the same individual. DCPS did not have internal control procedures to determine if multiple payments were made to a single social security number and to ensure that its four databases did not generate undetected erroneous multiple payments to a single individual. DCPS’ vulnerability to erroneous payments from multiple databases is likely to increase because DFAS plans to expand the number of payroll databases from four at the time of our review to nine by the end of fiscal year 1995. In addition to the need for stronger controls to prevent overpayments, DCPS was also vulnerable to improper payments as a result of weaknesses in controls relied on to regulate access to data, document transaction processing, and perform file maintenance. Specifically, DFAS gave most payroll staff unnecessary access to sensitive DCPS data and did not provide for a complete audit trail documenting who made changes to payroll records. In addition, DFAS did not have controls in place to prevent payroll accounts from former employees remaining on the system from being fraudulently reactivated and paid. These internal control weaknesses could result in improper or fraudulent payments. Such internal controls are particularly critical in light of the scope of the ongoing DCPS consolidation effort. DFAS officials have described this as the most aggressive effort ever undertaken in this area, involving the consolidation of about 700,000 accounts from over 350 payroll offices worldwide. They further stated that this effort involved the consolidation of 19 different automated payroll systems and several manual systems operating overseas—all of which they acknowledged were in various states of disrepair. In addition, strong internal controls, including segregating key duties among responsible personnel, are necessary to provide reasonable assurance that assets, such as payroll funds, are safeguarded against loss. Computer access controls, such as those used by DCPS, are intended to permit authorized users to access the system to perform their assigned duties and preclude unauthorized persons from gaining access. However, we found that DFAS unnecessarily granted supervisory access codes to staff that did not have supervisory responsibilities. Supervisory level access, the highest access level DFAS granted to its payroll processing staff, allows individuals to create employee records; enter employee time and attendance data; and change salary amounts, names, and pay destinations. While such access would not enable DFAS payroll processing staff to directly access personnel data in DCPDS, it would enable DFAS staff to add to or modify personnel data—for example, adding employees or modifying pay rates—after transmission to DCPS. To illustrate, a single payroll staff with this access level would be capable of creating and paying a fictitious employee or fraudulently diverting payroll funds to another destination. About 86 percent of the supervisory level access codes at the three DCPS payroll processing locations were granted to nonsupervisors. For example, at the Denver DCPS processing location, 138 staff were granted supervisory level access, including 2 temporary employees, while only 13 had supervisory responsibilities. After our inquiry, Denver officials removed about 20 percent of the supervisory level access codes because the individuals either had left the organization or otherwise should not have had access to the payroll system. However, Denver still had 97 supervisory level access codes granted to nonsupervisors. By granting supervisory level access to payroll processing staff who did not need that level of access, DFAS inappropriately gave the majority of its staff access to both personnel information and time and attendance data. DCPS Security Guidelines Manual states that the system’s design should provide for a separation of duties between payroll clerks in the payroll office. Specifically, a single payroll clerk should not be capable of both creating or changing employee records and entering time and attendance data for the same group of payroll accounts. Further, GAO’s Internal Control Standards state that key duties and responsibilities in authorizing and processing payroll should be separated among individuals. According to DFAS officials, supervisory level access is necessary to perform a wide variety of tasks associated with maintaining payroll operations while converting Navy civilian payroll accounts from their previous payroll systems to DCPS, including the tasks of entering both new pay accounts and time and attendance data. DFAS officials told us that they accepted the increased risk resulting from granting supervisory level access. However, DFAS did not specifically assess whether—and how long—nonsupervisory payroll technicians may need supervisory level access during the period of DCPS consolidation. We believe that the increased risk associated with the large scope of the ongoing DCPS conversion process—which DFAS officials informed us is not scheduled for completion until March 1997—necessitates strong access controls. DFAS officials acknowledged that they needed to identify the appropriate number of staff who should have supervisory access at this time. DCPS’ audit trail contains incomplete information for identifying who was responsible for changing certain types of DCPS data. Lacking such audit trail capability leaves DCPS vulnerable to undetected fraudulent payments. Specifically, DCPS routinely recorded only the identity of the payroll clerk last accessing the payroll account, regardless of whether or not this person made any changes. However, to ensure effective control over changes in personnel data affecting pay, such as name, address, pay destination, and salary amounts, it is critical that DCPS have a complete audit trail identifying the payroll clerk responsible for each change, not merely the payroll clerk last accessing the system. In addition, retroactive transactions to correct or update previous payroll payments did not carry any payroll clerk identification. Audit trails identifying which payroll clerk initiated a change in DCPS data are necessary to document the responsibility for the sequence of events followed in processing a transaction. According to Joint Financial Management Improvement Program requirements, computer systems must provide audit trails to trace transactions from source documents, through successive levels of summarization, to the financial statements and from the financial statements to the source. Guidelines for Security of Computer Applications, Federal Information Processing Standards 73, states that computer system users should be uniquely identified so that they can be held responsible for their activities—it is usually not enough to verify that a user is one of a group of authorized users. It is difficult to detect security breaches unless there is a record of system events which can be analyzed, including information on who accessed the system, what was accessed, and what actions were performed. DCPS is currently incapable of providing a complete audit trail with this level of detail. For example, when DFAS officials in Denver were informed by a civilian that he was overpaid $1,000 in January 1993, DFAS was able to determine that an erroneous change had been made to this employee’s account, but DFAS could not determine which payroll clerk initiated the change in DCPS. The need for a well-documented audit trail is particularly important because, as discussed previously, most personnel have supervisory level access allowing them to access and change all records on a DCPS database. DFAS officials acknowledged the necessity and importance of audit trails. However, they informed us that they have not yet determined a specific course of action on how best to establish a comprehensive audit trail in a cost-efficient manner. The Navy’s civilian payroll was also at risk of fraud and abuse because many payroll accounts of former employees, who should no longer receive pay checks—called inactive payroll accounts—remained on the system. As of December 1993, DCPS had about 40,000 inactive payroll accounts on the system and no controls to prevent these accounts from being reactivated for fraudulent payments. Inactive payroll accounts may be reactivated by anyone with supervisory level access, which as discussed previously is the majority of the payroll clerks, by changing one code in DCPS. Because of the large number of staff with supervisory level access to the payroll system and the incomplete audit trail discussed previously, the risk that these accounts can be fraudulently reactivated is increased. DFAS officials stated that the inactive payroll accounts were maintained on the system until they prepared the W-2 tax information and made all necessary corrections to an employee’s payroll account. Once this process was complete, the inactive payroll files were to be purged from the system in July of the year the W-2s were created. Thus, an inactive payroll record could remain on DCPS for up to 19 months. Compounding this vulnerability, in July 1993, the DCPS Central Design Activity, did not purge the inactive payroll accounts from DCPS, which DFAS officials said accounted for the high number of inactive payroll records found during our testing at the end of December 1993. We agree that DFAS needs to maintain information on inactive accounts to prepare W-2s and make necessary corrections to payroll accounts. However, given the current unstable control environment associated with the ongoing unprecedented DCPS consolidation, we believe that information on inactive accounts should not remain on the active database. This risk can be significantly reduced if payroll accounts of former employees are removed from the active payroll system and placed in a separate database, with appropriately restricted access. Our testing identified insignificant overpayments in relation to the number and dollar amounts of payroll payments made to Navy civilians. However, we did identify internal control vulnerabilities which, if exploited, could permit additional improper civilian payroll payments to occur and not be readily detected. Strengthening DFAS and Navy procedures to restrict access to payroll and personnel data and modifying the DCPS system to provide a reliable audit trail would both help prevent fraudulent payments and detect overpayments when they occur. With the ongoing rapid consolidation of DOD civilian payroll accounts into the DCPS system that is not scheduled to be completed until early 1997, it is critical that top management devote attention and priority to correcting existing control vulnerabilities as soon as possible. In addition, effectively researching and documenting the correction of discrepancies identified through a payroll and personnel record comparison will require the concerted cooperative effort of both cognizant Navy and DFAS officials for personnel and payroll record accuracy, respectively. We recommend that the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service direct appropriate officials to: Complete follow-up on the 134 overpaid employees we identified and referred to DFAS and Navy Personnel officials to determine the full extent of overpayment, collect amounts due, and identify and correct systemic causes of the overpayments. Conduct payroll/personnel reconciliations every 4 months, as called for by the DCPDS/DCPS Payroll Handbook, and establish a requirement for timely systematic follow-up, including research, correction, and documentation of all discrepancies. We recommend that the Director of DFAS: Establish and implement detailed automated procedures documented in the Defense Civilian Pay System Users Manual to detect and correct any unauthorized multiple payments to a single social security number. Assess, on a case-by-case basis, the extent to which nonsupervisory payroll technicians need supervisory level access, and, if so, grant such access for as limited a period as possible. Require the DCPS Central Design Activity to develop an audit trail in DCPS that marks all transactions with a user identification that cannot be overwritten. Remove current inactive payroll records from the active payroll system and place these records in a separate database, with restricted access. Establish and implement detailed written procedures to remove all future inactive payroll accounts from the active payroll system, and place these records in a separate database, with restricted access. DFAS and Navy Personnel officials generally agreed with our recommendations. However, DFAS officials expressed concern that we did not sufficiently recognize the extenuating circumstances brought about by the ongoing rapid consolidation of DCPS processing locations. We believe that the changes DCPS is undergoing warrant adequate controls to ensure that risks associated with such changes are sufficiently mitigated. Given the increased risk associated with the changing environment in which DCPS currently operates, we continue to believe that the findings and recommendations in our report are appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Navy; the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Defense; the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. This report was prepared under my direction and I may be reached at (202)512-9095 if you have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix I. Diane Handley, Senior Evaluator The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

GAO reviewed the Navy's civilian payroll operations, focusing on the: (1) propriety and accuracy of payments made to civilian personnel; and (2) vulnerability of the internal control system to prevent fraud and abuse. GAO found that: (1) 134 of 225,000 Navy civilians were overpaid a total of at least $62,500 in 1 year; (2) these overpayments were due to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service's (DFAS) failure to determine if individual civilian employees were paid from multiple databases for the same time period and infrequent reconciliations between civilian payroll and personnel systems; (3) the Navy's civilian payroll operations are susceptible to additional improper payments as a result of many personnel having unrestricted access to payroll data, DFAS inability to identify database changes, and DFAS maintenance of inactive payroll accounts on the active payroll database; and (4) the rapid consolidation of civilian payroll accounts into the Defense Civilian Payroll System could exacerbate control weaknesses if vulnerabilities are not adequately addressed.

Head Start is administered by HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF). Services are provided at the local level by public and private nonprofit agencies that receive their funding directly from HHS. These agencies include public and private school systems, community action agencies, government agencies, and Indian tribes. Grantees may contract with one or more other public or private nonprofit organizations—commonly referred to as delegate agencies—in the community to run all or part of their local Head Start programs. Grantees may choose to provide center-based programs, home-based programs, or a combination of both. Once approved for funding as a result of a competitive application process, Head Start grantees do not compete for funding in succeeding years. However, they are required to submit applications for continuation awards (hereafter called awards) to support their programs beyond the initial grantee budget year. After Head Start receives its annual appropriation from the Congress, the respective HHS regional offices make awards to grantees in their administrative service areas at the beginning of each grantee’s budget year as shown in table 1. Grantees use their awards for the following purposes, among others, to: purchase or rent a facility if providing a center-based program; hire qualified teachers, aides, and support staff; coordinate or contract with Public Health agencies and local health providers to deliver medical and dental services; buy or lease vehicles to transport children to Head Start centers; purchase utilities, services, and supplies needed to operate a center and administer the program; and comply with program standards and local building and health codes that ensure quality and safety. During a grantee budget year, grantees may also receive supplemental awards for specific purposes (such as expanding enrollment) or to cover normal, though sometimes unexpected, expenses such as repairing a roof or purchasing a new heating system. In addition, grantee accounts may be adjusted as the result of a routine financial audit or Head Start regional office review of grantees’ files. These activities sometimes identify unspent funds that the grantee did not report due to an error or oversight. HHS requires grantees to get their Head Start accounts audited every 2 years, though many grantees hire accountants to perform an audit every year. As shown in figure 1, grantees, as expected, may not necessarily spend all of their award by the end of their budget year. HHS permits grantees to carry over unspent funds into the next grantee budget year to complete any program objectives that remain unmet from the previous year. HHS regional offices generally handle carryover funds in two ways: 1. Carryover balances from a previous year or years are added to an award that a grantee receives in a subsequent year. This procedure is known as “reprogramming” funds, and the amount of carryover funds added to a grantee’s award is called total obligating authority (TOA). 2. Carryover balances from a previous year or years offset or reduce the award that a grantee receives in a subsequent year. This procedure is known as “offsetting” funds, and the amount of carryover deducted from the award is called new obligating authority (NOA). New $ (TOA) New $ (NOA) The growth in Head Start funding since 1990 (see fig. 2) reflects the federal government’s commitment to expanding the number of children in the program and to ensuring program quality. Overall program funding increased from about $1.5 billion in fiscal year 1990 to about $3.5 billion in fiscal year 1995. Twice in fiscal year 1990 and once each in fiscal years 1991, 1992, and 1993, the Congress appropriated additional funding for Head Start to, among other things, increase local enrollments, strengthen the program’s social, health, and parent involvement components; improve services for disabled children; initiate and improve literacy programs; and enhance salaries, benefits, training, and technical assistance for program staff. ACF allocated these expansion funds on the basis of a formula as required by statute. Despite this dramatic growth in Head Start appropriations, HHS awarded virtually all program funding to eligible grantees. Head Start’s program obligation rates for each of these years stayed at or above 99 percent, while the total number of grantees increased from 1,321 in fiscal year 1990 to about 1,400 in fiscal year 1994. Overall program outlay rates (that is, the ratio of outlays to budget authority) during this period indicate that outlays remained stable as grantees received infusions of Head Start expansion or quality improvement funding. However, at the grantee level, this funding growth increased grantee awards and unspent balances for the grantees included in our universe during the grantee budget years we examined. We found that total grantee awards for the 1,197 Head Start grantees covered by our review increased from $1.4 billion to $2.3 billion from grantee budget years 1992 through 1994, while mean awards rose from $1.2 million to $1.9 million in these same years. (See table 2.) During grantee budget years 1992, 1993, and 1994—a period of intense growth—about two-thirds of the 1,197 grantees had unspent balances at the end of each budget year. Almost 40 percent of these 1,197 grantees had unspent balances every year. As shown in table 2, these balances totaled approximately $54 million, $101 million, and $130 million, in grantee budget years 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively, and varied greatly by grantee. However, these unspent balances were a small part of grantees’ total awards. On the basis of our analysis, unspent balances represented from about 5 to 8 percent of the award for those grantees with unspent balances and from 4 to 6 percent of total awards for all grantees in the aggregate. (See app. II for the reported unspent balances of the 108 grantees included in our sample.) Unspent balances resulted from (1) small differences between the amount of a grantee’s annual award and its actual expenditures at the end of its grantee budget year, (2) situations that delay a grantee’s expenditure of funds or that hamper a grantee’s ability to spend funds before the year’s end, and (3) a combination of these and other reasons. We found that almost two-thirds of grantees in grantee budget year 1992 and about half in grantee budget years 1993 and 1994 had small differences between their total award approved at the beginning of a grantee budget year and the amount spent at year’s end. We considered these spending variances small if the amount of unspent funds was 5 percent or less of a grantee’s award in a given year. These small budget variances could have occurred because, for example, (1) grantees’ projected budgets—upon which grant awards are based—did not equal their actual expenditures or (2) grantees did not purchase an item or service as originally planned. For example, a grantee in Ohio had ordered two buses and playground equipment for its Head Start center. However, these items were not delivered nor paid for before the grantee’s budget year ended, resulting in an unspent balance of $84,762. We found that from 10 to 24 percent of grantees with unspent balances in grantee budget years 1992 through 1994 (1) had problems renovating or building a center, which delayed planned expenditures until subsequent years, or (2) received additional funding late in a grantee budget year, making it difficult for grantees to spend all of their funds before year’s end. For example, a Head Start grantee in Colorado received funding to increase its program enrollment in early September 1991—about 2 months before the grantee’s budget year was to end on October 30. Due to the short time remaining, the grantee could not spend $89,980 of the amount awarded for expanding program enrollment. This same grantee had agreed verbally with a private company to prepare a site so that the grantee could place a modular unit on it to serve as a Head Start center. Site preparation would have involved establishing water, sewer, gas, and electrical hookups at the site. Before any work began, however, new owners took over the company and did not honor the verbal agreement between the grantee and the previous owner. It took the grantee 2 years to find another site suitable for the center, and that facility required extensive renovations. HHS’ Office of Inspector General reported in 1991 and 1993 that acquiring adequate, affordable space was a major problem for Head Start grantees attempting to expand program enrollments. Grantees told the Inspector General’s office that it can take up to a year to find suitable space that then may have to be renovated. Strict construction licensing requirements and delays in license approval could also slow spending for center construction or renovation. The Inspector General reported that space problems were most prevalent among grantees funded to increase enrollment by more than 200 children. The grantees believed that being notified at least 6 months in advance of funding disbursements would help to alleviate this problem. Head Start grantees interviewed by the Inspector General’s staff also said that receiving expansion funding late in the budget year results in carryover fund balances. After expansion, more than twice as many grantees interviewed had carryover balances of over $50,000. Many grantees believe that even with adequate lead time large expansions should not occur annually. According to the grantee files we reviewed, unspent balances sometimes occurred for reasons other than small budget variances or timing issues. On the basis of information included in grantee files and discussions with regional office program officials, we found, for example, that unspent balances occurred because grantees experienced accounting or management problems during 1 or more years, depended on large government bureaucracies, such as New York City’s, to provide certain goods and services, which often slowed program expenditures; or assumed the program operations and accounts of a former grantee. Also, unspent balances may have occurred for a combination of reasons described above. In other cases we could not determine the reason for grantees’ unspent balances on the basis of file information or discussions with Head Start regional office officials. Unspent balances occur when a grantee’s total award differs from the amount the grantee spent during its budget year. As previously stated, these unspent funds may be carried over into a subsequent grantee budget year. For our analysis, we defined carryover funds as any unspent funds used to either offset or add to a grantee’s award during a subsequent budget year. Carryover funds are not always added to or offset in the year immediately following the year the unspent funds occurred. For example, a grantee in Florida with $45,913 in unspent funds in grantee budget year 1992 did not have this amount totally added to or offset as carryover funds in grantee budget year 1993. In fact, $45,759 was added to its budget year 1993 award and the remaining $154 was used to offset the grantee’s budget year 1994 award. A grantee in Minnesota, on the other hand, had $3,840 from grantee budget year 1993 added to its budget year 1995 award. Yet, a Michigan grantee had its entire grantee budget year 1992 unspent balance of $1,568 offset as carryover funds in 1993. On the basis of our analysis of grantee files, we found that in grantee budget year 1993 HHS added about half of all carryover funds to grantees’ awards as TOA and the remaining proportion of carryover funds was offset as NOA. Of the grantees in our sample with TOA in grantee budget year 1993, the unspent funds added to grantee awards ranged from $10,900 to $533,500 and averaged approximately $96,000. If we had included the grantee representing New York City in our calculation, the upper end of this range would have been about $4.2 million. NOA for the same period ranged from $59 to $664,700 and averaged about $39,000. In grantee budget year 1994, we found that about three-fourths of carryover funding was added to awards as TOA, and the remainder was offset as NOA. Of the grantees in our sample with TOA in grantee budget year 1994, the amount of unspent funds added to grantee awards ranged from $3,200 to $2.4 million and averaged about $197,400. NOA for the same period ranged from $17 to $621,000 and averaged approximately $58,600. This trend appears to continue in grantee budget year 1995, though data for this year were incomplete when we performed our final calculations in October 1995. We found that HHS generally adds to or offsets grantee carryover funds within 2 grantee budget years after an unspent balance occurs. For example, for both grantee budget years 1993 and 1994, we found that about 90 percent of carryover funds added to grantee awards was 1 year old, and the remainder was from 2 to 3 years old; and from about 70 to 90 percent of carryover funds offsetting grantee awards was from 1 to 2 years old, and the remainder was 3 or more years old. Because Head Start carryover funds are generally spent in 2 grantee budget years but are available for up to 5 fiscal years following the fiscal year in which they are initially awarded (31 U.S.C., sec. 1552(a)), we asked Head Start regional office officials why certain carryover balances were reprogrammed or offset as long as 3 or more years after an unspent balance occurred. Regional office officials gave the following administrative and grantee-specific reasons: Regional office staff may not process grantee files in a timely manner due to grantee or staff errors, delays in data entry, staff turnover, large workloads, and differences in staff competence. Final forms documenting carryover balances are not due from grantees until 90 days after the budget year’s end. Incorrect carryover balances may not be caught immediately because independent auditors may take up to 13 months to complete an audit of a grantee’s program accounts for a given year. Actions, such as reprogramming or offsetting carryover balances, could be suspended if a grantee appeals an HHS decision to disallow funding. A grantee’s bankruptcy proceedings delayed a regional office from offsetting certain carryover funds. For grantee budget years 1993 and 1994 combined, we estimated that carryover funds totaled $139 million. Of this amount, carryover funds added to grantee awards (TOA) totaled $97 million and those offsetting grantee awards (NOA) totaled $42 million. We focused our analysis of intended use on the TOA portion because NOA has no identifiable intended purpose. On the basis of our review of Head Start grantee files, the intended use of a large proportion of Head Start carryover funds from grantee budget years 1993 and 1994 combined was to be used for expanding program enrollments and renovating or buying facilities. Of the $97 million of TOA carryover funds, the intended use of 40 percent of these funds was for expansion and 37 percent was for facilities. Data from the files indicated that about 23 percent of the total TOA for these years was reportedly to be used for capital equipment, supplies, and other purposes such as staff training and moving expenses. Data were incomplete for grantee budget year 1995. We found that grantees in our sample with TOA in grantee budget years 1993 and 1994 combined to be used for facilities ranged from $901 to $611,000 and averaged approximately $116,000. TOA reportedly to be used for expansion ranged from $4,200 to $2.4 million and averaged about $296,000. In summary, although overall program outlay rates remained stable during a period of intense program growth (fiscal years 1990-95), Head Start grantees accrued increasingly larger average unspent balances in grantee budget years 1992 through 1994. Depending on the size of grantees’ awards, their reported unspent balances in those years ranged from as little as $2 to about $2 million. On the basis of Head Start files, we determined in most cases that these unspent balances resulted from (1) small differences between grantees’ budget estimates and actual expenditures; (2) grantee problems renovating or constructing facilities, which delayed planned expenditures; and (3) the receipt of supplemental funding by grantees late in their budget year, which made it difficult for grantees to spend their funds before year’s end. Of the unspent funds added to grantee awards in budget years 1993 and 1994 combined, we found that grantees planned to use these dollars for increasing local program enrollments and buying or improving program facilities—activities that grantees often do not complete in a single year. As arranged with your office, we will make copies available to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. Please contact Fred E. Yohey, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-7218 or Karen A. Whiten, Evaluator-in-Charge, if you or your staff have any questions. Other GAO contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. We designed our study to collect information about the extent and nature of Head Start carryover funds. To do so, we visited a sample of Head Start regional offices and examined key documents in selected grantee files. Results are generalizable to Head Start grantees that (1) were at least 3 years old in 1994, (2) had at least some but less than $60 million in new funding in 1994, and (3) were located in 10 of the 12 Head Start regions. Our work was performed between June and October 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We reviewed grantee files for a nationally representative sample of Head Start grantees. We focused our efforts on grantee budget years that ended in 1992 through 1995, examining file documents at selected Head Start regional offices. To generate national estimates, we employed a two-stage cluster sampling strategy. The Head Start regions constituted the first stage of the sample. Of the 12 Head Start regions, 2 are operated from the Department of Health and Human Services headquarters in Washington, D.C.—1 for Native Americans and the other for migrant workers. Because these regional offices share a unique relationship with headquarters, they were not included in the regions to be sampled. We organized the 10 remaining regions by the amount of grantee new funding received in federal fiscal year 1994, separating them into three groups or strata: regions with new funding of $500 million or more; regions with new funding of $200 to $499 million; and regions with new funding of less than $200 million. Table I.1 shows our population of regions. Total fiscal year 1994 new funding (dollars in millions) We then selected a sample of regions in each strata using a random number generator program. Table I.2 shows the regions selected in our sample. Total fiscal year 1994 new funding (dollars in millions) Stage two of the sample consisted of individual Head Start grantees. Head Start had 1,270 grantees in the 10 regions in fiscal year 1994. Because we were reviewing 2 to 3 years of data, we excluded any grantee not in existence at least 3 years. We also excluded all grantees with no new funding in fiscal year 1994. This reduced the number of grantees in our population to 1,201. We organized grantees in our sample regions by fiscal year 1994 new funding and put them into four strata: those with fiscal year 1994 new funding of less than $1 million; those with $1 million or more but less than $3 million; those with $3 million or more but less than $5 million; and those with $5 million or more. We then selected a random sample of grantees in each strata. Table I.3 shows the distribution of grantees by strata of our population and sample. Once the fieldwork was completed and records evaluated, we determined that one very large grantee with fiscal year 1994 new funding of $60 million or more was, because of its complexity, unique and required special handling. Therefore, we set aside this one grantee—The City of New York Human Resources Administration, Agency for Child Development. We did not include data collected from this site in our overall estimates but used the data as a case study of a very large grantee. By eliminating the very large grantees, we reduced our population further by 4 grantees to 1,197, thereby reducing our sample from 108 to 107 grantees. Our findings, therefore, are representative of grantees in the 10 Head Start regions that are at least 3 years old with at least some but less than $60 million in fiscal year 1994 new funding. We provided the list of sample grantees to each selected regional office, which collected records for our review. We examined key documents from the files and summarized the information using a data collection instrument. Data elements we collected included the number of service years for a selected grantee; total federal funds authorized for specific funding periods; the unspent balance of federal funds for specific funding periods and its intended usage; and the amount of carryover funds added to or offsetting grantee awards in grantee budget years 1993, 1994, and 1995 by type and source year. To link source year with carryover funds, we gathered information from the Financial Assistance Award form, which identifies the grantee service year in which the unspent funds occurred. Once data collection was complete, we compiled and merged the data. Data elements were verified and traced to documents maintained in the grantee files for 91 percent of the cases. We then computed weights to produce national estimates from our sample and calculated analytic variables. To calculate the age of carryover funds, we subtracted the source year from the grantee’s current service year. The Head Start grantee funding process presented unique data collection challenges. We made no attempt to capture the fiscal year funding. Rather, we used each grantee’s budget year ending date to guide our compilation of financial data. Because our analysis is based on data from a sample of grantees, each reported estimate has an associated sampling error. The size of the sampling error reflects the estimate’s precision; the smaller the error, the more precise the estimate. The magnitude of the sampling error depends largely on the size of the obtained sample and the amount of data variability. Our sampling errors for the estimates were calculated at the 95-percent confidence level. This means that in 95 out of 100 instances, the sampling procedure we used would produce a confidence intervalcontaining the population value we are estimating. Some sampling errors for our dollar estimates are relatively high because dollar amounts vary substantially. Sampling errors also tend to be higher for those estimates based on a subset of sample cases. For example, estimates of the mean and total amounts of grantee unspent balances are based on fewer than the 107 grantees in our sample and have large sampling errors. Therefore, these estimates must be used with extreme caution. For a complete list of sampling errors for dollar estimates and proportions in this report, see tables I.4 and I.5, respectively. Number of sample grantees contributing to estimate +/-$82,904103 +/-$98,912,337 +/-$102,334 +/-$123,885,671 +/-$102,618 +/-$122,810,684 +/-$19,304 +/-$15,412,760 +/-$41,297 +/-$32,225,320 +/-$36,568 +/-$27,732,575 1993/1994 Carryover funds offsetting grantee awards (NOA) +/-$25,705 +/-$18,371,913 1993/1994 Carryover funds added to grantee awards (TOA) Estimated proportion (percent) Sampling error (percentage points) Grantees with unspent balances all 3 years Unspent balances as a percent of total Amount of unspent as a percent of award Unspent balances due to small budget variances Unspent balances due to timing issues Unspent balances due to other reasons Unspent balances due to unknown reasons (continued) Estimated proportion (percent) Sampling error (percentage points) Because we wanted to obtain general information about the extent and frequency of Head Start carryover funds, we limited our investigation to reviewing grantee records maintained at HHS’ Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, and New York regional offices. We gave officials at these regional offices an opportunity to review the accuracy of the data we collected and subsequently used to develop our estimates. We did not contact individual grantees to verify records nor did we visit grantee sites. We did not follow the flow of funds to determine if program abuses had occurred nor did we make any attempt to determine whether program grantees actually used the funds for the purposes intended. North Wilkesboro, N.C. Hardinsburg, Ky. Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Huntsville, Ala. Cheraw, S.C. Chattanooga, Tenn. Tuscaloosa, Ala. Jacksonville, N.C. Savannah, Ga. Monticello, Ga. Williamston, N.C. Brooksville, Fla. Montgomery, Ala. Jacksonville, Fla. La Grange, Ky. Florence, S.C. (continued) Eatonton, Ga. Lucedale, Miss. Cartersville, Ga. Ashland, Miss. Logansport, Ind. Coldwater, Mich. Washington Court House, Ohio Stevens Point, Wis. (continued) Rockford, Ill. Greenville, Mich. Scottville, Mich. Oklee, Minn. Grand Rapids, Mich. Alpena, Mich. Janesville, Wis. Port Huron, Mich. Rushford, Minn. East St. Louis, Ill. Zumbrota, Minn. Rock Falls, Ill. NA - Information not available. (continued) Stonewall, Tex. Winnsboro, La. Bay City, Tex. NA - Information not available. NA - Information not available. (continued) Kingston, N.Y. Brooklyn, N.Y. NA - Information not available. The following individuals made important contributions to this report: Robert Rogers and Karen Barry planned this review, and Karen managed the data collection. David Porter and Lawrence Kubiak collected much of the data from the HHS regional offices. Patricia Bundy also helped to collect data, conducted follow-up discussions with HHS headquarters and regional office officials, and assisted with report processing. Dianne Murphy drew the sample and performed the analysis. Steve Machlin calculated sampling errors. Harry Conley and Michael Curro provided technical assistance, and Demaris Delgado-Vega provided legal advice. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the: (1) amount of Head Start funding unspent by program grantees at the end of budget years 1992 to 1994 and the reasons for these unspent funds; (2) proportion of carryover funds that were added to grantee awards and that are 1 or more budget years old; and (3) grantees' intended use of carryover funds. GAO found that: (1) about two-thirds of the grantees reviewed had unspent balances of $69,000 to $177,000 during budget years 1992 through 1994; (2) most of the unspent balances resulted from small differences between grantees' budget estimates and actual expenditures, problems related to building Head Start centers, and grantees' inability to spend their awards because of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) disbursement problems; (3) one-half of all the carryover funds in budget year 1993 and about three-fourths of the carryover funds in budget year 1994 were added to grantee awards in subsequent budget years; (4) about one-half and one-fourth of carryover funds in grantee budget years 1993 and 1994 offset grantee awards; (5) Head Start offset 70 to 90 percent of its grantee awards with carryover funds within 2 budget years of an unspent balance; and (6) carryover funds added to grantee awards were used to expand Head Start enrollments, build new facilities, purchase capital equipment and train staff.

The federal government's basic procurement or acquisition process involves an agency identifying the goods and services it needs (also known as the agency's "requirements"), determining the most appropriate method for purchasing these items, and carrying out the acquisition. Although this process is simple in theory, any given procurement can be complex, involving a multitude of decisions and actions. A contracting officer may need to determine, for example, whether to use a federal supply schedule (see below ), what type of contract to use, whether simplified acquisition procedures may be used, or whether the procurement should be set aside for small businesses. Thus, this report does not attempt to describe every possible type of procurement. Instead, it describes the most common elements of the federal procurement process and resources that may be used in that process. The primary source of federal procurement information and guidance is the Federal Acquisition Regulation , which consists of Parts 1-53 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Available at http://www.acquisition.gov/far , the FAR covers, for example, contractor qualifications, types of contracts, small business programs, and federal supply schedule contracting. The FAR also includes, in Part 2, definitions of procurement words and terms, and, in Part 52, solicitation provisions and contract clauses. With a few exceptions, a firm that wants to compete for federal government contracts must meet at least two requirements: (1) obtain a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, which is a unique nine-digit identification number for each physical location of a business, available at http://www.dnb.com/get-a-duns-number.html ; and (2) register with the government's System for Award Management (SAM), at https://www.sam.gov . Additional requirements specific to a particular procurement may be found in the applicable solicitation (see below). With regard to federal contracting, small businesses may be able to take advantage of certain programs or preferences, including various set-aside programs, and depending upon eligibility criteria. Additionally, the federal government has established small business goals for agencies (e.g., the governmentwide goal for small businesses is 23% of the "total value of all prime contract awards for each fiscal year" ). Determining whether a particular firm qualifies as a small business for federal government programs involves, generally, applying the federal government's size standards. A size standard exists for each North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) Table of Small Business Size Standards, available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf , shows the size standard for each NAICS code, which is either the firm's average annual receipts or its average employment. Essentially, the federal acquisition process begins when an agency determines its requirements and how to purchase them. If the agency's contracting officer determines that the appropriate method for procuring the goods or services is a contract, and the contract amount is greater than $25,000, then the agency posts a solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website, available at https://www.fbo.gov . At a minimum, a solicitation identifies what an agency wants to buy, provides instructions to would-be offerors, identifies the source selection method that will be used to evaluate offers, and includes a deadline for the submission of bids or proposals. Agencies also may post solicitations on their own websites and, in exceptional circumstances, may post solicitations on their websites instead of on FedBizOpps. Following the deadline for companies to submit their offers, agency personnel evaluate offerors' submissions, using the source selection method and criteria described in the solicitation. Unless multiple suppliers or firms are needed, such as for a supply schedule, the agency awards a contract to one firm after determining that the company is responsible. The awarding of a contract marks the beginning of the next stage in the acquisition process: contract performance and contract administration. Contract administration, which is the responsibility of agency personnel, helps to assure that the government gets what it paid for in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness and also helps to assure that the government fulfills its obligations vis-a-vis the contractor. The processes, activities, and events that occur during contract administration vary from procurement to procurement, though this stage would include invoice processing and payments to the contractor, and may include, among other functions and activities, a post-award orientation, performance monitoring, and contract modifications. The General Services Administration is perhaps best known, in terms of contracting opportunities and resources, as the agency that maintains numerous supply schedules. A schedule is a list of goods and/or services provided by GSA-selected multiple vendors at varying prices. (Hence, these schedules are known as multiple award schedules (MAS).) Information about schedules, including guidance for how to get on a schedule, and a link to resources, training, and tools (including GSA's Vendor Toolbox), are available at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/100635 . The process for getting on a schedule is similar to that for obtaining a government contract: GSA issues a solicitation for particular goods or services, companies submit offers in response, and then GSA evaluates the offers and awards contracts to multiple vendors for the same goods or services. Schedule solicitations are posted on FedBizOpps, and GSA also posts them on its website. The GSA solicitation page may be accessed by going to http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/207509 . The Minority Business Development Agency, which is part of the Department of Commerce and whose website is available at http://www.mbda.gov , was "created specifically to foster the establishment and growth of minority-owned businesses in America." The agency's network of business development centers provides a variety of management and technical assistance services, and its Phoenix/Opportunity Matching System, a free online system, is designed to match entrepreneurs with federal government and private sector contracting opportunities. Although the Procurement Technical Assistance Program is administered by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), it is available to assist companies that market products and services to all federal agencies, and state and local governments. Services are provided through 98 Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs), which have over 300 local offices. To find PTACs, visit http://www.aptac-us.org/ and use the "Find a PTAC" function. The centers provide assistance through workshops, seminars, and individual counseling sessions. The Small Business Administration offers a variety of services and assistance to current and would-be government contractors. Its website, available at http://www.sba.gov , includes information on, among other topics, small business size standards, contract opportunities, subcontracting, and regulations. SBA also offers, through its online learning center, numerous courses and videos related to government contracting, and links to its district offices, which provide counseling, mentoring, and training. Information about all of these offerings may be found at https://www.sba.gov/tools/sba-learning-center . Other resources that firms may find useful in identifying procurement opportunities, navigating the government's procurement process, and marketing their goods or services include professional, trade, and industry organizations, publications, and events; local chambers of commerce; and consultants. For example, the book Elements of Government Contracting , by Richard D. Lieberman and Karen R. O'Brien, provides information about the federal procurement process. Magazines such as Government Executive and Homeland Defense Journal include articles with information about government procurements and industry workshops or conferences. Industry and trade organizations, such as the Professional Services Council, may be another source of useful information. Part 35 of the FAR provides guidance on research and development (R&D) contracting. Interested companies, organizations, and other entities may use FedBizOpps to identify R&D opportunities, which may be posted as solicitations or broad agency announcements (BAA). The federal government also uses several nontraditional procurement methods to acquire the technologies and products it needs. Recognizing that not all new and innovative ideas may be captured by established procurement programs and procedures, the federal government provides for the submission of unsolicited proposals. That is, a firm may submit a proposal for which there is no solicitation. Guidance and requirements for the preparation and submission of unsolicited proposals, including the criteria for a valid unsolicited proposal, may be found at Subpart 15.6 of the FAR. Some agencies may also provide information on their websites about unsolicited proposals, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does at http://www.dhs.gov/unsolicited-proposals . As the central R&D organization for the Department of Defense, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) "was established … to prevent strategic surprise from negatively impacting U.S. national security and create strategic surprise for U.S. adversaries by maintaining the technological superiority of the U.S. military." The DARPA website, available at http://www.darpa.mil/default.aspx , includes links to solicitations and BAAs, and a webpage dedicated to opportunities for small businesses, available at http://www.darpa.mil/Opportunities/SBIR_STTR/ . The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) are two other agencies that have similar agencies. For information about the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA), see http://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/hsarpa ); for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency (IARPA), see http://www.iarpa.gov/ . Other nontraditional opportunities for firms, research institutions, and organizations are government-sponsored challenges and venture capital funds established by agencies for the purpose of helping to fund technologies they could use. GSA maintains a website, Challenge.gov, where federal agencies may post challenge and prize competitions. Nearly 400 challenges have been conducted by 69 federal agencies since 2010. Two agencies that have established venture capital funds are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of the Army. Information about the nonprofit corporation that was established to manage the CIA's venture capital fund—In-Q-Tel—is available at http://www.iqt.org/ . Information about OnPoint Technologies, the Army's venture capital fund, is available at http://onpoint.us/ . Another way to become involved in federal government contracting, albeit indirectly, is to serve as a subcontractor for a company (known as the "prime contractor") that has been awarded a government contract. Agencies may provide information on their websites about firms to which they have awarded contracts. For example, GSA maintains a subcontracting directory, available at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/service/SubContractDir/category/102831/hostUri/portal , and DHS provides a list of prime contractors at http://www.dhs.gov/prime-contractors . Other potentially useful sources of information include trade and business publications, FedBizOpps, company websites, and the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). Information gleaned from these sources might indicate which companies have received, or expect to receive, government contracts. The SBA provides information regarding subcontracting opportunities at https://www.sba.gov/subcontracting-directory .

In the basic federal procurement process, acquisition personnel, after determining their agency's requirements (that is, the goods and services the agency needs), post a solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website. Interested companies prepare their offers in response to the solicitation, and, in accordance with applicable provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), agency personnel evaluate the offers. Another type of procurement opportunity for a company is to serve as a subcontractor for a government contractor. To be eligible to compete for government contracts, a company must obtain a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and register with the federal government's System for Award Management (SAM). Several agencies, such as the General Services Administration (GSA), provide assistance and services to existing and potential government contractors. Research and development (R&D) procurement opportunities may involve traditional contracting methods, such as solicitations and contracts, as well as nontraditional methods, which include agency-sponsored contests and venture capital funds.

The federal role in assisting states and communities to clean up brownfields for productive use has been an ongoing issue for more than a decade. As defined by statute, brownfield sites are "real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant" (emphasis added). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) addresses environmental contamination primarily through the Superfund and Brownfields Programs. Although EPA's Superfund and Brownfields Programs are related, the programs are different in their objectives and the sites they address. The Superfund Program and its federal funding generally cover only the sites with the highest levels of contamination or those that present immediate risks. In contrast, EPA's Brownfields Program assists communities with the cleanup of abandoned, idled, or underutilized commercial and industrial properties. EPA estimates that there are more than 450,000 brownfields sites throughout the country. As the brownfields definition indicates, whether contamination is present at all of these sites is uncertain. The environmental contamination at a brownfield site, if it exists at all , is not as serious or threatening as the contamination at Superfund sites. Often, the mere perception of environmental contamination may hinder site reuse, because interested parties may be concerned they would face cleanup responsibilities. Thus, a primary objective of the Brownfields Program is site assessment. This report describes the scope and purpose of EPA's Brownfields Program, reviews appropriation levels for the program, and highlights considerations for policymakers. The Superfund and EPA Brownfields Programs are authorized by the same statute, but the programs were developed at different times and for different purposes. With the enactment of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§9601-9675), Congress established the Superfund Program. This is the federal government's principal program for cleaning up the nation's contaminated waste sites and protecting public health and the environment from releases of hazardous substances. Pursuant to the general response authorities of CERCLA, EPA developed the Brownfields Program in 1993. Initially, the program provided "seed money" in the form of grants and loans to communities to stimulate redevelopment and reuse of brownfield properties. Funding originally came from the Superfund Program appropriations. Between FY1998 and FY2001, the program received approximately $90 million each year, accounting for about 5% of annual Superfund appropriations. In 2002, Congress provided specific statutory authority for EPA to address brownfields with the enactment of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act ( P.L. 107-118 ). Among other things, the statute (hereinafter the "Brownfields Act") authorized a grant program, similar to the one EPA had established administratively under general CERCLA authority in the mid 1990s. The stated purpose of the 2002 act was "to promote the cleanup and reuse of brownfields, to provide financial assistance for brownfields revitalization, to enhance State response programs, and for other purpose." Section 201 of the Brownfields Act authorized $200 million annually for a grant program to support site assessment and cleanup activities at brownfield properties. Section 231 of the act authorized an additional grant program in the amount of $50 million annually to assist state and tribal cleanup programs. The funding authority for both grant programs expired at the end of FY2006; program authority is permanent unless repealed by subsequent legislation. Regardless of expired authorization, Congress has continued to provide a consistent funding level for both grant programs (provided in Table 1 , below). The grants awarded from EPA's Brownfields Program can be divided into two categories: (1) competitive grants awarded to communities, which are often referenced by the CERCLA section—Section 104(k)—that authorizes them; and (2) non-competitive grants—authorized by Section 128, and thus often described as Section 128 grants—awarded to states and Indian tribes to support their response programs. Section 104(k) grants comprise the core of EPA's Brownfields Program, receiving the bulk of the annual appropriation. In general, eligible grant recipients include state, local, and tribal governments, and certain quasi-governmental authorities. In some cases (identified below), other parties may receive grants. However, private persons and corporations are not eligible in any case. There are four types of competitive brownfields grants: Assessment grants provide funding for a grant recipient to inventory, assess, and conduct planning and community involvement related to brownfields sites. Site assessment is a primary component of the EPA Brownfields Program. The mere perception of contamination at brownfield sites often hinders redevelopment. Assessment grants help address these information gaps and determine whether cleanup may be needed to make a property suitable for its intended use. As required by statute, grants are limited to $200,000, but the statute allows EPA to waive that limitation and award a grant up to $350,000. In addition, eligible parties may apply for separate grants to address hazardous substances and petroleum at a brownfield site. Cleanup grants provide funding for remediation activities that may be needed to address contamination at a brownfields site. As directed by the statute, grants may be awarded for up to $200,000. Grant recipients must provide a 20% cost share, which may include money, labor, material, or services. In addition to the eligible entities listed above, nonprofit organizations are eligible for cleanup grants. Job training grants are available to certain educational and other nonprofit organizations, as well as the eligible entities above. EPA awards grants of up to $200,000 (a threshold not based on statutory limitations) to create local environmental job training programs. EPA maintains that the job training grants, which were first awarded under general CERCLA authority in 1997, complement the funding for brownfields sites by encouraging local citizens to take advantage of the growing market for environmental cleanup activities. Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) grants are awarded to state, local, or tribal governments to capitalize RLFs, which can provide no-interest or low-interest loans for brownfield cleanups. The statute limits these grants to $1 million. RLF grant recipients may also award cleanup subgrants, not requiring repayment, of up to $200,000 per site. Like the general cleanup grants, RLF cleanup subgrants may be awarded to nonprofit groups. The Brownfields Act added Section 128 to CERCLA. Subsection 128(a) created a non-competitive grant program to support state and tribal response programs. The funding authority for this program—authorized at $50 million annually from FY2002 through FY2006—is separate from the competitive grant program under Section 104(k). A 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that all 50 states have some type of response (or cleanup program), although these programs vary considerably in scope and breadth. In general, these state programs address contaminated properties that are not covered by the federal Superfund Program. EPA states that Section 128 funding is not intended to supplant, but instead "supplement,"state or tribal funding for their response programs. However, the 2004 GAO report noted that in some states, their programs would not exist without EPA's funding. Section 128 identifies one general and two specific uses of funding. Regarding the former, the statute prescribes that funding can be used to "establish or enhance" a state or tribal response program. EPA interprets this phrase to include: developing legislation, regulations, procedures, or guidance; creating and maintaining relevant public records; and conducting limited site-specific activities, such as assessment or cleanup. The statute also identifies two specific uses of the Section 128 funding: financing a revolving loan fund for brownfield cleanups; and purchasing environmental insurance or developing an insurance mechanism to provide financing for cleanup actions under the program. Congress funds EPA's Brownfields Program with appropriations from two large accounts: the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) Account and EPA's Environmental Programs and Management Account. From within these large accounts, the Brownfields Program is funded by three line-items ( Table 1 ). The STAG account funds two line-items: Section 104(k) and Section 128 grant programs. The management account includes a line-item for the administrative expenses of the Brownfields Program. Since the enactment of the 2002 Brownfields Act, appropriations for the aggregate of these three brownfields line-items have been relatively consistent, with total funding ranging from $163 million to nearly $170 million ( Table 1 ). There appears to be broad consensus that a federal role in the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields is desirable. However, issues regarding the degree of financial assistance and overall program effectiveness have been raised. Since the enactment of the Brownfields Act in 2002, Congress has funded the program below its initial authorized level. Total appropriations (in Table 1 ) represent approximately 66% of the initial funding authorization—$250 million each year, between FY2002 - FY2006. Some states and communities would argue that the demand for funding far exceeds what has been made available by Congress. On the other hand, the program has arguably struggled to demonstrate its effectiveness. What are federal funding levels achieving: environmental risk reduction, economic redevelopment, or some combination thereof? The 2004 GAO report found that "the agency has not yet developed measures to determine the extent to which the Brownfields Program helps reduce environmental risks." This concern raises the question as to whether the program should be evaluated by its ability to reduce threats to human health or whether the program should be assessed with different metrics, such as economic redevelopment. If this is the case, some may question whether EPA is the most appropriate agency to administer this program.

The federal role in assisting states and communities to clean up brownfield sites—real property affected by the potential presence of environmental contamination—has been an ongoing issue for more than a decade. With the enactment of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act ( P.L. 107-118 ) in 2002, Congress provided specific authority for EPA to address brownfield sites. In contrast to Superfund sites, environmental contamination present at brownfield sites is typically less of a risk to human health. With the primary motivation to aid cleanup efforts, the 2002 statute, among other things, authorized two grant programs: (1) a competitive grant program to address specific sites; and (2) a non-competitive grant program to support state cleanup programs. While there appears to be broad consensus that a federal role in the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields is desirable, issues regarding the degree of financial assistance and overall program effectiveness have been raised.

The British have a saying about the twin rules of journalism: first simplify, then exaggerate. Perhaps Barack Obama can comfort himself with the reality that his current travails are both more complicated in their causes and less dire in their consequences than they are being portrayed in the Washington echo chamber. Text Size - + reset John Harris, Todd Purdum analysis The other side: What’s wrong with Obama? There is a useful cautionary note for everyone who is prone to withering judgments about Obama’s stumbling performances in recent weeks: No institution in American life is more resilient than the modern presidency, and no politician talented enough to capture the office should ever be underestimated. Bill Clinton, of course, is the supreme example. He was counted out after a clumsy start in 1993, after losing the House in 1994, after a sex scandal in 1998, and, as a new ex-president, after a pardon scandal in 2001. (PHOTOS: Obama’s second term) Barack Obama is a man of different talents, instincts and interests than Clinton. But now that Washington is in pile-on mode — including us — it’s not a bad time to remember that there are some reasons why he is among the most talented politicians of his generation. Recent bad headlines have not diluted his enduring personal and political assets, and, so long as he occupies the White House, there is no other person with more power to set the national agenda. In that spirit, here’s a roster of what’s still right with Obama: • His personality No one will ever mistake Obama for warm and fuzzy. But when he tries even a bit, he can’t help being winning. His smile remains dazzling, even if he flashes it less often. (Also on POLITICO: What's wrong with Obama?) His adversaries are implacable, but a critical mass of Americans still like to feel better about themselves because they feel good about Obama, just as they did when they elected him twice. The public understands that the president’s biggest structural political problems are not of his making, and none of the setbacks of the second term have altered the fact that people basically like the guy. A Gallup Organization survey this summer found that three-quarters of Americans saw Obama likeable, while 55 percent rated him as honest and trustworthy, and nearly six in 10 said that he understands the problems Americans face. Throughout last year’s reelection, the Obama campaign’s internal surveys showed that the very quality that so many Washington insiders now complain about — that the president is not much of a politician — was one that most endeared him to the public. (WATCH: Obama’s full speech on Syria) Though the trend lines are not as steady this year as they have typically been in the past, Obama’s favorability rating has largely stayed above water in major public opinion surveys, with a recent Fox News telephone poll clocking his favorability at 50 percent, to 46 percent unfavorable. • His normality The presidency has long attracted neurotic personality types, but Obama is not among them. He has a healthy ego, but his longstanding ability to coolly assess his circumstances and then adapt to them means that he is still better positioned than most of his peers to work his way out of problems. He has always been best with his back against the wall. He may not be Harry Truman or Jerry Ford, taking brisk walks about town or toasting his own English muffins, but it’s hard to imagine that he would ever slide into LBJ-style meltdown or Nixonian paranoia. (PHOTOS: Obama recognizes George H. W. Bush) His wife and daughters — and their nightly family dinners above the store — may put a crimp in his Washington social life and his willingness to wine and dine allies or enemies, but they doubtless keep him an honest dad. In his first campaign and throughout the troubles of his tenure, he has kept perspective, often telling David Axelrod, “If things don’t work out, I’ve already got a pretty good gig being Barack Obama.” Like Truman, who called his wife, Bess, “The Boss,” Obama makes it clear that divided opinion on topics like Syria starts in his own backyard. “I’m taking this vote in Congress and what the American people are saying very seriously,” he said last week. “Because if you ask somebody, you know, I read polls like everybody else. And if you ask somebody, if you ask Michelle, ‘Do we want to be involved in another war?’ the answer is no.” • His enemies Simply put, Obama’s positions on the issues are vastly more popular than the extreme views of his die-hard opponents in Congress and the right-wing echo chamber. (VIDEO: What to watch this week in politics) Ronald Reagan showed what an asset this could be, withstanding the withering condescension of the left because he had the folks in the middle. Newt Gingrich (sort of) learned the same lesson in reverse in his dealings with Bill Clinton. Has Ted Cruz? Not so much. Americans’ views of Congress, driven down in the summer of 2011 over the last debt-ceiling standoff, “have never recovered,” a Pew Research Center survey reported this summer. Just 21 percent of Americans said they regarded the institution favorably (a level that Sen. John McCain said to “paid staff and blood relatives”). Pew found that the Republican brand is also faring miserably, with a 33 percent national favorability rating “among the most negative ratings for the party in 20 years of polling.” (Also on POLITICO: In tragedy’s wake, President Obama finds tone a challenge) Those numbers may not change the cold electoral math for Democratic congressional candidates in next year’s midterm election, but they give Obama a respectable argument to make on the hustings. Follow @politico ||||| The British have a saying about the twin rules of journalism: first simplify, then exaggerate. Perhaps Barack Obama can comfort himself with the reality that his current travails are both more complicated in their causes and less dire in their consequences than they are being portrayed in the Washington echo chamber. Text Size - + reset John Harris, Todd Purdum analysis The other side: What’s wrong with Obama? There is a useful cautionary note for everyone who is prone to withering judgments about Obama’s stumbling performances in recent weeks: No institution in American life is more resilient than the modern presidency, and no politician talented enough to capture the office should ever be underestimated. Bill Clinton, of course, is the supreme example. He was counted out after a clumsy start in 1993, after losing the House in 1994, after a sex scandal in 1998, and, as a new ex-president, after a pardon scandal in 2001. (PHOTOS: Obama’s second term) Barack Obama is a man of different talents, instincts and interests than Clinton. But now that Washington is in pile-on mode — including us — it’s not a bad time to remember that there are some reasons why he is among the most talented politicians of his generation. Recent bad headlines have not diluted his enduring personal and political assets, and, so long as he occupies the White House, there is no other person with more power to set the national agenda. In that spirit, here’s a roster of what’s still right with Obama: • His personality No one will ever mistake Obama for warm and fuzzy. But when he tries even a bit, he can’t help being winning. His smile remains dazzling, even if he flashes it less often. (Also on POLITICO: What's wrong with Obama?) His adversaries are implacable, but a critical mass of Americans still like to feel better about themselves because they feel good about Obama, just as they did when they elected him twice. The public understands that the president’s biggest structural political problems are not of his making, and none of the setbacks of the second term have altered the fact that people basically like the guy. A Gallup Organization survey this summer found that three-quarters of Americans saw Obama likeable, while 55 percent rated him as honest and trustworthy, and nearly six in 10 said that he understands the problems Americans face. Throughout last year’s reelection, the Obama campaign’s internal surveys showed that the very quality that so many Washington insiders now complain about — that the president is not much of a politician — was one that most endeared him to the public. (WATCH: Obama’s full speech on Syria) Though the trend lines are not as steady this year as they have typically been in the past, Obama’s favorability rating has largely stayed above water in major public opinion surveys, with a recent Fox News telephone poll clocking his favorability at 50 percent, to 46 percent unfavorable. • His normality The presidency has long attracted neurotic personality types, but Obama is not among them. He has a healthy ego, but his longstanding ability to coolly assess his circumstances and then adapt to them means that he is still better positioned than most of his peers to work his way out of problems. He has always been best with his back against the wall. He may not be Harry Truman or Jerry Ford, taking brisk walks about town or toasting his own English muffins, but it’s hard to imagine that he would ever slide into LBJ-style meltdown or Nixonian paranoia. (PHOTOS: Obama recognizes George H. W. Bush) His wife and daughters — and their nightly family dinners above the store — may put a crimp in his Washington social life and his willingness to wine and dine allies or enemies, but they doubtless keep him an honest dad. In his first campaign and throughout the troubles of his tenure, he has kept perspective, often telling David Axelrod, “If things don’t work out, I’ve already got a pretty good gig being Barack Obama.” Like Truman, who called his wife, Bess, “The Boss,” Obama makes it clear that divided opinion on topics like Syria starts in his own backyard. “I’m taking this vote in Congress and what the American people are saying very seriously,” he said last week. “Because if you ask somebody, you know, I read polls like everybody else. And if you ask somebody, if you ask Michelle, ‘Do we want to be involved in another war?’ the answer is no.” • His enemies Simply put, Obama’s positions on the issues are vastly more popular than the extreme views of his die-hard opponents in Congress and the right-wing echo chamber. (VIDEO: What to watch this week in politics) Ronald Reagan showed what an asset this could be, withstanding the withering condescension of the left because he had the folks in the middle. Newt Gingrich (sort of) learned the same lesson in reverse in his dealings with Bill Clinton. Has Ted Cruz? Not so much. Americans’ views of Congress, driven down in the summer of 2011 over the last debt-ceiling standoff, “have never recovered,” a Pew Research Center survey reported this summer. Just 21 percent of Americans said they regarded the institution favorably (a level that Sen. John McCain said to “paid staff and blood relatives”). Pew found that the Republican brand is also faring miserably, with a 33 percent national favorability rating “among the most negative ratings for the party in 20 years of polling.” (Also on POLITICO: In tragedy’s wake, President Obama finds tone a challenge) Those numbers may not change the cold electoral math for Democratic congressional candidates in next year’s midterm election, but they give Obama a respectable argument to make on the hustings. Follow @politico ||||| President Barack Obama says that he is less concerned with scoring “style points” for his improvisational handling of the Syria crisis than in “getting the policy right.” This dismissive defense comes at the precise moment that Washington is awash in brutal critiques of the Obama leadership style. The president’s harried, serial about-faces on Syria — coupled with the collapse of Larry Summers's candidacy for chairmanship of the Federal Reserve — have combined to highlight some enduring limitations of Obama’s approach to decision-making, public persuasion and political management. Text Size - + reset John Harris, Todd Purdum analysis The other side: What’s right with Obama? Across the capital, anxious friends and chortling enemies alike are asking: What’s wrong with Obama? (PHOTOS: Obama’s second term) Any fair answer would acknowledge Washington’s impatient pack-of-wolves phenomenon — the tendency for the media and operative class to froth at the first sign of weakness — and would recognize that Obama has a foundation of genuine assets that have stayed intact during this summer of discontent. But it’s also true, as acknowledged even by sympathetic lawmakers and some former Obama West Wingers in recent background conversations, that his presidency is in a parlous state, with wounds that are lately self-inflicted. That’s especially troubling because the unforced errors come in a second term when, historically, presidents are expected to be more clear-eyed and confident about the burdens of command. Here is a short list, based on nearly two decades of close observation of the presidency, of what’s wrong with Obama — at the moment, anyway: • His mind Even Obama’s biggest supporters may strain these days to recall one of the things they originally found most appealing about him: His obvious intelligence and the way it projected — casually articulate, coolly rational, comfortable with complexity and nuance. This seemed the perfect antidote to the fumbled syntax and glandular decision-making style of his predecessor. (Also on POLITICO: ... and what's right with Obama?) From a young age, Obama has always been oriented toward deliberation, contingency, and a careful calibration of possibilities and risks. In his twenties, he listened so intently — and responded so noncommittally — to the feuding factions of the Harvard Law Review that all sides believed he had heard them out, and made him their leader. As an Illinois state senator in 2002, he won early attention for a stirring speech against the Iraq War, but also took pains to make clear, “I don’t oppose all wars,” only a “dumb war” or a “rash war.” For all that some on the right see him as a dangerous radical, his political instincts have always been toward synthesis — borrowing ideas and language from multiple sides — and split-the-difference moderation. Early in his term, he settled on a market-based overhaul of health insurance with an individual mandate to buy coverage not out of deep conviction for this solution but because Republicans had once proposed the idea, even as most liberal Democrats wanted a more aggressive approach. Obama is a pathological rationalist, animated by his belief that the truth is usually not black or white but is found in the gray shades in between, and that reasonable people should embrace the seeming contradictions of divergent views to find a sensible way forward. (Also on POLITICO: Obama calls for personnel review) But presidents, like mere people, often discover that their flaws are a magnification of their virtues. This president lately has faced situations that cried out for a black-and-white sense of purpose, and unquestioned public command. In Syria, he set a red-line warning against use of chemical weapons, watched the regime of Bashar Assad ignore it, then seemed to deliberate out loud through a kaleidoscope of options, from a military strike on his own authority, to a military strike with congressional assent, to diplomacy in league with a foreign leader, Vladimir Putin, who had spent the summer humiliating him in the Edward Snowden case. There is a coherent argument for military intervention. And there is another one for saying that that Assad’s atrocities are tragic but a problem for others to solve. But the president’s effort to argue both things came off as incoherent. (WATCH: Obama’s full speech on Syria) With the Summers nomination, Obama had made it clear in conversations with aides and members of Congress that the strong-willed former Treasury Secretary was his first choice to take over the Fed — and he even came to Summers’s public defense when critics attacked his personal and policy record. But Obama also allowed a vacuum to grow in which liberals in his own party felt no compunction about publicly registering their opposition, whatever their president’s preferences. The common theme in both episodes is that they were about projecting power, not summoning sweet reason. Obama’s approach put him in the position of being bullied — in one case by a sworn enemy, in the other by ostensible friends — who could not have cared less about his own nuanced views. As Churchill once said of the Germans, “The Hun is always at your throat or at your feet.”

President Obama is taking a drubbing of late from friend and foe alike, but Todd Purdum and John Harris caution at Politico that it's always dangerous to underestimate anyone smart enough to get himself elected president—especially this one. Obama's "current travails are both more complicated in their causes and less dire in their consequences than they are being portrayed in the Washington echo chamber," they write. Other things in his favor: People like him: Sure, the Obama haters will never be appeased, but polls consistently show that most Americans like the guy personally. 'Extreme' opponents: Ted Cruz and company keep attacking him from the far right, putting Obama in the favor of Americans in the middle. It's an age-old political lesson his "die-hard opponents" won't or can't absorb. His party: Yes, things seem bad for Obama, but would anyone seriously suggest he'd be better off in, say, John Boehner's shoes? From gay marriage to the Latino vote, "Obama has the good fortune to govern at a time when long-term demographic and ideological trends are breaking in the direction of his party." Click for the full post. Or read Politico's companion piece on everything that's wrong with Obama.

Both tax and campaign finance laws are relevant in analyzing whether churches and other houses of worship may engage in campaign activity. Under the tax laws, houses of worship that benefit from 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status may not participate in such activity. They are also subject to regulation under campaign finance laws. Houses of worship are among the organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Benefits that arise from this status include exemption from federal income taxes and eligibility to receive tax-deductible contributions. In return, 501(c)(3) organizations may not "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." This is an absolute prohibition. A house of worship with 501(c)(3) status that engages in any amount of campaign activity may have its 501(c)(3) status revoked by the IRS. It may also, either in addition to or in lieu of revocation, be taxed on its political expenditures. In 2002, the IRS indicated that only two churches have lost their 501(c)(3) status due to campaign intervention. One of these is the Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, New York, which took out newspaper advertisements opposing a presidential candidate four days before the 1992 election. The identity of the second is not clear. Several non-church religious organizations have also had their 501(c)(3) status revoked, including Christian Echoes National Ministry. It has been reported that The Way International, Christian Broadcasting Network, and Old Time Gospel Hour came to settlement agreements with the IRS which included revocations for certain years. The IRC's campaign prohibition is sometimes referred to as the "Johnson Amendment," after then-Senator Lyndon Johnson, who introduced the provision as an amendment to the Revenue Act of 1954. He analogized it to the lobbying limitation, enacted in 1934, under which "no substantial part" of a 501(c)(3) organization's activities may be lobbying; however, he mischaracterized the limitation by saying organizations that lobbied were denied tax-exempt status, as opposed to only those that engaged in substantial lobbying. The act's legislative history has no further discussion of the provision. It has been suggested that he proposed it either as a way to get back at an organization that supported an opponent or as an alternative to a proposal denying tax-exempt status to organizations making grants to subversive entities and individuals. IRC Section 501(c)(3) only prohibits campaign intervention. Other types of political activities are permitted. The line between what is prohibited and what is permitted can sometimes be difficult to discern. Clearly, houses of worship with 501(c)(3) status may not make statements that endorse or oppose a candidate, publish or distribute campaign literature, or make any type of monetary or other contribution to a campaign. On the other hand, they may conduct political activities not related to elections, such as issue advocacy, lobbying, and supporting or opposing appointments to nonelective offices. Additionally, they may engage in certain election-related activities so long as the activities do not indicate a preference for or against any candidate. Some biases can be subtle and whether an activity is campaign intervention will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. For example, churches may create and distribute voter education materials that do not indicate a preference towards any candidate. According to the IRS, however, there are numerous ways in which the material could show bias, such as by not including all candidates on an equal basis, supporting a slate of candidates (even if the criteria are nonpartisan and objective), comparing the church's position on issues with those of the candidates, or covering only those issues important to the church. Other factors that may be important in a specific factual situation include the timing of the material's distribution and to whom it is distributed. Houses of worship may invite candidates to appear at services and other functions so long as no bias for or against a candidate is exhibited. If an individual appears as a candidate, factors that may indicate the activity was permissible include the following: other candidates were provided an equal opportunity to speak; the entity made clear it was not supporting or opposing any candidate; and no fundraising occurred. If the individual appears in a role other than as a candidate, relevant factors may include the following: he or she was chosen to speak for non-candidacy reasons and spoke solely in that capacity; no campaign activity occurred in connection with the event; the house of worship maintained a nonpartisan atmosphere at the event; and the event's announcement indicated the non-candidate capacity in which the individual was appearing and did not mention the candidacy or election. It should be emphasized that even if these factors are met, the appearance could still be impermissible because bias was exhibited in some other way. The tax laws do not prohibit religious leaders from participating in campaign activity as individuals. Religious leaders may endorse or oppose candidates in speeches, advertisements, etc., in their capacity as private citizens. A leader may be identified as being from a specific house of worship, but there should be no intimation that he or she is speaking as a representative of it. The house of worship may not support the activity in any way. Thus, a leader may not make campaign-related statements in the entity's publications, at its events, or in a manner that uses its assets. This is true even if the leader pays the costs of the publication or event. IRS inquiry into the tax status of a house of worship and examination of its records and activities raise concerns under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, which states that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]...." Due to this issue, IRC Section 7611 provides special rules for tax inquiries and examinations of churches and other houses of worship, and these apply when the IRS looks into whether the entity has engaged in campaign activity. In order for the IRS to begin such an inquiry, an "appropriate high-level Treasury official" must reasonably believe, on the basis of written facts and circumstances, that the house of worship may no longer qualify for 501(c)(3) status. The IRS must then provide written notice to the house of worship that includes an explanation of the inquiry's general subject matter and the concerns that gave rise to it, among other things. If the entity's response does not sufficiently address the IRS's concerns and the agency decides to proceed to an examination of its records and religious activities, the IRS must provide a second written notice. This notice must include a copy of the inquiry notice, a description of the records and activities the IRS seeks to examine, an offer for a conference to discuss and resolve concerns, and copies of IRS documents collected or prepared for the examination that are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and tax laws. In general, the inquiry and examination must be completed within two years after the examination notice was sent. The appropriate IRS counsel must approve any revocation of 501(c)(3) status, notice of deficiency, or tax assessment and determine that the Section 7611 requirements were met. The IRS is limited on further inquiries and examinations occurring within a five-year period. Before the IRS can begin an inquiry, an "appropriate high-level Treasury official" must reasonably believe that the house of worship may no longer qualify for 501(c)(3) status. The statute and regulations define "appropriate high-level Treasury official" in terms of high-level IRS regional officers. However, those positions are obsolete after changes made to the agency's structure by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Following the 1998 act, the "reasonable belief" determination was made by the Director of Exempt Organizations, Examinations. In 2009, a federal district court held that the person holding this position was of insufficient rank to make the Section 7611 determination, which led the IRS to suspend tax inquiries of houses of worship. Later that year, the IRS issued proposed regulations that would provide for the Director, Exempt Organizations to make the determination, explaining that person "is a senior executive who reports to the Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, and who is responsible for planning, managing, directing and executing nationwide activities for Exempt Organizations." Some have argued that the Director, Exempt Organizations does not meet the criteria to be "an appropriate high-level Treasury official" because the position is not sufficiently high-ranking or independent. The regulations have not been finalized, although their finalization has been included in the IRS's priority guidance plans for the past several years. Some have expressed concern that failure to finalize the regulations prevents IRS enforcement. Some have argued that the political campaign prohibition violates the free exercise and free speech rights of churches under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has not addressed this issue. Two U.S. Courts of Appeals have upheld the prohibition against First Amendment challenges. In 1972, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals examined the issue in Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v. United States . The IRS had revoked a non-church religious organization's 501(c)(3) status for violating the lobbying and campaign activity restrictions. One issue was whether the restrictions violated the organization's First Amendment rights. The district court held the restrictions were unconstitutional, reasoning that the First Amendment did not allow the government to examine the organization's activities, which were based on sincere religious belief, to determine whether they were religious or political. The Tenth Circuit flatly rejected that reasoning because it "is tantamount to the proposition that the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion, ipso facto, assures no restraints, no limitations and, in effect, protects those exercising the right to do so unfettered." The court said such analysis would "compell[] [it] to hold that Congress is constitutionally restrained from withholding the privilege of tax exemption whenever it enacts legislation relating to a nonprofit religious organization." Instead, the Tenth Circuit held the lobbying and campaign activity limitations did not violate the First Amendment. The court stated that the Free Exercise Clause "is restrained [by the limitations] only to the extent of denying tax exempt status and then only in keeping with an overwhelming and compelling Governmental interest: That of guarantying that the wall separating church and state remain high and firm." Stating the maxim that a "tax exemption is a privilege, a matter of grace rather than right," the court also found that the limitations did not violate the organization's free speech rights, reasoning that the organization was free to choose whether it would limit its activities in exchange for the benefits of tax-exempt status. The court ended by explaining that The Congressional purposes evidenced by the 1934 and 1954 amendments are clearly constitutionally justified in keeping with the separation and neutrality principles particularly applicable in this case and, more succinctly, the principle that government shall not subsidize, directly or indirectly, those organizations whose substantial activities are directed toward the accomplishment of legislative goals or the election or defeat of particular candidates. In 2000, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti that the revocation of a church's tax-exempt status for campaign intervention did not violate its free exercise and free speech rights. In 1992, four days before the presidential election, the church placed advertisements in USA Today and the Washington Times advocating against then-candidate Bill Clinton and soliciting tax-deductible donations. The IRS revoked the church's 501(c)(3) status. After the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS, the church appealed, alleging the revocation violated its rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), among other things. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the church had failed to show, as required under law, that its right to freely exercise its religion had been substantially burdened. According to the court, the revocation's only burden on the church was less money for its religious activities and such burden "[wa]s not constitutionally significant." Also rejecting the church's claim that it was substantially burdened because it had no other means to communicate its opinions about candidates, the court explained that it was constitutionally sufficient that the church could set up a related 501(c)(4) social welfare organization that could then establish a political action committee (PAC). The court brushed aside the fact that the church could not give the tax-deductible contributions it received to the PAC, reasoning that the Supreme Court "has consistently held that, absent invidious discrimination, 'Congress has not violated [an organization's] First Amendment rights by declining to subsidize its First Amendment activities.'" The court also rejected the church's claim that the IRS had committed viewpoint discrimination, thus violating its free speech rights. The court reasoned that the campaign prohibition was viewpoint neutral because all 501(c)(3) organizations were subject to it, "regardless of candidate, party, or viewpoint." The political activity compliance initiative was developed by the IRS in 2004 due to concerns that 501(c)(3) organizations were violating the campaign prohibition. It consists of two parts: (1) the IRS conducts public outreach to educate organizations about the prohibition and (2) a fast-track procedure to review allegations of campaign activity, with safeguards to ensure the Section 7611 requirements are met. The IRS used the initiative for the 2004, 2006, and 2008 election cycles. The results from 2004 and 2006 are discussed below. The IRS has not updated the 2006 data or released the 2008 results, and the agency has not publicly discussed the initiative since 2008. It has been suggested this is due to the Living Word Christian Center decision. As discussed above, that case held the IRS was not following the statutory procedure required in church tax inquiries and led the IRS to suspend such inquiries. In the 2004 initiative, 132 cases, 63 of which involved houses of worship, were selected for review. Twenty-two of the cases, including 16 house of worship cases, were determined not to merit examination. Of the remaining 110 cases, 47 involved houses of worship. As of the most recent IRS update in 2007, 46 of the 47 had been closed. In four of them, the IRS determined that the house of worship did not violate the campaign prohibition. In the other 42 cases, the IRS issued a written advisory, which meant that the agency determined the church had engaged in campaign activity but did not impose a penalty because there were mitigating factors. Mitigating factors included that (1) the activity being of a one-time nature or done in good faith reliance on the advice of counsel and (2) the organization correcting the conduct (e.g., recovering any funds that were spent) and establishing steps to prevent future violations. Impermissible activity included the distribution of church bulletins and inserts supporting or opposing candidates, church officials supporting or opposing candidates during services or church functions, candidates being allowed to use church facilities, and distribution of biased voter guides and candidate ratings. In 2006, the IRS selected 100 cases for examination, 44 of which involved houses of worship. As of the most recent IRS update in 2007, the IRS had closed 14 of the 44 cases, issuing written advisories in four of them and not finding substantiated campaign activity in the other 10. The types of campaign activity were similar to those found in 2004. The IRS also looked at state campaign finance databases to determine whether 501(c)(3) organizations had made campaign contributions from 2003 to 2005. The IRS found 269 apparent incidences of contributions, of which 87 involved church contributions totaling $45,151. As of the 2007 update, 86 of the 87 cases remained open; the IRS determined one case did not merit examination. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which regulates the raising and spending of campaign funds, is separate and distinct from the tax code. FECA prohibits corporations—including incorporated 501(c)(3) religious entities—from using general treasury funds to make contributions in connection with federal elections. While FECA does not prohibit unincorporated 501(c)(3) organizations from making such contributions, the IRC prohibits all 501(c)(3) organizations, regardless of corporate status, from making such contributions, as discussed above. In its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court invalidated the prohibitions in FECA on corporations and labor unions using their general treasury funds to make "independent expenditures," which are communications "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate" that are not coordinated with any candidate or party, and "electioneering communications," which are broadcast, cable, or satellite transmissions that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and aired within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. The Court determined that these prohibitions constitute a "ban on speech" in violation of the First Amendment. Due to the tax code prohibition discussed above, houses of worship with 501(c)(3) status are generally not permitted to engage in the activities regulated by FECA, and thus the Citizens United decision does not appear to impact them in a significant manner. It should be noted that the activities that constitute electioneering under the IRC and FECA are not necessarily identical. For example, it is possible that an issue advocacy communication, depending on its timing and content, might be an electioneering communication under FECA, but might not be treated as campaign intervention under the IRC. Such a communication would need to comply with FECA disclosure requirements for electioneering communications meeting certain monetary thresholds, if applicable. In the 112 th Congress, legislation, H.R. 3600 , has been introduced that would repeal the IRC provision that prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from engaging in campaign activity. If the bill were enacted into law, houses of worship with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status would be able to engage in campaign activity without jeopardizing their tax-exemption so long as the other criteria for such status were met. This means that even if the bill were enacted into law, campaign activity (and any other non-exempt purpose activity) could not be the houses of worship's primary activity, and an entity that significantly benefited partisan interests could still jeopardize its tax-exempt status. The bill would not change the current IRC reporting requirements. Houses of worship, unlike most tax-exempt organizations, are not required to file an annual information return (Form 990) with the IRS. Tax-exempt organizations permitted to engage in political activities must generally report information about those activities on the form's Schedule C. Thus, while the bill would permit houses of worship to engage in campaign activities, it would not require them to report to the IRS on those activities. Finally, the bill expressly provides that its provisions "shall not invalidate or limit any provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971." In prior Congresses, there were bills that took different approaches to permitting houses of worship to engage in some level of campaign activity. For analysis of this legislation, see CRS Report RL32973, Churches and Campaign Activity: Analysis of the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act and Similar Legislation , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

As the 2012 election cycle heats up, there are allegations that some houses of worship have engaged in impermissible activities. Under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), churches and other houses of worship with tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status may not participate in campaign activity. They are permitted under the tax laws to engage in other activities that are political in nature (e.g., distribute voter guides and invite candidates to speak at church functions) so long as the activity does not support or oppose a candidate. Additionally, religious leaders may engage in campaign activity in their capacity as private individuals without negative tax consequences to the house of worship. The tax code's political campaign prohibition is sometimes referred to as the "Johnson Amendment," after then-Senator Lyndon Johnson, who introduced the provision as an amendment to the Revenue Act of 1954. While some have argued the prohibition violates the free exercise and free speech rights of houses of worship under the First Amendment, the two federal courts of appeals to address the issue have not agreed with this position. In recent years, numerous churches have participated in an event known as "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," during which pastors preach a political sermon. A purpose of the event is to develop litigation for another challenge to the prohibition on First Amendment grounds. This year, Pulpit Freedom Sunday was held on October 7, 2012. Separate from the prohibition in the tax code, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) also regulates the ability of houses of worship to engage in electioneering activities. In the 112th Congress, H.R. 3600 would repeal the Johnson Amendment, thus permitting houses of worship and other 501(c)(3) organizations to engage in campaign activity without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status so long as the other criteria for tax-exempt status are met.

RS21542 -- Department of Homeland Security: Issues Concerning the Establishment of Federally Funded ResearchandDevelopment Centers (FFRDCs) Updated November 13, 2003 FFRDCs are not-for-profit organizations which are financed on a sole-source basis, exclusively or substantially by an agency of thefederal government, which are not subject to Office of Personnel Management regulations. They operate as privatenon-profitcorporations, although they are subject to certain personnel and budgetary controls imposed by Congress and/or theirsponsoringagency. Each Center is administered, through a contract with the sponsoring federal agency, by either an industrialfirm, a university,or a nonprofit institution. Center personnel are not considered federal employees, but rather employees of theorganization thatmanages and operates the center. FFRDCs were established by the federal government during and immediatelyfollowing World WarII. For various reasons, the federal government was not able to attract the top scientific and technological talent dueto lower pay thanin the private sector and slow hiring procedures necessary to meet its broad R&D requirements. BecauseFFRDCs are not allowed tocompete for federal or private sector contracts, government officials have often asserted they are free from conflictof interest, and in abetter position to protect classified and/or proprietary information. There are four categories of FFRDCs: research laboratories, R&D laboratories, study and analysis centers, and systemsengineering/systems integration centers (see table). A research laboratory is usually limited tobasic and applied research thatincludes efforts directed towards the solution of specific problems, but short of engaging in major developmentrelated activities. An R&D laboratory engages in a variety of research activities, ranging from basic and appliedresearch through the actual developmentof hardware for experimental or demonstration purposes. Study and analysis centers are involvedin analytical activities in whichvery little hardware-related laboratory research or development is carried out. These study Centers were initiallyestablished toprovide the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the three Services, and the Defense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency with help insolving organizational or operational problems. Systems engineering/systems integration (SE/SI) centers primarily provide systemsengineering, R&D systems integration, and management support for definition and development of largetechnical systems. DOD established these Centers because it lacked certain in-house capabilities in large systems development, integration,and verification. Summary of Current FFRDCs 1. Parts of the FAA's FFRDC also are identified as a study and analysis center and a systems engineering center. Eight federal agencies currently operate a total of 36 FFRDCs. As indicated in the table, the Department ofEnergy (DOE) and theDepartment of Defense (DOD) together sponsor 26 FFRDCs, with DOE operating 16 Centers and DOD operating10. The other 10FFRDCs are operated by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), theNationalAeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC),and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Of the 16 DOE FFRDCs, nine are administered by a single university ora consortium ofuniversities, three are managed by a private sector company, and four through a not-for-profit organization. DOD's10 Centers includethree R&D laboratories, five Study and Analysis Centers, and two Systems Engineering, Systems IntegrationCenters. Those 10Centers are administered by two universities and eight not-for-profit organizations. According to the National Science Foundation, in FY2000 the federal government spent $77.4 billion on R&D, of which $6.385billion or 8.3% was obligated for FFRDCs (1) . Of the$6.385 billion spent on R&D at FFRDCs, DOE accounted for $3.897 billion or61% of total federal FFRDC expenditures. This represents 57% of DOE's total federal R&D budget of $6.063billion, in FY2000. Asa result, DOE is more reliant on FFRDCs to meet its research, development and acquisition requirements than anyother federalagency. As a matter of comparison, NASA's only FFRDC, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, received $1.202 billionin FY2000,comprising 12.3% of the agency's $9.755 billion R&D budget. DOD's 10 FFRDCs received $783 million inFY2000, representingonly 2.4% of its RDT&E budget. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Letter 84-1, and the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) which implement thepolicy letter, are the two primary regulatory documents that govern the establishment of an FFRDC. (2) The purpose of the letter was toestablish government-wide policies for the establishment, utilization, and evaluation of FFRDCs. In 1990, the Officeof FederalProcurement issued regulations to implement the policy letter. (3) In general, the implementation regulations state that FFRDCs shouldnot be established unless the agency cannot accomplish the activity in-house, through other government agencies,or throughtraditional procurement procedures. The regulation also states there should be sufficient work to be performed bythe FFRDC; thatcost controls should be established to protect the government; and that the parameters of the mission of the FFRDCare spelled outclearly enough to enable the differentiation between FFRDC responsibilities and the agency's non-FFRDC work. (4) To establish an FFRDC, an agency must follow the guidelines of the OFPP. According to the National Science Foundation, once theagency implements the OFPP guidelines, the new FFRDC should have the following characteristics: (1) its primaryactivities shouldinclude: basic research, applied research, development, or management of research and development; (2) it is aseparate operationalunit within the parent organization or is organized as a separately incorporated organization; (3) it performs actualR&D or R&Dmanagement either upon direct request of the federal government or under a broad charter from the federalgovernment, but in eithercase under direct monitoring by the federal government; (4) it receives its major financial support (70% or more)from the federalgovernment, usually from one agency; (5) it has, or is expected to have, a long-term relationship with its sponsoringagency (usually 5years, with a review of the center's progress conducted by the sponsoring agency during the third year of theagreement); (6) most orall of its facilities are owned by, or are funded under contract with, the federal government, (7) it has an averageannual budget(operating and capital equipment) of at least $500,000; and (8) when renewing the sole-source contract, thesponsoring agency isrequired to determine if it still needs to sponsor an FFRDC or if the work could be done in a federal facility, orthrough a traditionalprivate sector contract. (5) To minimize conflicts of interest, Centers are established as not-for-profit entities that cannot compete with for-profit companies foradditional government contracts and are not allowed to produce and market commercial products. As a result,government officialsargue that FFRDCs are allowed access to key government officials and highly sensitive data from industry andgovernment sources.Such privileged access enables the Centers to address complex long-term problems with a high degree of objectivitybased on theirrestrictions concerning selling products to the government, or joining forces with those who do, while remainingoutside of thegovernment itself. While Centers are not-for-profit entities, they are allowed to charge the government fees aboveand beyond thecost of carrying out their responsibilities. Some Centers charge fees to cover ordinary and necessary costs of doingbusiness that arenot otherwise reimbursable, but that the government recognizes must be incurred. These fees can also be used byan FFRDC toconduct independent research. The FAR acknowledges the legitimacy of such fees. (6) Within Title III, Science and Technology in Support of Homeland Security, of the Homeland Security Act ( P.L.107-296 ) there are twoprovisions that call for the establishment of FFRDCs. Section 305 of the Act states that "the Secretary, actingthrough theUndersecretary for Science and Technology, may establish or contract with one or more FFRDCs to carry out otherresponsibilities ofthe Act, including the coordination and integration of the agency's extramural and intermural research programs." (7) Section 312directs the Secretary of DHS to establish an FFRDC known as the Homeland Security Institute. According to thelegislation, theInstitute, among other things, "should conduct systems analysis, risk analysis, and simulation and modeling todeterminevulnerability of the Nation's critical infrastructure." (8) However, the legislation also states that "the Institute shall terminate threeyears after the effective date of this Act." Some have raised concerns that this provision could make it difficult forDHS to recruit thebest people for this Center. This legislative language provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with the authority the agency needs to establish multipleFFRDCs, as long as the Department complies with OFPP Letter 84-1, and the implementing FAR 35.017-2. Oncethese requirementshave been met, the DHS can develop a request for proposals to establish one or more FFRDCs. It should be notedthat theCompetition in Contracting Act (CICA) permits the government to use sole-source procedures to establish or sustainan FFRDC.Proponents of this practice contend this allows the government to select the highest quality bid, rather than thelowest cost bid thatapplies to traditional federal procurement actions. However, to help control costs, Congress can set ceilings on thetotal annualspending and/or established personnel levels for the Center. In addition to universities and private sector firms,existing FFRDCs canalso compete to operate and manage a DHS sponsored FFRDC, if the mission of the proposed FFRDCis similar to the existingFFRDC. FFRDCs operate under a five year contract, with a review of the Center's performance by the sponsoringagency after thethird year of operation. This review is to determine if the FFRDC should be renewed for another 5 years,re-competed as an FFRDC,abolished, or decertified as an FFRDC while continuing to operate as an independent nonprofit organization. Once the DHS selects the organization that will administer and operate an FFRDC, the Board of Trustees for the FFRDC willestablish operating procedures, and select the Director of the FFRDC. (9) While the sponsoring agency has some input in the selectionof the Center's Director, the Board of Trustees is ultimately responsible for selecting the Director of the FFRDC.The Director is thenresponsible for hiring the remainder of the Center's personnel who, like the Director, are employees of theorganization that operatesthe FFRDC, not the sponsoring federal agency. The primary objective of this unique arrangement between thesponsoring agency andthe Center is to help ensure the independence of the Center while concomitantly establishing a long-term, closepartnershiprelationship, as opposed to the "arms length" required with for-profit federal contracts. Further, the personnelpolicies allow theFFRDC to rapidly employ, if necessary, new scientific and technical expertise that are difficult to recruit, sustain,and manage throughthe federal civil service system. (10) For many years FFRDCs have attracted the attention of Congress. In their early years of operation, Congress' primary concernsregarding FFRDCs centered around the growing number of Centers, cost to the government, insulation from thecompetitiveenvironment, and the quality of products. More recently, congressional concerns have focused on the continuingneed for FFRDCs,diversification into areas beyond the Centers' original mission, and each sponsoring agency's oversight of itsFFRDC's activities. Public sector advocacy groups, such as the Professional Services Council (PSC), have pointed out that the nation's scientific,engineering, and technological capabilities have increased dramatically since FFRDCs were first introduced in thelate 1940s.Specifically, PSC contends that, given that the private sector has developed significant capabilities to perform studies and analysisand systems-engineering and integration work, it seems logical that this work could be performed in the privatesector. However,proponents of FFRDCs argue that the responsibility of the proposed DHS FFRDC includes "the coordination andintegration of theagency's extramural and intermural research programs" which they contend is ideal, since FFRDCs are not allowedto compete forfederal contracts and are not allowed to develop commercial products. Finally it is unlikely that any of the DHSFFRDCs will beperforming systems integration activities. With the end of the Cold War and declining DOD R&D budgets, observers in the private and public sectors are concerned thatFFRDCs might have diversified into areas beyond their originally defined missions. Some individuals inside andoutside of Congressassert that this has already happened. Representatives from the PSC have also argued that these Centers havereceived a number ofcontracts from various federal agencies for which private service companies had originally competed. However,representatives fromDOD and DOE have indicated that their respective FFRDCs have been asked to develop definitions of their corework for eachCenter. As a result of this exercise each agency has identified work that could be competed through a traditionalprocurement process. (11) Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about the adequacy of the oversight of many FFRDCs. In a General AccountingOffice (GAO) report, prepared for the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, GAO stated that"Despite DOE'smany reforms, our review of more than 200 audit and consulting reports issued since 1995 reveals that thedepartment has persistentmanagement weaknesses that have led directly to a wide range of performance problems, including major costoverruns and scheduledelays in a variety of noteworthy projects." (12) Tocontrol cost and maintain mission focus at DOD's FFRDCs, Congress continues tomandate employee ceiling levels for each DOD Center. While these are legitimate congressional concerns, it isimportant to note thatDOD and DOE FFRDCs employ thousands of people and have budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Incontrast, DHSFFRDCs are likely to be smaller Centers with initial employment levels ranging from 50-100 people, along with budgets rangingfrom $15 million to $30 million.

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) were first establishedduring World War II to provide specific defense research and development (R&D) capabilities that were notreadily available withinthe federal government or the private sector. The federal government currently operates 36 FFRDCs. Title III of theDepartmentHomeland Security (DHS) Act (P.L.107-296) calls for the creation of one or more FFRDCs , including a HomelandSecurity Institute.On September 10th, the DHS released a "Sources Sought" notice requesting that contractors indicate their interestin competing tooperate an FFRDC for DHS. Those responding must include a 400 words, or less, qualification statement by October30. DHS plansto release a formal request for proposal, for the FFRDC, before the end of this year. In the past several years, somecongressional andnon-congressional critics have questioned the use of FFRDCs, including the continuing need for such Centers, diversification intoareas beyond the Centers' original missions, and oversight of each FFRDC's activities by its sponsoring agency. Thisreport will beupdated to reflect most recent events.

Some context for my remarks is appropriate. The threat of terrorism was significant throughout the 1990s; a plot to destroy 12 U.S. airliners was discovered and thwarted in 1995, for instance. Yet the task of providing security to the nation’s aviation system is unquestionably daunting, and we must reluctantly acknowledge that any form of travel can never be made totally secure. The enormous size of U.S. airspace alone defies easy protection. Furthermore, given this country’s hundreds of airports, thousands of planes, tens of thousands of daily flights, and the seemingly limitless ways terrorists or criminals can devise to attack the system, aviation security must be enforced on several fronts. Safeguarding airplanes and passengers requires, at the least, ensuring that perpetrators are kept from breaching security checkpoints and gaining access to aircraft. FAA has developed several mechanisms to prevent criminal acts against aircraft, such as adopting technology to detect explosives and establishing procedures to ensure that passengers are positively identified before boarding a flight. Still, in recent years, we and others have often demonstrated that significant weaknesses continue to plague the nation’s aviation security. The current aviation security structure, its policies, requirements, and practices have evolved since the early 1960s and were heavily influenced by a series of high profile aviation security incidents. Historically, the federal government has maintained that providing security was the responsibility of air carriers and airports as part of their cost of doing business. Beginning in 1972, air carriers were required to provide screening personnel and the airport operators to provide law enforcement support. However, with the rise in air piracy and terrorist activities that not only threatened commercial aviation but the national security of the United States, discussions began to emerge as to who should have the responsibility for providing security at our nations airports. With the events of the last week, concerns have been raised again as to who should be responsible for security and screening passengers at our nation’s airports. This issue has evoked numerous discussions through the years and just as many options of who and how security at our nation’s airports should be handled. But as pointed out in a 1998 FAA study, there had not been a consensus among the various aviation-related entities. To identify options for assigning screening responsibilities, we surveyed aviation stakeholders—security officials at the major air carriers and the largest airports, large screening companies, and industry associations— and aviation and terrorism experts. We asked our respondents to provide their opinions about the current screening program, criteria they believe are important in considering options, the advantages and disadvantages of each options, and their comments on implementing a different screening approach. It is important to understand that we gathered this information prior to September 11, 2001, and some respondents’ views may have changed. Control of access to aircraft, airfields, and certain airport facilities is a critical component of aviation security. Existing access controls include requirements intended to prevent unauthorized individuals from using forged, stolen, or outdated identification or their familiarity with airport procedures to gain access to secured areas. In May 2000, we reported that our special agents, in an undercover capacity, obtained access to secure areas of two airports by using counterfeit law enforcement credentials and badges. At these airports, our agents declared themselves as armed law enforcement officers, displayed simulated badges and credentials created from commercially available software packages or downloaded from the Internet, and were issued “law enforcement” boarding passes. They were then waved around the screening checkpoints without being screened. Our agents could thus have carried weapons, explosives, chemical/biological agents, or other dangerous objects onto aircraft. In response to our findings, FAA now requires that each airport’s law enforcement officers examine the badges and credentials of any individual seeking to bypass passenger screening. FAA is also working on a “smart card” computer system that would verify law enforcement officers’ identity and authorization for bypassing passenger screening. The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General has also uncovered problems with access controls at airports. The Inspector General’s staff conducted testing in 1998 and 1999 of the access controls at eight major airports and succeeded in gaining access to secure areas in 68 percent of the tests; they were able to board aircraft 117 times. After the release of its report describing its successes in breaching security, the Inspector General conducted additional testing between December 1999 and March 2000 and found that, although improvements had been made, access to secure areas was still gained more than 30 percent of the time. Screening checkpoints and the screeners who operate them are a key line of defense against the introduction of dangerous objects into the aviation system. Over 2 million passengers and their baggage must be checked each day for articles that could pose threats to the safety of an aircraft and those aboard it. The air carriers are responsible for screening passengers and their baggage before they are permitted into the secure areas of an airport or onto an aircraft. Air carriers can use their own employees to conduct screening activities, but mostly air carriers hire security companies to do the screening. Currently, multiple carriers and screening companies are responsible for screening at some of the nation’s larger airports. Concerns have long existed about screeners’ ability to detect and prevent dangerous objects from entering secure areas. Each year, weapons were discovered to have passed through one checkpoint and have later been found during screening for a subsequent flight. FAA monitors the performance of screeners by periodically testing their ability to detect potentially dangerous objects carried by FAA special agents posing as passengers. In 1978, screeners failed to detect 13 percent of the objects during FAA tests. In 1987, screeners missed 20 percent of the objects during the same type of test. Test data for the 1991 to 1999 period show that the declining trend in detection rates continues. Furthermore, the recent tests show that as tests become more realistic and more closely approximate how a terrorist might attempt to penetrate a checkpoint, screeners’ ability to detect dangerous objects declines even further. As we reported last year, there is no single reason why screeners fail to identify dangerous objects. Two conditions—rapid screener turnover and inadequate attention to human factors—are believed to be important causes. Rapid turnover among screeners has been a long-standing problem, having been identified as a concern by FAA and by us in reports dating back to at least 1979. We reported in 1987 that turnover among screeners was about 100 percent a year at some airports, and according to our more recent work, the turnover is considerably higher. From May 1998 through April 1999, screener turnover averaged 126 percent at the nation’s 19 largest airports; 5 of these airports reported turnover of 200 percent or more, and one reported turnover of 416 percent. At one airport we visited, of the 993 screeners trained at that airport over about a 1-year period, only 142, or 14 percent, were still employed at the end of that year. Such rapid turnover can seriously limit the level of experience among screeners operating a checkpoint. Both FAA and the aviation industry attribute the rapid turnover to the low wages and minimal benefits screeners receive, along with the daily stress of the job. Generally, screeners are paid at or near the minimum wage. We reported last year that some of the screening companies at 14 of the nation’s 19 largest airports paid screeners a starting salary of $6.00 an hour or less and, at 5 of these airports, the starting salary was the minimum wage—$5.15 an hour. It is common for the starting wages at airport fast- food restaurants to be higher than the wages screeners receive. For instance, at one airport we visited, screeners’ wages started as low as $6.25 an hour, whereas the starting wage at one of the airport’s fast-food restaurants was $7 an hour. The demands of the job also affect performance. Screening duties require repetitive tasks as well as intense monitoring for the very rare event when a dangerous object might be observed. Too little attention has been given to factors such as (1) improving individuals’ aptitudes for effectively performing screener duties, (2) the sufficiency of the training provided to screeners and how well they comprehend it, and (3) the monotony of the job and the distractions that reduce screeners’ vigilance. As a result, screeners are being placed on the job who do not have the necessary aptitudes, nor the adequate knowledge to effectively perform the work, and who then find the duties tedious and dull. We reported in June 2000 that FAA was implementing a number of actions to improve screeners’ performance. However, FAA did not have an integrated management plan for these efforts that would identify and prioritize checkpoint and human factors problems that needed to be resolved, and identify measures—and related milestone and funding information—for addressing the performance problems. Additionally, FAA did not have adequate goals by which to measure and report its progress in improving screeners’ performance. FAA is implementing our recommendations to develop an integrated management plan. However, two key actions to improving screeners’ performance are still not complete. These actions are the deployment of threat image projection (TIP) systems—which place images of dangerous objects on the monitors of X-ray machines to keep screeners alert and monitor their performance—and a certification program to make screening companies accountable for the training and performance of the screeners they employ. Threat image projection systems are expected to keep screeners alert by periodically imposing the image of a dangerous object on the X-ray screen. They also are used to measure how well screeners perform in detecting these objects. Additionally, the systems serve as a device to train screeners to become more adept at identifying harder-to-spot objects. FAA is currently deploying the threat image projections systems and expects to have them deployed at all airports by 2003. The screening company certification program, required by the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, will establish performance, training, and equipment standards that screening companies will have to meet to earn and retain certification. However, FAA has still not issued its final regulation establishing the certification program. This regulation is particularly significant because it is to include requirements mandated by the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000 to increase screener training—from 12 hours to 40 hours—as well as to expand background check requirements. FAA had been expecting to issue the final regulation this month, 2 ½ years later than it originally planned. According to FAA, it needed the additional time to develop performance standards based on screener performance data. Because of the Subcommittee’s long-standing concerns about the performance of screeners, you asked us to examine options for conducting screening and to outline some advantages and disadvantages associated with these alternatives. Many aviation stakeholders agreed that a stable, highly trained, and professional workforce is critical to improving screening performance. They identified compensation and improved training as the highest priorities in improving performance. Respondents also believed that the implementation of performance standards, team and image building, awards for exemplary work, better supervision, and certification of individual screeners would improve performance. Some respondents believed that a professional workforce could be developed in any organizational context, and that changing the delegation of screening responsibilities would increase the costs of screening. We identified four principal alternative approaches to screening. Each alternative could be structured and implemented in many different ways; for instance, an entity might use its own employees to screen passengers, or it might use an outside contractor to perform the job. In each alternative, we assumed that FAA would continue to be responsible for regulating screening, overseeing performance, and imposing penalties for poor performance. Table 1 outlines the four options. Shifting responsibility for screening would be a step affecting many stakeholders and might demand many resources. Accordingly, a number of criteria must be weighed before changing the status quo. We asked aviation stakeholders to identify key criteria that should be used in assessing screening alternatives. These criteria are to establish accountability for screening performance; ensure cooperation among stakeholders, such as airlines, airports, FAA, efficiently move passengers to flights; and minimize legal and liability issues. We asked airline and airport security officials to assess each option for reassigning screener responsibility against the key criteria. Specifically, we asked them to indicate whether an alternative would be better, the same, or worse than the current situation with regard to each criterion. Table 2 summarizes their responses. At the time of our review, FAA was finalizing a certification rule that would make a number of changes to the screening program, including requiring FAA- certification of screening companies and the installation of TIP systems on X-ray machines at screening checkpoints. Our respondents believed that these actions would improve screeners’ performance and accountability. Some respondents approved of the proposed changes since they would result in FAA having a direct regulatory role vis-a-vis the screening companies. Others indicated that the installation of TIP systems nationwide could improve screener awareness and ability to detect potentially threatening objects and result in better screener performance. Respondents did not believe that this option would affect stakeholder cooperation, affect passenger movement through checkpoints, or pose any additional legal issues. No consensus existed among aviation stakeholders about how airport control of screening would affect any of the key criteria. Almost half indicated that screener performance would not change if the airport authority were to assume responsibility, particularly if the airport authority were to contract out the screening operation. Some commented that screening accountability would likely blur because of the substantial differences among airport management and governance. Many respondents indicated that the airport option would produce the same or worse results than the current situation in terms of accountability, legal/liability issues, cooperation among stakeholders, and passenger movement. Several respondents noted that cooperation between air carriers and airports could suffer because the airports might raise the cost of passenger screening and slow down the flow of passengers through the screening checkpoint—to the detriment of the air carriers’ operations. Others indicated that the legal issue of whether employees of a government-owned airport could conduct searches of passengers might pose a significant barrier to this option. Screening performance and accountability would improve if a new agency were created in DOT to control screening operations, according to those we interviewed. Some respondents viewed having one entity whose sole focus would be security would be advantageous and believed it fitting for the federal government to take a more direct role in ensuring aviation security. Respondents indicated that federal control could lead to better screener performance because a federal entity most likely would offer better pay and benefits, attract a more professional workforce, and reduce employee turnover. There was no consensus among the respondents preferring this option on how federal control might affect stakeholder cooperation, passenger movement, or legal and liability issues. For some of the same reasons mentioned above, respondents believed that screening performance and accountability would improve under a government corporation charged with screening. The majority of the respondents preferred the government corporation to the DOT agency, because they viewed it as more flexible and less bureaucratic than a federal agency. For instance, the corporation would have more autonomy in funding and budgeting requirements that typically govern the operations of federal agencies. Respondents believed that the speed of passengers through checkpoints was likely to remain unchanged. No consensus existed among respondents preferring the government corporation option about how federal control might affect stakeholder cooperation or legal and liability issues. We visited five countries—Belgium, Canada, France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom—viewed by FAA and the civil aviation industry as having effective screening operations to identify screening practices that differ from those in the United States. The responsibility for screening in most of these countries is placed with the airport authority or with the government, not with the air carriers as it is in the United States. In Belgium, France, and the United Kingdom, the responsibility for screening has been placed with the airports, which either hire screening companies to conduct the screening operations or, as at some airports in the United Kingdom, hire screeners and manage the checkpoints themselves. In the Netherlands, the government is responsible for passenger screening and hires a screening company to conduct checkpoint operations, which are overseen by a Dutch police force. We note that, worldwide, of 102 other countries with international airports, 100 have placed screening responsibility with the airports or the government; only 2 other countries—Canada and Bermuda—place screening responsibility with air carriers. We also identified differences between the U.S. and the five countries in three other areas: screening operations, screener qualifications, and screener pay and benefits. As we move to improve the screening function in the United States, practices of these countries may provide some useful insights. First, screening operations in some of the countries we visited are more stringent. For example, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom routinely touch or “pat down” passengers in response to metal detector alarms. Additionally, all five countries allow only ticketed passengers through the screening checkpoints, thereby allowing the screeners to more thoroughly check fewer people. Some countries also have a greater police or military presence near checkpoints. In the United Kingdom, for example, security forces—often armed with automatic weapons—patrol at or near checkpoints. At Belgium’s main airport in Brussels, a constant police presence is maintained at one of two glass-enclosed rooms directly behind the checkpoints. Second, screeners’ qualifications are usually more extensive. In contrast to the United States, Belgium requires screeners to be citizens; France requires screeners to be citizens of a European Union country. In the Netherlands, screeners do not have to be citizens, but they must have been residents of the country for 5 years. Training requirements for screeners were also greater in four of the countries we visited than in the United States. While FAA requires that screeners in this country have 12 hours of classroom training before they can begin work, Belgium, Canada, France, and the Netherlands require more. For example, France requires 60 hours of training and Belgium requires at least 40 hours of training with an additional 16 to 24 hours for each activity, such as X-ray machine operations, that the screener will conduct. Finally, screeners receive relatively better pay and benefits in most of these countries. Whereas screeners in the United States receive wages that are at or slightly above minimum wage, screeners in some countries receive wages that are viewed as being at the “middle income” level in those countries. In the Netherlands, for example, screeners received at least the equivalent of about $7.50 per hour. This wage was about 30 percent higher than the wages at fast-food restaurants in that country. In Belgium, screeners received the equivalent of about $14 per hour. Not only is pay higher, but the screeners in some countries receive benefits, such as health care or vacations—in large part because these benefits are required under the laws of these countries. These countries also have significantly lower screener turnover than the United States: turnover rates were about 50 percent or lower in these countries. Because each country follows its own unique set of screening practices, and because data on screeners’ performance in each country were not available to us, it is difficult to measure the impact of these different practices on improving screeners’ performance. Nevertheless, there are indications that for least one country, practices may help to improve screeners’ performance. This country conducted a screener-testing program jointly with FAA that showed that its screeners detected over twice as many test objects as did screeners in the United States.

A safe and secure civil aviation system is a critical component of the nation's overall security, physical infrastructure, and economic foundation. Billions of dollars and a myriad of programs and policies have been devoted to achieving such a system. Although it is not fully known at this time what actually occurred or what all the weaknesses in the nation's aviation security apparatus are that contributed to the horrendous terrorist acts of Semptember 11, 2001, it is clear that serious weaknesses exist in the nation's aviation security system and that their impact can be far more devastating than previously imagined. There are security concerns with (1) airport access controls, (2) passenger and carry-on baggage screening, and (3) alternatives to current screening practices, including practices in selected other countries. Controls for limiting access to secure areas, including aircraft, have not always worked as intended. In May of 2000, special agents used counterfeit law enforcement badges and credentials to gain access to secure areas at two airports, bypassing security checkpoints and walking unescorted to aircraft departure gates. In June 2000, testing of screeners showed that significant, long-standing weaknesses--measured by the screeners' abilities to detect threat objects located on passengers or contained in their carry-on luggage--continue to exist. More recent results show that as tests more closely approximate how a terrorist might attempt to penetrate a checkpoint--screeners' performance declines significantly. Weaknesses in screening and controlling access to secure are as have left questions concerning alternative approaches. In assessing alternatives, respondents identified five important criteria: improving screening performance, establishing accountability, ensuring cooperation among stakeholders, moving people efficiently, and minimizing legal and liability issues.

To assess IRS’s performance in the five key filing season activities covered by this report, we reviewed and analyzed IRS documents and data, including workload and performance data; interviewed IRS officials about current operations, performance relative to 2001 performance and 2002 goals, and significant factors and initiatives that affected performance; observed operations at three of the eight processing centers operated by IRS’s Wage and Investment Operating Division (W&I) and four of IRS’s approximately 470 walk-in locations; observed a leadership conference and program review at one analyzed information posted to IRS’s Web site, specifically assessing the ease of finding information on the site (i.e., navigation) and the accuracy and currency of data on the site (i.e., content); reviewed information from private firms that assessed various aspects of IRS's Web site; reviewed information from and interviewed representatives of various private organizations that prepare tax returns and participated in IRS and other conferences about their views on IRS’s 2002 operations and performance; and reviewed related congressional testimony and work performed by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). This report discusses measures that reflect the continuing interest of the Subcommittee—including the quality, accessibility, and timeliness of IRS’s performance during the filing season. We did not independently verify the data reported by IRS or, in most cases, assess the methodologies used for computing performance measures or the appropriateness of IRS’s goals. However, we recently issued a report that discussed whether the performance measures that IRS and we use to assess various aspects of IRS’s filing season performance had certain key desirable attributes, such as objectivity, reliability, and clarity. Although we reported that some measures had weaknesses in these and other areas and we made recommendations to address the weaknesses we identified, IRS and we still consider the measures useful in providing data to assess performance. We did our work at IRS headquarters; W&I headquarters and Joint Operations Center in Atlanta; and W&I processing centers in Atlanta, Memphis, and Philadelphia and walk-in locations in Georgia. We selected these offices for a variety of reasons, including the proximity of our audit teams and the location of IRS managers. We performed our work from January through November 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. IRS’s filing season activities encompass two critical areas—returns processing and taxpayer assistance. Figure 1 provides information on the number of returns processed and the extent of assistance provided. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 directed the Secretary of the Treasury to issue advance tax refunds to eligible taxpayers. Accordingly, about 86 million taxpayers received checks of up to $600 between July and December 2001. Taxpayers who did not receive an advance tax refund as part of that process or who received less than the maximum allowed by law may have been entitled to a rate reduction credit when filing their tax year 2001 returns in 2002. Accordingly, IRS added a line to the individual income tax forms for eligible taxpayers to enter a credit amount and provided a worksheet for taxpayers to use in determining if they were eligible. In accordance with the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 and the Government Performance and Results Act, IRS established a balanced performance measurement system to emphasize accountability for achieving specific results and to reflect its mission and its three strategic goals—top quality service to all taxpayers through fair and uniform application of the law, top quality service to each taxpayer in every interaction, and productivity through a quality work environment. IRS has defined three elements of a balanced performance measurement system— customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, and business results (quality and quantity measures)—to ensure balance. IRS intends to use balanced measures to hold managers and frontline staff more accountable for improving filing season performance. Although IRS had measures of performance prior to its establishment of balanced measures beginning in fiscal year 2001, IRS managers have spent much effort revising measures since that time. Qualitative and quantitative information indicates that IRS processed about 131 million individual income tax returns and about 99 million refunds smoothly (i.e., without any significant disruption, such as a computer breakdown that could cause major delays in issuing refunds).Part of that information resulted from our comparison of IRS’s processing performance in 2002 with its performance in 2001 and its goals for 2002. The smooth processing in 2002 was accomplished despite: the new rate reduction credit, which led to a significant number of errors by taxpayers and tax return practitioners; the terrorist attacks of September 11th, which led to IRS reissuing notices as part of its effort to provide relief to affected taxpayers, and the subsequent anthrax attacks perpetrated through the mail, which led to significant security enhancements; and IRS’s reorganization, which caused IRS to shift computer files to match its new organizational units. IRS attributed its success in meeting those challenges, in part, to extensive preparation in advance of the filing season. In addition, IRS continued initiatives begun last year to improve processing performance. Regarding IRS’s processing in 2002, IRS’s performance in 2002 improved relative to 2001 for five measures (deposit error rate, deposit timeliness-paper, refund timeliness- individual (paper), refund error rate–individual (paper), and refund interest paid). As discussed later, we could not compare IRS’s performance for three other measures (letter error rate, notice error rate, and productivity). Table 3 in appendix I describes these eight measures and shows the results IRS reported for each of the measures as of September 2002. IRS met its fiscal year 2002 performance goal for four measures (deposit timeliness-paper, refund timeliness–individual (paper), refund error rate–individual (paper) and refund interest paid) and missed its goals for two measures (deposit error rate and productivity). As discussed later, we could not compare IRS’s performance against goals for the other two measures (letter error rate and notice error rate). Production data that IRS uses to monitor operations and identify and resolve issues that could disrupt operations showed IRS met processing deadlines and did not experience significant disruptions. In testimony given April 2002 before the Subcommittee, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue testified that, among other things, the filing season was smooth, with returns being processed on time. At that same hearing, (1) H&R Block, the largest tax return preparation firm, testified that the filing season had gone smoothly with some exceptions, such as the rate reduction credit, and commented on how well IRS and the tax preparation industry were working together and (2) a representative of the National Association of Enrolled Agentscharacterized the filing season, on the whole, as smooth. Representatives of other tax return preparation firms told us that, from their perspective, processing went relatively smoothly. Directors, managers, and staff at processing centers we visited in Memphis, Atlanta, and Philadelphia voiced similarly positive views about the filing season and processing based, in part, on their monitoring of production and inventory levels and their ability to meet processing deadlines despite the additional error-correction workload resulting from the rate reduction credit. W&I’s Director of Submission Processing characterized processing activities as smooth because of the lack of major disruptions and IRS’s ability to handle the extensive error-correction workload and still meet projected production rates and processing timeframes. He and other IRS officials attributed IRS’s success to several factors, including extensive planning and close monitoring of tax return receipts and inventory levels at the eight W&I processing centers through such means as weekly production meetings and a well-qualified workforce. According to TIGTA’s report on the 2002 filing season, IRS had a successful filing season despite implementing numerous tax law changes related to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, having to correct millions of errors related to the rate reduction credit, and experiencing problems with its error-correction system. TIGTA reported that IRS was able to complete the additional workload without any material slowdowns in processing and issue refunds in a timely manner by working extra hours when necessary. Because IRS revised its letter error rate and notice error rate performance measures since last filing season, we could not compare its performance in 2002 with its performance in 2001 or against its goals for 2002. In computing these error rates, IRS eliminated certain errors, such as capitalization mistakes, that it referred to as “professionalism errors.” As a result, IRS established new baselines for these two measures in 2002.According to IRS officials, the decision to eliminate professionalism errors in computing these measures was based on the fact that although those errors may make documents, such as letters and notices, less professional in appearance, they do not make the documents inaccurate. According to IRS officials, changes to measures used to assess processing activities were necessary and not unexpected because the measures are relatively new and still under development and because 2002 processing goals were based on limited 2001 performance data. Furthermore, although comparisons cannot be made between 2001 and 2002, IRS officials believe that the measures provide important information to assess current year performance. IRS’s ability to process returns and refunds in 2002 without any major disruptions was enhanced by extensive early preparation and coordination. That preparation and coordination helped IRS meet the following significant challenges that were unique to the 2002 filing season: Passage of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, specifically the provisions relating to advance tax refunds and rate reduction credits. The September 11, 2001, attacks, which led to actions by IRS to provide tax relief to affected taxpayers, and the subsequent anthrax attacks perpetrated through the mail, which led to significant security enhancements. IRS’s shifting of computer files in conjunction with its reorganization. Details about these challenges can be found in appendix II. Preparation and coordination helped ensure smooth processing during the 2002 filing season. IRS begins extensive preparation well in advance of each filing season to help ensure smooth processing. Figure 2 reflects some of IRS’s key activities and associated deadlines in preparation for each filing season. It also reflects the challenges that IRS faced in planning and delivering the 2002 filing season and IRS’s responses to those challenges. 4/16 Deadline for taxpayers to either file their individual income tax returns for tax year 2000 or get an extension. late-May Deadline for issuing refunds on timely filed returns without paying interest. 9/1 IRS begins testing initial changes to the computer systems for the 2002 filing season. 10/15 Final deadline for filing tax year 2000 individual income tax returns with extensions. mid-Nov. IRS checks for operability of computer systems changes. mid-Dec. IRS conducts final testing of the computer systems. 6/7 Enactment of tax relief legislation. 7/1 - 12/1 IRS issued advance tax refund checks to taxpayers. 9/11 Terrorists actions against the United States. 7/30 IRS updated computer systems to address tax relief legislation. 10/1 IRS held leadership conferences and established new office to coordinate filing season preparations and mitigate potential problems. mid-Nov. IRS established a committee to begin identifying security enhance- ments for handling mail. 10/1 - 12/1 IRS updated computer systems to further address tax relief legislation and granted tax relief to taxpayers affected by 9/11 terriorist actions. 12/1 Initial and final testing of the computer systems were run concurrently due to extensive changes from the tax relief legislation, tax relief to taxpayers affected by 9/11, and shifting computer files to match IRS's reorganization. mid-Oct. Anthrax attacks perpetrated through the mail. 4/15 Deadline for taxpayers to file either their individual income tax returns for tax year 2001 or get an extension. 5/30 Deadline for issuing refunds on timely filed returns without paying interest. 9/1 IRS begins testing initial changes to the computer systems for the 2003 filing season. 10/15 Final deadline for filing the individual income tax return for year 2001with extensions. mid-Nov. IRS checks for the operability of computer systems changes. mid-Dec. IRS conducts final testing of the computer systems. 4/19 By this date, IRS received 72 million additional returns, of which approximately 2 million had rate reduction credit errors. IRS corrected these errors. 7/12 By this date, IRS received 8 million additional returns, of which approximately 2 million had rate reduction credit errors. IRS corrected these errors. 9/9-11/30 IRS issued additional rate reduction credit checks to about 1.7 million taxpayers. IRS began preparing for the 2002 filing season by translating tax law requirements into computer system changes and testing those system changes in early 2001. As IRS continued preparing for the filing season, it had to make changes to the computer systems to accommodate the tax law changes related to the rate reduction credit and test those changes concurrently with regular testing and September 11 work. In March 2002, TIGTA concluded that IRS appropriately prepared for the effective processing of tax returns by modifying its computer systems, updating procedural and training manuals, and performing staffing analyses. In responding to that report, IRS officials indicated that preparatory efforts were successful and were instrumental in ensuring smooth processing. IRS also established a new office—the Release and Filing Season Readiness Office—in October 2001 to support the coordination of computer system development, testing, and operation in the actual processing environment. Among other things, this office helped IRS respond to changing priorities and unanticipated challenges by monitoring the status of computer system changes, facilitating discussions between information technology and other processing units on how to mitigate problems, and helping support and coordinate testing and resources. IRS implemented or expanded several initiatives to improve processing performance for both the 2002 and 2003 filing seasons. For example: IRS established site-level performance goals in 2002 to allow better, more individualized comparison of each processing center’s performance against its previous performance and toward corporate goals. According to IRS officials, these site-level comparisons should help identify best practices. In October 2001, IRS conducted a 2-day “leadership conference” at all eight W&I processing centers to communicate site goals and train managers and employees on the importance of performance measures and individual employees’ role in helping achieve goals. IRS officials credit the conferences, in part, with helping improve performance in 2002. Given the perceived success of last year’s leadership conferences, IRS conducted similar conferences in 2002. At the same time, IRS officials assessed whether the processing centers and employees were following procedures when sampling returns for review and reporting performance data for balanced measures. As a result, IRS identified issues that can be corrected by updating processing guidance, which will likely improve performance. In addition, IRS identified local procedures to help reduce the interest paid on refunds that officials said are being communicated to the other centers as a best practice. During the 2002 filing season, IRS expanded the third-party checkbox authorization, to allow taxpayers to designate friends, family members, or paid practitioners to help resolve problems IRS might encounter in processing their returns, such as a missing SSN, that could result in incorrectly computing a refund, for example. See appendix III for more information on the third-party checkbox authority. IRS received about 47 million individual income tax returns electronically, or about 36 percent of all individual income tax returns filed, as of October 25, 2002. The growth rate in 2002 projected through 2007 would bring IRS very close to its long-term goal of 80 percent of all individual income tax returns filed electronically by 2007. However, the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) does not believe that the current growth rate can be sustained and, instead, expects the growth rate to decline. According to ETAAC, if IRS is to continue or increase its current growth rate, it needs to overcome various barriers to electronic filing. IRS took several steps that were aimed at overcoming existing barriers and that may have helped it exceed its electronic filing goal for 2002. Those steps could lead to more growth in the future. In addition, two initiatives planned for 2003 could further encourage many taxpayers and practitioners to convert from paper filing to electronic filing. As shown in table 1, the number of individual tax returns filed electronically grew from about 40.2 million in 2001 to about 46.9 million in 2002—an increase of about 16.5 percent—and the percentage of individual income tax returns filed electronically reached 35.9 percent. This 16.5-percent increase over the number of returns received electronically in 2001 was more than IRS’s goal of 15 percent and continued the upward trend in the number of returns filed electronically since 1995. Figure 3 shows that the growth in electronic filing in 2002 continued the upward trend started in 1995 and the rate of growth in 2002 was larger than the rate of growth in 2001. Assuming continued annual growth rates of 16.51 percent for individual returns filed electronically and 0.48 percent for the total number of individual tax returns filed, about 75.2 percent of all tax returns will be filed electronically by 2007, slightly below the long-term goal of 80 percent. However, in its 2002 report to the Congress, ETAAC said that although the electronic filing goal for 2002 was exceeded, the trend of electronic filing is clearly towards lower annual growth rates, primarily for the following reasons: The taxpayers most easily attracted to electronic filing have already made the switch to electronic filing while the remaining taxpayers will be more difficult to convert. As the base of total filers and electronic filers grows, the number of new electronic filers needed to sustain the same growth rate increases. Each year, IRS surveys taxpayers and tax practitioners who electronically file to determine their satisfaction level with electronic filing. The survey for 2002 showed that about 98 percent of the responding taxpayers and 85 percent of the responding tax practitioners were either satisfied or very satisfied with electronic filing, which compares favorably with IRS’s goal of 85 percent. Although the percentage of responding practitioners who expressed overall satisfaction was relatively high (85 percent), it was lower than in 2001 (90 percent), which, in turn, was lower than in 2000 (93 percent). It is not clear why the level of satisfaction among practitioners has been decreasing because the customer satisfaction survey does not probe for reasons behind a respondent’s choices. Over the years, IRS has identified many impediments to electronic filing, including privacy and security concerns, cost, a lack of awareness of or interest in electronic filing, an inability to file all forms and schedules electronically, and a need to send certain paper documents to IRS even if the return was filed electronically. In 2002, IRS took numerous steps to alleviate these impediments and thus encourage more electronic filing that included the following: Increasing the electronic filing marketing budget from $9 million in 2001 to about $15 million in 2002 and focusing the marketing campaign on taxpayers and practitioners who filed computer-prepared returns on paper. Mailing a postcard to about 23 million taxpayers, including about 8 million taxpayers who had prepared their returns on a computer but filed on paper, informing them of the benefits of electronic filing and the self-select personal identification number (PIN) program. The postcard also informed them that a professional tax practitioner could be used to file their returns electronically and explained how the self- select PIN can be used to sign returns filed through a tax practitioner. Mailing two different letters to tax practitioners. The first letter was sent to practitioners who were already participating in the electronic filing program to thank them for participating and encourage them to continue to support the program. The second letter was sent to practitioners who were not participating in the electronic filing program and told them about the benefits of electronic filing, changes that had been made to the program, and pending changes. IRS enclosed a document with both letters that provided more information on the benefits of electronic filing and the self-select PIN program. In total, about 250,000 letters were sent to practitioners. Reinstating the practitioner PIN program. In 2001, practitioners informed IRS that they liked the practitioner PIN program, which IRS had terminated in favor of the self-select PIN program, and would like to see it reinstated. As of October 25, 2002, 83.9 percent of the tax returns prepared by practitioners and signed by a PIN were signed through the practitioner PIN program. The other 16.1 percent were signed using a self-select PIN. Changing the self-select PIN program at the request of tax practitioners. In 2002, taxpayers entered only their adjusted gross income from the prior tax year to verify their identity. In 2001, taxpayers had to enter not only their adjusted gross income but also their total tax to verify their identity. Tax practitioners wanted the number of items used to verify identity—known as “shared secrets”— reduced from two to one, because errors related to shared secrets resulted in numerous electronic tax returns being rejected. Consistent with the reduction in the number of shared secrets from two to one, the number of reject conditions on electronic tax returns as a result of shared secrets went down from about 2.1 million in 2001 to about 1.3 million in 2002. Making 30 additional forms and schedules eligible to be filed electronically, thereby enabling, according to IRS, 99 percent of all individual forms and schedules to be filed electronically. Although no information is available to confirm the extent to which these actions, either individually or collectively, contributed to the growth of electronic filing, it seems reasonable to assume that they had a positive effect since they address most of the identified impediments noted earlier. IRS also took steps to obtain additional information on impediments to electronic filing. As in the past, for example, it held electronic filing forums and practitioner meetings and conducted attitudinal surveys and market research. One significant step was the surveying of taxpayers and tax practitioners who prepared returns on a computer but filed them on paper. We had recommended such surveys in our report on the 2001 filing season in response to the fact that about 40 million computer-prepared individual income tax returns were filed on paper in 2001. The surveys revealed that taxpayer and tax practitioner costs, security and technology concerns, and a perceived lack of interest were among the primary reasons why taxpayers and tax practitioners are not filing electronically. With respect to the perceived lack of interest, (1) 87 percent of taxpayers who used paid practitioners indicated on the survey that their practitioner never discussed electronic filing with them and 4 percent said that their practitioner recommended against electronic filing and (2) 66 percent of tax practitioners said that they did not offer electronic filing because their clients did not ask for it. See appendix IV for more details on what survey respondents cited as factors that strongly influenced them not to file electronically and incentives that could encourage them to do so. IRS has two initiatives planned for the 2003 filing season—making electronic filing free for millions of taxpayers and offering services to practitioners who file a certain number of returns electronically. IRS intends for these initiatives to address two major impediments—the cost to taxpayers and the lack of interest on the part of some practitioners. In an attempt to remove cost as an impediment to electronic filing, IRS entered into an agreement with a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry that will offer free on-line tax filing services via IRS’s Web site. IRS estimates that 78 million taxpayers will be eligible to file their tax returns for free through this consortium. However, in its 2002 report to the Congress, ETAAC stated that lack of access to a computer and/or the Internet may prevent many of the 78 million eligible taxpayers from taking advantage of the free-filing service. To address the lack of interest on the part of some practitioners, IRS plans to offer electronic services (such as taxpayer identification number matching and account resolution) to tax practitioners who file a certain number of returns electronically. The aim of this initiative is to provide practitioners who file electronically with valuable tools to improve their service to their customers and reduce costs. In its 2002 report to the Congress, ETAAC stated that electronic services are likely to provide a major incentive for practitioners to file their clients’ returns electronically. IRS’s performance measures showed that (1) telephone service was more accessible and accurate during the 2002 filing season than it was in 2001and (2) IRS met most of its 2002 performance goals. IRS implemented several initiatives and strategies to improve performance, particularly in the area of accuracy where improvement was greatest. IRS serves telephone callers either through assistors, who are also known as customer service representatives (CSR), or automation, depending on how callers respond to menu prompts. As shown in figure 4, of the about 104.1 million calls that IRS received in the 2002 filing season, 21.2 million of the 30.4 million calls IRS estimates were from callers attempting to reach an assistor actually reached one; 42.9 million calls resulted in the caller receiving automated service; and 40 million calls resulted in the caller hanging up or being disconnected without receiving service, including callers who received a busy signal. The measures that IRS and we used to assess the accessibility and accuracy of IRS telephone assistance during the 2002 filing season, which are discussed in the next section, reflect only the calls that IRS estimates were from callers attempting to reach an assistor. Specifically, the CSR level of service measure reflects the experience of the 30.4 million callers who IRS estimates were attempting to reach an assistor, and other measures reflect the experiences of the 21.2 million callers who actually reached an assistor. The measures do not reflect the experiences of the 73.7 million calls from callers who either completed an automated service or hung up or were disconnected without receiving service. As a result, for example, the measures do not reflect an increased number of calls in 2002 from callers who hung up without completing menu responses or an automated service. According to IRS officials, the biggest part of this increase was probably due to problems with IRS’s telephone service menu, particularly during the early weeks of the filing season. When IRS revised the menu in mid-February, it noted a decline in the hang-up rate, which may indicate that taxpayers had been frustrated or confused by the menu. Table 2 provides information on IRS’s performance in providing telephone assistance to taxpayers who were attempting to reach or who received service from an IRS assistor in the 2002 filing season. In summary, the table shows the following: A greater percentage of calls got through and received service, and IRS met two of its three accessibility goals for 2002. IRS likely would have performed better in the other measure, CSR level of service, if not for the significant demand for telephone assistance related to the rate reduction credit. The accuracy of assistance improved considerably in 2002 compared with 2001, and IRS met most of its goals. The quality and correct response rates for both tax law and account calls were better in 2002, indicating that assistors more closely adhered to IRS procedural guidance and more often provided callers accurate information and service. Customer satisfaction was comparable to 2001. Detailed data show that customers who were successful in reaching an assistor were least satisfied with the time they had to wait to speak with an assistor in both 2001 and 2002. The volume of calls is a key factor that can affect CSR level of service. As we previously reported, IRS data suggest that demand for telephone assistance related to the rate reduction credit was significant during the 2002 filing season and negatively affected telephone performance, especially in mid- to late-February, when the greatest number of taxpayers called with questions about the credit. Although performance declined significantly during this period of peak demand for information on the rate reduction credit, IRS performed well enough during the rest of the 2002 filing season so that, as shown in table 2, the CSR level of service in 2002 improved compared with 2001, and IRS almost met its goal. According to IRS officials, although taxpayers had greater difficulty getting access to IRS’s telephone system during certain weeks—when there was great demand for rate reduction credit assistance and, as discussed earlier, there were problems with IRS’s telephone service menu—taxpayers, overall, had a considerably better telephone service experience in the 2002 filing season than in 2001. Effective October 2001, IRS stopped using the assistor response level and average speed of answer measures to assess its performance in providing telephone assistance. According to IRS officials, IRS adopted these measures in fiscal year 2001 to focus its efforts on improving access and allow it to gauge its performance against world-class telephone service organizations. However, officials said that subsequent experience showed that IRS’s telephone call sites do not have control over, nor are they directly accountable for, key factors that affect these measures, such as the volume of calls routed to them. Although the sites’ control over these measures may be limited, they are an important component of any assessment of IRS’s telephone performance because they measure a key aspect of the customer experience—how long callers wait to speak to an assistor. In that regard, selected noteworthy public and private call centers we studied often used caller wait-time measures to set service-level goals and benchmarked their performance against the best practices of leading telephone service providers. Without a caller wait-time measure similar to those used by others, IRS’s suite of telephone measures is missing an important indicator of the ease with which taxpayers reach IRS. According to IRS officials, the current accuracy measures, while useful in assessing the filing season, do not adequately reflect customer needs and employee performance. With the assistance of a contractor, IRS developed new measures that it believes better reflect what matters most to its customers—accuracy, timeliness, and professionalism. IRS plans to baseline the new measures in 2003 and use them in 2004 to replace the current accuracy measures. IRS implemented several initiatives to improve telephone service in the 2002 filing season. For example, IRS established accessibility performance measures and goals for its call sites and enhanced its call-routing capabilities to provide taxpayers better access to assistors. IRS also implemented several initiatives, including earlier assistor training, as part of a strategy to improve accuracy and piloted a new hiring program to get candidates with higher aptitudes and skill levels. In 2002, IRS established two new accessibility performance measures— services provided and total handle time—and related goals for its 26 telephone call sites. These measures replace those discontinued in 1998. IRS officials said that the measures and goals were intended to provide the sites with incentives for handling calls efficiently and answering their share of total calls, thereby enhancing their contributions to meeting IRS’s overall accessibility goals. According to IRS officials, the new measures led to improved performance by giving the call sites a clearer understanding of what they were expected to achieve and how their performance would help IRS achieve its goals. IRS took action to get employees to understand the measures and contribute to achieving goals, by, for example, holding “leadership conferences” for telephone operations managers similar to those conducted in the processing centers. IRS enhanced its call routing system by implementing a feature, called “network call screening.” Before network call screening, IRS’s contract long-distance service provider routed calls to one of IRS’s call sites where the caller heard and responded to a menu of options. The number of calls IRS received often exceeded its telephone system capacity, resulting in many calls receiving busy signals. Also, because calls were routed before the callers had indicated, through use of a menu, the subject matter of their calls, callers were sometimes given access to only automated service, even though assistors were available to handle their calls. With network call screening, callers hear and respond to the menu options before the call is routed to a call site. According to IRS officials, this reduced the number of calls that receive busy signals, increased the chance that a caller would reach an assistor, and decreased wait times. In that regard, (1) IRS data show that the number of busy signals callers received decreased from about 1.5 million in the 2001 filing season (or about 3 percent of total call attempts) to about 0.7 million in the 2002 filing season (or about 1 percent of total call attempts) and (2) an IRS analysis showed that the percentage of calls sent to automated-only service decreased from 11 percent in the 2001 filing season to 8 percent in the 2002 filing season. According to IRS officials, improving the accuracy of telephone assistance was a major emphasis in planning for the 2002 filing season. With the assistance of a contactor, IRS analyzed its accuracy data to identify problems and developed initiatives to improve accuracy. IRS’s accuracy rates in January were historically the lowest of any month for tax law inquiries and, according to the analysis, a classic learning curve was evident from January through April. IRS implemented several initiatives to combat this January slump, including training assistors in their specialized topics in November and December and requiring their managers to certify them, by the start of the filing season, as capable of providing the correct response to taxpayer questions. Other initiatives included reviewing and correcting the guidance assistors use to respond to taxpayer questions and assigning call site managers ownership of selected tax law topics, thus making them accountable for assistor training and improving assistors’ performance in their assigned topics. For the 2002 filing season, IRS piloted a new hiring method at some call sites to improve service to taxpayers by hiring better-qualified assistors. The new method used live role-playing to identify candidates with the required competencies for successful job performance, free up front-line manager’s time previously spent interviewing possible candidates, and reduce assistor turnover. As we previously reported, IRS officials have said that attrition has negatively affected IRS’s performance, and the lack of time to interview applicants has led to concerns about the suitability of new hires. With respect to attrition, IRS data showed that the turnover rate at sites that hired under the new process was 9.3 percentage points lower than the turnover rate at comparable call sites that used the traditional hiring method. IRS plans to expand this initiative in 2003. Quality of walk-in assistance improved and wait-time was about as good as last year, based on available information, although fewer taxpayers were assisted. The accuracy of walk-in tax law assistance—the only type of walk-in assistance for which quality was measured in recent filing seasons—appears to have improved compared with the 2001 filing season. IRS took several steps in 2002 to improve walk-in service—some may have helped improve the accuracy of tax law assistance in 2002, the effect of others should be realized later. IRS also anticipates changes in the workload to be handled by walk-in staff. Thus, although the number of taxpayers assisted at the walk-in sites declined about 20 percent over the past 3 filing seasons, IRS has been increasing the number of field assistance staff years used to provide that assistance. However, the extent and timing of the workload changes are not clear, and field assistance does not have comprehensive plans that clearly relate that workload to resource needs. The Congress directed TIGTA to review the accuracy of assistance provided by all of IRS’s more than 400 walk-in sites. TIGTA expects to complete its review in fiscal year 2003. From January through April 2002, TIGTA reviewers made 157 anonymous visits to 77 walk-in sites, asking two tax law questions on each visit. TIGTA found that only about 50 percent of its questions were answered correctly. The reviews TIGTA did in 2002 were not comparable to the reviews it did in 2001 because TIGTA asked questions from a broader range of tax law topics in 2002 (i.e., 22 topics in 2002 compared with 4 topics in 2001). It seems reasonable to assume, and TIGTA agrees, that covering 22 topics versus 4 required a broader knowledge of the tax law and thus increased the possibility for error. Yet, despite the increased possibility for error, reported accuracy was about double the 24-percent accuracy TIGTA reported for 2001. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue said that our use of TIGTA’s accuracy rates is inappropriate because TIGTA included referrals to IRS publications as errors. While noting that IRS does not want employees to improperly refer questions, the Acting Commissioner said that those referrals should not be counted as incorrect answers. According to the Acting Commissioner, the “true cumulative accuracy rate” through June 2002 was 66 percent instead of 50 percent. We disagree. As TIGTA explained in its report, referrals were counted as incorrect when the IRS employee merely provided the publication, without walking the customer through it to identify the answer, as required by established field assistance procedures. In our view, the complexity of tax laws and varying education levels among taxpayers seeking assistance suggest that requiring field assistance employees to walk the taxpayer through a publication to identify the correct response is a necessary procedure that should be followed in practice for the response to be considered correct. IRS’s data for January 1 through April 20, 2002, showed that about 85 percent of the 2.6 million walk-in customers for whom wait-time was tracked waited 30 minutes or less to obtain assistance between January 1 and April 20, 2002. However, IRS made the following two changes to the way it reported wait-time in 2002 that precluded any comparison to 2001. IRS reduced the number of sites for which wait-time data was tracked. In 2001, all walk-in sites tracked wait-time either automatically, if they were equipped with the Queuing Management System (Q-Matic), or manually, if they did not have Q-Matic. As of March 2002, however, the approximately 297 sites not equipped with Q-Matic were no longer required to track or report wait-time—a decision we believe was prudent because manual tracking was not practical at some sites with limited staff and because manual tracking of wait-times is an error- prone process. IRS doubled the threshold used for wait-time tracking from 15 minutes or less in 2001 to 30 minutes or less in 2002, thus increasing the reported percentage of taxpayers receiving timely assistance. The bi-weekly wait-time reports submitted by the sites and derivative summary data provided to us by IRS did not provide any details on the wait-times for the 15 percent of customers (about 384,000 taxpayers) who waited longer than 30 minutes for assistance, even though this information was available through Q-Matic, thus limiting management’s ability to identify and minimize excessive wait-time. IRS took steps to improve its walk-in service, some of which may have helped improve the accuracy of tax law assistance in 2002. Other efforts that involve implementing two new accuracy measures and testing new Q-Matic requirements have the potential for improved service in the future. Field assistance officials said that they had taken a number of steps to improve the accuracy of assistance in 2002. For example, they said that IRS had completed all actions listed in response to our report on the 2001 filing season—which included providing more consistent and standardized services, better training, and improved access to taxpayer account information. IRS also refined the process for referring complex tax law questions that are beyond the scope of normal walk-in staff training to expert field assistance, toll-free telephone, or compliance staff. The impact of some of those improvement efforts seemed to be reflected in the results of IRS’s annual employee satisfaction survey. For example, 49 percent of field assistance employees reported being satisfied with their training in 2002 compared with the 37 percent who reported being satisfied in 2001. IRS implemented two new accuracy measures for account and return- preparation assistance. We are concerned about one of those measures— account accuracy—because the results of that measure are not representative of all walk-in sites. Instead of using statistical sampling methods to select the sites to be reviewed from among the about 420 sites that provide account assistance, IRS selected for review the largest walk- in sites from among the 123 that were equipped with Q-Matic. IRS had also planned to measure return-preparation accuracy through visits to the largest walk-in sites. IRS subsequently decided to use existing return-accuracy data generated by the submission processing centers. This will allow IRS to measure the accuracy of all returns prepared at its walk- in sites, rather than basing the measure on sample observations. In May 2002, IRS changed its Q-Matic requirements to include networking and summary reporting capabilities and decided to test these changes at 28 walk-in sites in California. In a stand-alone configuration, Q-Matic provides site-level, real-time monitoring and tracking of assistance, including customer wait-times, assistance provided, and staffing used. Networking the systems is expected to provide the same real-time monitoring and tracking at organizational levels above the site—group, territory, area, and nationwide. Summary reporting capability is expected to eliminate the requirement for manually recording and summarizing assistance provided and staff resources used, which should enhance site efficiency by increasing employee availability to provide more, or more timely, assistance. As shown in figure 5, the number of taxpayers assisted at IRS walk-in sites declined for the third consecutive filing season—from 6.1 million in 1999 to 4.9 million in 2002—a drop of about 20 percent. Included in that overall decline was a decrease in the number of contacts involving return preparation, a very time-consuming service. Field assistance officials attributed these declines to the following two factors: Taxpayers made greater use of the assistance available from volunteers and from IRS’s Web site and toll-free telephone network. Data provided by the two major volunteer organizations—Volunteer Income Tax Assistance and Tax Counseling for the Elderly—confirmed that volunteer assistance increased substantially. Specifically, the number of taxpayers assisted at volunteer sites increased about 45 percent from nearly 2.5 million to 3.6 million between the 2001 and 2002 filing seasons. Data on IRS’s Web site and toll-free telephone network are discussed elsewhere in this report. IRS has been reducing the income ceiling for return preparation assistance, thus limiting the number of taxpayers eligible to receive that kind of assistance. For the 2001 filing season, IRS had a ceiling of $41,000. For the 2002 filing season, IRS reduced that ceiling to $33,000—a level that approximated the $32,121 income ceiling on taxpayer eligibility for the earned income credit. Traditionally, IRS has detailed staff from its compliance functions (such as Examination and Collection) to help provide assistance at walk-in sites. Over the last 2 filing seasons, IRS has reduced its reliance on compliance staff to provide walk-in assistance by about 53 percent, thus freeing those staff to perform their normal examination and collection duties. At the same time, and despite the continued decline in the number of taxpayers assisted, IRS increased the number of field assistance staff years by about 31 percent, in anticipation of field assistance staff eventually assuming some work currently done by IRS’s compliance functions, such as office audits. Field assistance does not have clear, comprehensive plans and timetables for making the workload changes just discussed as well as other changes. When we discussed this issue with field assistance officials, they informed us that they have put their plans on hold until anticipated compliance workloads are clarified to enable more comprehensive planning. Field assistance officials anticipated that some compliance work would migrate to walk-in staff over the next several years, although the extent and timing of that work was not yet clear. As of October 4, 2002, a team was studying the technological and other issues associated with compliance work anticipated to be done at walk-in sites. Field assistance officials also planned to phase out sites staffed with only one employee, because of difficulties providing back-up staff, and add many new walk-in sites. The planned phase-outs were to be done through a combination of methods, such as staff attrition and/or site consolidation. Instead of closing some one-employee sites, IRS may add staff where warranted by demand. However, field assistance officials told us that these site changes also have been put on hold until the aforementioned comprehensive planning is completed. Our assessment of IRS’s Web site on the Internet, external assessments of the site, and IRS data indicate that, compared with last year, the site was more user friendly, although there are certain aspects of the site that generally used more often, although IRS’s primary measure of usage— number of hits—is flawed; and easier to access. IRS’s Web site provides a vehicle whereby taxpayers can receive assistance without having to call or visit an IRS office. Among other things, the site provides the potential to download hundreds of tax forms and publications, contains current information on tax issues and electronic filing, and gives taxpayers the opportunity to ask IRS tax law and procedural questions via E-mail (see app. V for information on IRS’s performance in answering E-mail questions.) Our observations of IRS’s Web site indicated that the site was more user friendly than it was in 2001, although we still encountered some navigation problems and identified some problems with the site’s content. The Web site had many changes that improved navigation over 2001. For example, the home page was formatted more logically, with like items being grouped together, and we observed only a couple of broken links compared with last year when we found many more. However, there were still some navigational problems. The most significant problem in navigating the site is a search engine that often generates a very large number of items relating to the subject of the search, which makes it extremely difficult to locate the most useful/appropriate item. For example, when we entered “earned income credit” into the general search engine, we were provided a list of over 1,500 items. The publication that would provide someone interested in the earned income credit with the most thorough information (Publication 596—“Earned Income Credit”) was the 64th item on the list. This would require users to scroll through 6 pages of items before finding the basic publication dealing with the subject of the search. We also noted the following navigation problems. The E-mail and comments sections of the Web site are difficult to find. The links to pages for users to leave E-mail questions or to provide IRS with comments on the site were not accessible through the “Contact Us” part of the site, where one might logically expect to go to send an E-mail or comment to IRS, but rather through the “Help” part of the site. In that regard, IRS officials responsible for answering E-mail questions informed us that they believe the number of E-mail questions received this year declined, as discussed in appendix V, because individuals may have had trouble locating the E-mail section of the Web site. According to IRS officials responsible for the Web site, the E-mail feature was not made easier to locate because IRS is still considering whether it is best to answer taxpayer questions via the Web site or the telephone. We had difficulty in May 2002 finding telephone numbers and other information for local field assistance sites. For example, the page entitled “How to contact us in Virginia” said to use local numbers if they are not long distance, otherwise use the toll-free 800 number. However, to obtain local numbers, we had to scroll through 11 other topics, including information on where to file a return, TeleTax, Braille materials, and volunteer and education programs. Since then, IRS has taken steps to make this process less cumbersome. We found linkage problems in addition to the missing links noted earlier. For example, when we accessed IRS’s Web page for electronic filing options and paying taxes electronically, we found several references to more data that we could obtain. However, the link to those data was www.irs.gov, where we already were, rather than the appropriate areas of the site. We identified some problems with the content of IRS’s Web site. First, the site used document numbers as primary identifiers for publications, instructions, and forms. Many taxpayers do not know the numbers of forms and publications, which requires them to examine voluminous data to find the specific information they are seeking. For example, if taxpayers were looking for data on the earned income credit and did not know that Publication 596 is the primary publication on that topic, typing “earned income credit” in the form and publication search engine would produce a list of about 1,600 publications that mention the credit. Here again, as we noted earlier with respect to the general search engine, a taxpayer would have to scroll through several pages of the list to find Publication 596. IRS is aware of this problem with its search engines and is working with contractors to identify solutions. Second, we continued to find some incorrect and inconsistent data, outdated material, and missing information, but not as much as last year. For example, during our review of the Web site in 2002, we found that the site had incorrect office hours and addresses for walk-in assistance sites and obsolete data that pertained to 2001. In our report on the 2000 filing season, we made recommendations to help ensure that the Web site contained accurate and consistent data. In response to our recommendations, according to IRS officials, IRS awarded a site redesign contract, instituted an interim process that required executives to approve all new data and significant changes to existing data, and began implementing a content management program that is expected to be fully operational around May 2003. Although these steps appear to have reduced the volume of inaccurate and inconsistent data, a cognizant IRS official opined that it would take about 2 years before all data on the Web site are made current and consistent. Two independent assessments tended to confirm our observations on IRS’s Web site. In that regard: Arthur Andersen’s Office of Government Services Experience Design Group concluded that the current version of the site is an improvement over the previous version but still requires some fine-tuning to be truly useful. They too noted that the search engines often result in a very large number of items relating to the subject of the search making it extremely difficult to locate the most useful/appropriate item. Brown University’s Center for Public Policy evaluated how well 50 federal government Web sites would aid an average citizen logging onto a public sector Web site. IRS’s site received a score of 76 out of 100, making it the eighth highest rated Web site in the study. IRS’s two key measures for gauging the use of its Web site are “hits” and “downloads.” Both of those measures showed increased usage in 2002 compared with 2001. As of May 31, 2002, the site had recorded about 2.2 billion hits compared with about 1.7 billion hits at the same point in time in 2001, a 27-percent increase. As of August 31, 2002, about 379 million forms, publications, and instructions had been downloaded compared with about 279 million in 2001, a 36-percent increase. However, as we have reported before, hits is a flawed measure of use because (1) every time a user accesses IRS’s home page it counts for about 16 hits and (2) a hit is counted every time the user moves to another page of the site. Thus, an increase in the number of hits may not necessarily be due to increased usage but could be attributed to changes in the structure of the home page or problems users are experiencing in finding what they want on the site. IRS officials had informed us that the problem would be corrected by an improved method for counting hits when a more sophisticated comprehensive Web analytical program became operational in January 2002. Although the new analytical program is operational, the problem remained. However, our concern about the hits measure could be mitigated by the development of another Web site performance measure— unique visitors. According to a cognizant IRS official, IRS is now able to track unique visitors to the Web site and has begun the process to formalize that measure. Keynote, an independent Web site rater and a recognized authority on Internet performance, reviewed the availability and average delivery time of IRS’s Web site and reported improved performance during the 2002 filing season. Keynote reported that its measure of IRS’s Web site’s availability averaged close to 100 percent (99.8 to 100 percent) during the entire 2002 filing season. This is a significant improvement over the 2001 filing season when Keynote identified periods during which availability was as low as 67 percent before rebounding to about 97 percent for the first 2 weeks of April. Keynote reported an average delivery time in 2002 of 1 second or less for the entire filing season compared with 2 seconds or more for most of the 2001 filing season. Generally, during the 2002 filing season, IRS processed returns and issued refunds smoothly, and the quality of assistance provided to taxpayers improved. In light of this performance, IRS should be commended for the various efforts it took to prepare for and improve performance during the filing season. IRS’s filing season performance matters because it impacts well over 100 million taxpayers. IRS established performance measures to emphasize accountability and improve service. IRS’s improved performance can be traced to its use of and emphasis on performance measures, illustrating the importance of good measures that effectively assess performance and enable improvements to be quantified. IRS has established some new measures and has revised some existing measures, which should serve to further enhance its performance assessments. However, we believe that some decisions, specifically (1) the decision to stop using the “assistor response level” and “average speed of answer” measures to assess telephone service; (2) not reporting readily available Q-Matic information showing the extent of customer wait-times; and (3) limiting reviews of account accuracy to only some walk-in sites, will reduce IRS's ability to gauge the level of service being provided to customers. With respect to the latter, IRS's decision to use existing data to measure return-preparation accuracy in lieu of having staff visit walk-in sites to observe return preparation could free up the resources needed to expand the reviews of account accuracy. IRS also needs to ensure that changes to walk-in sites and staffing are thoroughly analyzed and planned. We recommend that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue direct the appropriate officials to do the following: Reinstate a telephone assistance caller wait-time measure, such as assistor response level or average speed of answer, to assess this important aspect of the customer experience. Revise bi-weekly wait-time reports to show the numbers and percentages of customers in each of the wait-time intervals tracked by Q-Matic. Explore the feasibility of including all walk-in sites, rather than just sites equipped with Q-Matic, in the universe for the purpose of conducting sample visits/reviews of the accuracy of account assistance. Ensure that field assistance officials do a comprehensive evaluation of resource requirements (sites and staffing) after clarifying the extent and timing of (1) expected field assistance and compliance workloads and (2) expected walk-in site changes (additions and closures). We requested comments on a draft of this report from IRS. The Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue provided written comments in a December 16, 2002, letter (see app. VI). The Acting Commissioner appreciated our recognition of the many challenges that IRS successfully faced during the planning and execution of the 2002 tax filing season and noted that IRS's filing season readiness process “served us well, especially in handling unanticipated challenges.” In response to our specific recommendations, the Acting Commissioner said the following: IRS agrees that customer wait-time is an important aspect of toll-free telephone service and will “begin refining an appropriate wait time measure” for implementation in fiscal year 2004. In response to our recommendation that IRS revise its bi-weekly wait- time reports, IRS said that it currently does not use wait-time as an official measure of field assistance performance because past experience has shown that employee reaction to timeliness measures tends to increase the likelihood of inaccurate or incomplete answers. We are aware of IRS’s position on having an official wait-time measure and discussed our disagreement with that position in our report on IRS's filing season performance measures. Our recommendation in this report is not directed at the existence or non-existence of a wait- time performance measure. It is directed, instead, at enhancing the information available to field assistance managers in the bi-weekly wait-time reports. IRS did not speak to that issue in its comments. Working with staff from IRS’s Statistics of Income group, field assistance has developed a statistically reliable sample of accounts work. For fiscal year 2003, IRS said it plans to sample small, medium, and large walk-in sites. These plans should provide for a more representative assessment of the level of account assistance being provided to walk-in customers and, as such, appear to be responsive to our recommendation. In response to our recommendation that field assistance do a comprehensive evaluation of resource requirements, IRS said that it is doing a workload and staffing study that will provide detailed information on the location of field assistance work and where IRS should provide service and staffing. According to IRS, although it had previously projected the need to add new sites, it is currently projecting shortages in field assistance staffing for fiscal year 2004 that may cause it to reassess the number and location of walk-in sites. The study described by IRS appears responsive to our recommendation. The Acting Commissioner also commented on our use of TIGTA’s reported accuracy rate for tax law assistance provided by walk-in sites. We addressed those comments earlier in the report where TIGTA’s reported accuracy rate is discussed. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, House Committee on Ways and Means. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of the Treasury; the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. This report was prepared under the direction of David J. Attianese, Assistant Director. Other major contributors are acknowledged in appendix VII. If you have any questions about this report, contact me on (202) 512-9110. As shown in table 3, (1) the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) performance in 2002 improved relative to 2001 for five measures and (2) IRS met its 2002 performance goals for four measures and missed its goals for two measures. IRS’s performance in 2002 could not be compared with its performance in 2001 for three measures or with its goals for 2002 for two measures because IRS revised the way those measures were computed. The following significant challenges were unique to the 2002 filing season: Passage of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, specifically the provisions relating to advance tax refunds and rate reduction credits. The September 11, 2001, attacks, which led to actions by IRS to provide tax relief to affected taxpayers, and the subsequent anthrax attacks perpetrated through the mail, which led to significant security enhancements. IRS’s shifting of computer files in conjunction with its reorganization. For tax years beginning after 2000, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, signed into law on June 7, 2001, applied a new 10-percent income tax rate to a portion of an individual’s income that was previously taxed at 15 percent. To stimulate the economy more rapidly than would be achieved if taxpayers had to wait until they filed their tax year 2001 return to realize the full impact of this rate reduction, the act provided for eligible taxpayers to receive an advance tax refund in 2001. The amount of the refund was to be based on the filing status and amount of taxable income on the taxpayer’s 2000 return. Taxpayers who were eligible to receive an advance tax refund in 2001 but who (1) did not receive a check because IRS did not have their current address or (2) did not have enough taxable income in 2000 to qualify for the maximum amount allowable, may have been entitled to a rate reduction credit when filing their tax year 2001 returns. In addition, taxpayers who were not eligible for an advance tax refund, such as those who did not have taxable income in 2000, may have been entitled to a rate reduction credit provided they had taxable income in 2001. According to IRS, passage of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 required computer system programming changes that were complicated by frequent revisions as the Congress and the U.S. Treasury worked together to understand the legislative requirements for the rate reduction credit. This resulted in concurrent testing of those and other computer system changes. After the filing season began and large numbers of returns were received with errors related to the rate reduction credit, IRS made additional programming changes until March 2002 to help manage the high number of errors and assist tax examiners in correcting them. As shown in table 4, as of September 27, 2002, IRS had identified over 8 million individual returns with rate reduction credit errors, which represented 57 percent of the returns identified with errors and 6.5 percent of the total number of returns processed at that time. Taxpayers and tax return practitioners made various types of errors related to the rate reduction credit during the 2002 tax filing season. For example, taxpayers and practitioners filed over 5 million returns in which they failed to claim a credit even though the taxpayers were entitled to one; about 2 million returns were filed in which a credit was claimed even though the taxpayers had received the maximum advance tax refund in 2001 and thus were not entitled to a credit; and almost 1 million returns were filed in which a credit was appropriately claimed, but the credit amount was incorrectly computed. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) identified and IRS corrected two problems related to the rate reduction credit. One problem involved the lack of advance tax refund data in the National Accounts Profile (NAP) for certain taxpayers. According to TIGTA, IRS corrected this problem by January 11, 2002, thus preventing about 217,000 taxpayers from receiving up to $50 million in rate reduction credits to which they were not entitled. The other problem, which TIGTA attributed to a misinterpretation of programming requirements, involved IRS’s failure to add information in the NAP for some taxpayers who did not receive an advance tax refund. According to TIGTA, it notified IRS of this problem, which could have affected as many as 35 million taxpayers, on January 8, 2002, and IRS made the necessary corrections by January 15, 2002. IRS field staff identified another problem in which IRS’s computer system was generating rate reduction credits for some taxpayers who had already received the maximum advance tax refund. According to IRS officials, this problem would have affected no more than about 15,000 taxpayers, who in a worst-case scenario may have received an additional $300 credit, for a total of $4.5 million in potentially erroneous credits. According to the officials, IRS will not attempt to recover any erroneous payments resulting from this problem because recovery would not be cost-effective. To help handle the additional error correction workload resulting from the rate reduction credit workload, IRS, among other things, briefly detailed individuals from other projects, hired retirees, and postponed activities, such as technical training and performance reviews, that were eventually completed later in the year. The rate reduction credit directly and adversely affected IRS’s performance relative to its notice error rate and productivity performance measures. According to IRS officials, (1) employee confusion over new error codes associated with the rate reduction credit led to more erroneous notices, thereby increasing the notice error rate, and (2) the new codes associated with the rate reduction credit initially reduced processing efficiency and caused lower productivity rates. According to IRS officials, IRS sent corrected rate reduction credits to about 1.6 million taxpayers. When IRS originally reviewed these taxpayers’ returns, it was determined that the taxpayers had underclaimed the amount of their rate reduction credits. However, in accordance with IRS policy about making corrections under certain monetary thresholds, IRS did not initially correct the errors or give the taxpayers the additional amounts. During its review of the 2002 filing season, TIGTA pointed out that the policy seemed inequitable because the same kind of threshold was not used in determining the amount of a taxpayer’s advance tax refund— thus the amount taxpayers received could vary depending on whether they received their money in the form of an advance tax refund or a rate reduction credit. According to IRS officials, these taxpayers’ returns did not go to error correction and, thus, are not included in the number of returns with rate reduction credit errors in table 4—which IRS officials believe contributed to their ability to handle the substantial error- correction workload. The terrorist actions in 2001 created additional challenges to which IRS responded. The September 11, 2001, terrorist actions created challenges by causing additional workload and requiring concurrent testing of the programming changes related to that workload with other testing. For example, according to IRS officials, programmers modified computer systems in order to suppress certain correspondences, such as balance due notices, to taxpayers affected by the terrorist actions. IRS officials also reported that where the correspondence was already printed, processing centers held that correspondence until November. IRS then generated new correspondence with revised balance due dates, for example, and included leaflets with the correspondence that advised taxpayers to contact IRS if they were unable to meet their tax obligations due to the events of September 11. Also, as reported by TIGTA in March 2002, IRS, in response to anthrax attacks perpetrated through the mail, “quickly implemented actions to increase security and safety precautions during the filing season.” Those actions included providing additional security in areas where mail is handled, changing mail handling procedures, and providing additional training and protective equipment for employees. As part of its reorganization, IRS shifted computer files to match taxpayer accounts with the operating division responsible for serving the taxpayers. For example, computer files for individual taxpayers were shifted to the computer systems for the Wage and Investment Operating Division (W& I) processing centers and small business accounts were shifted to the computer systems for the centers that now specialize in small business processing and compliance activities. IRS completed this work before the filing season began in spite of the unanticipated challenges associated with the rate reduction credit and terrorist actions. According to processing officials, IRS’s ongoing reorganization affected submission processing’s performance in other ways. It contributed to lower overall productivity, in part by changing the predictability of filing patterns. Also, the eight W&I centers no longer process some of the easier business returns and are left with processing the more complicated and time-consuming individual income tax returns, such as those with Schedule Ds (Capital Gains and Losses). Combined with the trend toward increased use of electronic filing by those taxpayers who file simpler tax forms, such as the Form 1040 EZ, IRS officials believe that these changes contributed to slower processing and a corresponding lower productivity rate. IRS offers taxpayers a variety of authorizations that allow IRS to disclose or discuss tax return information with a third party. These authorizations range from allowing IRS to discuss the processing of a return, including the status of tax refunds (hereafter referred to as the third-party checkbox authority), to authorizing a third party to receive confidential tax return information. For the 2002 filing season, IRS expanded the third-party checkbox authority to allow the taxpayer to designate any third party, including friends or family members (in 2001, only paid practitioners could be designated). In response to a recommendation in our report on the 2001 filing season, IRS now has a system in place for tracking how use of the third-party checkbox authority facilitated the resolution of issues related to a return’s processing. IRS also introduced the Oral Disclosure Consent (ODC) and Oral Tax Information Authorization (OTIA) to enable taxpayers to orally authorize IRS to disclose tax return information to a third party. For the 2002 filing season, IRS expanded the third-party checkbox authority on individual income tax returns (Forms 1040, 1040A, and 1040EZ) to allow taxpayers to designate anyone, including a friend or family member, to talk with IRS to resolve problems (such as math errors and missing information) that come to light during IRS’s processing of a return and obtain answers to questions regarding refunds or payments. When this authority was first used during the 2001 filing season, taxpayers were only allowed to authorize paid practitioners to serve as their designees in resolving problems or answering questions. According to IRS, the expansion of this authority to any third party was intended to reach taxpayers who wanted to have a family member or close associate assist with simple tax inquiries. According to IRS, the third-party checkbox authority is part of IRS’s Taxpayer Treatment and Service Improvement Initiative on third-party authorizations. IRS considers this initiative a way to reduce taxpayer burden by reducing the number of notices sent to taxpayers and allowing a designee to talk directly with IRS to resolve issues during a return’s processing. During a typical year, IRS sends out about 8 million notices regarding tax return processing issues. According to IRS officials, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue forecasted that, with this authority and other innovations, such as oral consent authorizations, 90 percent of those situations might be resolved through telephone discussions with designees. According to IRS, taxpayers checked the box on about 32.4 million returns as of October 7, 2002. When IRS first implemented this authority in 2001, it lacked a system for tracking how use of the authorization facilitated the resolution of return processing issues. In response to our recommendation that IRS develop a plan for evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of processing initiatives, IRS implemented computer programming changes that now enable it to know not only how many people used the checkbox option but also how many inquiries were received and responded to by type of return and notice. IRS officials estimated, based on their tracking, that the 32.4 million returns with marked checkboxes translated to about 4 million fewer pieces of correspondence. In addition, IRS responded to about 4 million inquiries from persons whom taxpayers had identified as their designees using the checkbox authority. A taxpayer can now orally authorize IRS to disclose tax return information to a third party. Both ODC and OTIA allow a taxpayer to contact IRS and establish disclosure authority for all types of tax accounts. The oral authorizations, however, differ in the range of authorities given to the third party. The oral authorizations were made possible by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, which removed the requirement that all requests of or disclosures to a third party be in writing. The new disclosure regulations authorize IRS employees to accept a taxpayer’s verbal request or consent to disclose return information to third parties to assist the taxpayer in resolving account issues. When oral authorizations are used, IRS must verify the taxpayer’s identity and the identity of the third party as well as confirm the specific tax matter. To establish an ODC, the taxpayer must have received a notice from IRS and have open account issues. The taxpayer may call IRS and designate a third party to resolve issues relative to the information indicated on the notice. Once an ODC has been established, the taxpayer does not have to be physically present or on the telephone when IRS discloses the tax information to the third party nor does the third party need an authorization number. The ODC does not authorize a third party to receive notices or other written taxpayer information. The authority is valid until the tax related issues are resolved. If the taxpayer receives subsequent notices from IRS, he or she must call or visit IRS and establish another ODC even if it is for the same third party and tax matter. An OTIA allows taxpayers to designate third parties to represent them by telephone or in person and to receive notices or account transcripts on open account issues. The taxpayer does not have to receive a notice from IRS before calling to establish an OTIA. Similar to the ODC, the taxpayer does not have to be physically present or on the telephone when IRS discloses tax information to the third party. However, to confirm their identify, the third party must have an authorization number given by IRS, which must be on file, and the third party must provide this number to the taxpayer. This authority expires upon written request by either the taxpayer or representative. Table 5 provides comparative information on the various authorizations discussed in this appendix. In 2002, IRS surveyed taxpayers and tax practitioners who prepared their returns on computer but filed on paper. We had recommended such surveys in our report on the 2001filing season in response to the fact that about 40 million computer-prepared individual income tax returns were filed on paper in 2001. The surveys involved (1) taxpayers who prepared their own tax return on a computer but filed a paper return, (2) taxpayers who used paid practitioners who prepared their returns on computer but filed on paper, and (3) practitioners who prepared returns on a computer but filed on paper. Table 6 shows, for each category of respondent, (1) factors that influenced them not to file electronically and (2) incentives that could encourage them to file electronically. One aspect of IRS’s Web site where available data indicated worse performance in 2002 than in 2001 was the feature that allows taxpayers to ask IRS tax law and procedural questions via E-mail. For the 2002 filing season, IRS received fewer E-mail questions and did a worse job responding to those questions than in 2001. Also, the E-mail function of the site received mixed reviews by users who responded to the customer satisfaction survey. As of May 31, 2002, IRS received about 109,000 E-mail questions compared with about 160,000 for the same time period in 2001—a 32-percent decrease. IRS officials we talked with did not know why the number of E- mail questions had decreased but speculated that redesign of the Web site might have made it difficult for taxpayers to locate the link for submitting questions. As noted earlier, the link for submitting questions was accessible not through the “Contact Us” part of the site but through the “Help” part of the site. IRS’s goal is to respond to E-mail questions within 2 business days. However, according to IRS data, IRS took 2.4 business days on average to respond to taxpayer’s E-mail questions in 2002, compared with 0.8 business days in 2001. The IRS data indicated that timeliness was a problem in January and February (4.2 and 2.4 business days, respectively) but improved substantially in March and April (1.2 and 0.8 business days, respectively). According to responsible IRS officials, the increase in time to respond to E-mail questions was caused by several factors: The most significant factor was a decision to concentrate on E-mail questions received in the work period just before the start of the 2002 filing season. IRS consolidated the responsibility for responding to all E-mail questions in one site, and there was an inadequate alignment of employees’ skills with the new workload. IRS believed that far more complex questions were received in 2002 than in 2001 because the expanded “frequently asked questions” section of the Web site was being used by taxpayers to get answers to more common, less complex questions. IRS informed us that, for the 2003 filing season, it will be conducting more training and adding another site to answer E-mail questions. The site being added answered E-mail questions in 2001. In 2002, IRS did not meet its 78-percent accuracy goal and, on a percentage basis, answered fewer questions accurately, despite receiving 32 percent fewer E-mail questions than in 2001. IRS data for January 1 to April 20, 2002, showed that IRS responded accurately to 76 percent of the E-mail questions in 2002. That compares with a 78-percent accuracy rate for a similar time frame in 2001. Some of the same factors cited as possible reasons for the timeliness problems (i.e., an inadequate match of employee skills with workload and the receipt of more complex questions) could also help explain the decrease in accuracy. IRS provides all E-mail customers an opportunity to respond to a customer satisfaction survey, and about 2,200 did so between January 1 and April 30, 2002. The customers who responded to the survey in 2002 provided mixed reviews of the E-mail service. 91 percent of the respondents said that they were satisfied with the time it took to get a response, compared with 96 percent in 2001—a decline that may reflect the increase in average response times discussed earlier. 92 percent of the respondents said that they would use the E-mail service again, compared with 91 percent in 2001. 79 percent of the respondents said that IRS’s response answered their question, compared with 75 percent in 2001. In addition to those named above, Bob Arcenia, Heather Bothwell, Grace Coleman, Ron Heisterkamp, Ronald W. Jones, John Lesser, Tina Smith, and Joanna Stamatiades made key contributions to this report.

The tax filing season is when millions of taxpayers file their returns and seek assistance by calling or visiting IRS's offices or Web site. Because of the large number of returns and critical nature of IRS's filing season activities, GAO was asked to assess IRS's 2002 filing season performance in processing tax returns and refunds and providing timely and accurate assistance to taxpayers. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) processed returns and issued refunds smoothly and the quality of assistance provided to taxpayers improved in the 2002 filing season. In light of this, IRS should be commended for the various efforts it took to prepare for the 2002 filing season and improve performance. Still, opportunities exist for IRS to further improve aspects of its performance and some of its performance measures. In 2002, IRS's performance included issuing almost all refunds on time, providing more accurate telephone service than in 2001, and meeting many of its 2002 performance goals in all areas. IRS also began measuring the accuracy of assistance at its walk-in sites to obtain better performance data. In addition, IRS's redesigned Web site was easier to access and more user friendly. IRS's improved performance can be traced to its use of performance measures, which are part of its strategy to improve returns processing and taxpayer assistance as shown below. However, GAO identified opportunities for IRS to make further improvements. For example, IRS's suite of telephone measures lacks an indicator of how long callers wait to speak to an assistor--a key aspect of assistance that provides useful information for decision making by external stakeholders. Although not a primary focus of this report, GAO also found that IRS lacked comprehensive plans related to the extent and timing of anticipated workload and staffing changes at its walk-in sites.

An effective military medical surveillance system needs to collect reliable information on (1) the health care provided to service members before, during, and after deployment, (2) where and when service members were deployed, (3) environmental and occupational health threats or exposures during deployment (in theater) and appropriate protective and countermeasures, and (4) baseline health status and subsequent health changes. This information is needed to monitor the overall health condition of deployed troops, inform them of potential health risks, as well as maintain and improve the health of service members and veterans. In times of conflict, a military medical surveillance system is particularly critical to ensure the deployment of a fit and healthy force and to prevent disease and injuries from degrading force capabilities. DOD needs reliable medical surveillance data to determine who is fit for deployment; to prepare service members for deployment, including providing vaccinations to protect against possible exposure to environmental and biological threats; and to treat physical and psychological conditions that result from deployment. DOD also uses this information to develop educational measures for service members and medical personnel to ensure that service members receive appropriate care. Reliable medical surveillance information is also critical for VA to carry out its missions. In addition to VA’s better known missions—to provide health care and benefits to veterans and medical research and education— VA has a fourth mission: to provide medical backup to DOD in times of war and civilian health care backup in the event of disasters producing mass casualties. VA needs reliable medical surveillance data from DOD to treat casualties of military conflicts, provide health care to veterans who have left active duty, assist in conducting research should troops be exposed to environmental or occupational hazards, and identify service- connected disabilities to adjudicate veterans’ disability claims. Investigations into the unexplained illnesses of service members and veterans who had been deployed to the Persian Gulf uncovered the need for DOD to implement an effective medical surveillance system to obtain comprehensive medical data on deployed service members, including Reservists and National Guardsmen. Epidemiological and health outcome studies to determine the causes of these illnesses have been hampered by a lack of (1) complete baseline health data on Gulf War veterans; (2) assessments of their potential exposure to environmental health hazards; and (3) specific health data on care provided before, during, and after deployment. The Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses’ and IOM’s 1996 investigations into the causes of illnesses experienced by Gulf War veterans confirmed the need for more effective medical surveillance capabilities. The National Science and Technology Council, as tasked by the Presidential Advisory Committee, also assessed the medical surveillance system for deployed service members. In 1998, the council reported that inaccurate recordkeeping made it extremely difficult to get a clear picture of what risk factors might be responsible for Gulf War illnesses. It also reported that without reliable deployment and health assessment information, it was difficult to ensure that veterans’ service-related benefits claims were adjudicated appropriately. The council concluded that the Gulf War exposed many deficiencies in the ability to collect, maintain, and transfer accurate data describing the movement of troops, potential exposures to health risks, and medical incidents in theater. The council reported that the government’s recordkeeping capabilities were not designed to track troop and asset movements to the degree needed to determine who might have been exposed to any given environmental or wartime health hazard. The council also reported major deficiencies in health risk communications, including not adequately informing service members of the risks associated with countermeasures such as vaccines. Without this information, service members may not recognize potential side effects of these countermeasures or take prompt precautionary actions, including seeking medical care. In response to these reports, DOD strengthened its medical surveillance system under Operation Joint Endeavor when service members were deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Hungary. In addition to implementing departmentwide medical surveillance policies, DOD developed specific medical surveillance programs to improve monitoring and tracking environmental and biomedical threats in theater. While these efforts represented important steps, a number of deficiencies remained. On the positive side, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) issued a health surveillance policy for troops deploying to Bosnia. This guidance stressed the need to (1) identify health threats in theater, (2) routinely and uniformly collect and analyze information relevant to troop health, and (3) disseminate this information in a timely manner. DOD required medical units to develop weekly reports on the incidence rates of major categories of diseases and injuries during all deployments. Data from these disease and non-battle-injury reports showed theaterwide illness and injury trends so that preventive measures could be identified and forwarded to the theater medical command regarding abnormal trends or actions that should be taken. DOD also established the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine—a major enhancement to DOD’s ability to perform environmental monitoring and tracking. For example, the center operates and maintains a repository of service members’ serum samples—the largest serum repository in the world—for epidemiological studies to examine potential health issues for services members and veterans. The center also operates and maintains a system for integrating, analyzing, and reporting data from multiple sources relevant to the health and readiness of military personnel. This capability was augmented with the establishment of the 520th Theater Army Medical Laboratory—a deployable public health laboratory for providing environmental sampling and analysis in theater. The sampling results can be used to identify specific preventive measures and safeguards to be taken to protect troops from harmful exposures and to develop procedures to treat anyone exposed to health hazards. During Operation Joint Endeavor, this laboratory was used in Tuzla, Bosnia—where most of the U.S. forces were located—to conduct air, water, soil, and other environmental monitoring. Despite the Department’s progress, we and others have reported on DOD’s implementation difficulties during Operation Joint Endeavor and the shortcomings in DOD’s ability to maintain reliable health information on service members. Knowledge of who is deployed and their whereabouts is critical for identifying individuals who may have been exposed to health hazards while deployed. However, in May 1997, we reported that inaccurate information on who was deployed and where and when they were deployed—a problem during the Gulf War—continued to be a concern during Operation Joint Endeavor.For example, we found that the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) database—where military services are required to report deployment information—did not include records for at least 200 Navy service members who were deployed. Conversely, the DMDC database included Air Force personnel who were never actually deployed. In addition, we reported that DOD had not developed a system for tracking the movement of service members within theater. IOM also reported that during Operation Joint Endeavor, locations of deployed service members were still not systematically documented or archived for future use. We also reported in May 1997 that for the more than 600 Army personnel whose medical records we reviewed, DOD’s centralized database for postdeployment medical assessments did not capture 12 percent of those assessments conducted in theater and 52 percent of those conducted after returning home. These data are needed by epidemiologists and other researchers to assess at an aggregate level the changes that have occurred between service members’ pre- and postdeployment health assessments. Further, many service members’ medical records did not include complete information on the in-theater postdeployment medical assessments that had been conducted. The Army’s European Surgeon General attributed missing in-theater health information to DOD’s policy of having service members hand-carry paper assessment forms from the theater to their home units, where their permanent medical records were maintained. The assessments were frequently lost en route. We have also reported that not all medical encounters in theater were being recorded in individual records. Our 1997 report indicated that this problem was particularly common for immunizations given in theater. Detailed data on service members’ vaccine history are vital for scheduling the regimen of vaccinations and boosters and for tracking individuals who received vaccinations from a specific vaccine lot in the event that health concerns about the lot emerge. We found that almost one-fourth of the service members’ medical records that we reviewed did not document the fact that they had received a vaccine for tick-borne encephalitis. In addition, in its 2000 report, IOM cited limited progress in medical recordkeeping for deployed active duty and reserve forces and emphasized the need for records of immunizations to be included in individual medical records. Responding to our and others’ recommendations to improve information on service members’ deployments, in-theater medical encounters, and immunizations, DOD has continued to revise and expand its policies related to medical surveillance, and the system continues to evolve. In addition, in 2000, DOD released its Force Health Protection plan, which presents the Department’s vision for protecting deployed forces and includes the goal of joint medical logistics support for all services by 2010. The vision articulated in this capstone document emphasizes force fitness and health preparedness, casualty prevention, and casualty care and management. A key component of the plan is improved monitoring and surveillance of health threats in military operations and more sophisticated data collection and recordkeeping before, during, and after deployments. However, IOM criticized DOD’s progress in implementing its medical surveillance program as well as its failure to implement several recommendations that IOM had made. In addition, IOM raised concerns about DOD’s ability to achieve the vision outlined in the Force Health Protection plan. We have also reported that some of DOD’s programs designed to improve medical surveillance have not been fully implemented. IOM’s 2000 report presented the results of its assessment of DOD’s progress in implementing recommendations for improving medical surveillance made by IOM and several others. IOM stated that, although DOD generally concurred with the findings of these groups, DOD had made few concrete changes at the field level. In addition, environmental and medical hazards were not yet well integrated in the information provided to commanders. The IOM report notes that a major reason for this lack of progress is that no single authority within DOD has been assigned responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations and plans. IOM said that because of the complexity of the tasks and the overlapping areas of responsibility involved, the single authority must rest with the Secretary of Defense. In its report, IOM describes six strategies that in its view demand further emphasis and require greater efforts by DOD: Use a systematic process to prospectively evaluate non-battle-related risks associated with the activities and settings of deployments. Collect and manage environmental data and personnel location, biological samples, and activity data to facilitate analysis of deployment exposures and to support clinical care and public health activities. Develop the risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication skills of military leaders at all levels. Accelerate implementation of a health surveillance system that completely spans an individual’s time in service. Implement strategies to address medically unexplained symptoms in deployed populations. Implement a joint computerized patient record and other automated recordkeeping that meets the information needs of those involved with individual care and military public health. DOD guidance established requirements for recording and tracking vaccinations and automating medical records for archiving and recalling medical encounters. While our work indicates that DOD has made some progress in improving its immunization information, the Department faces numerous challenges in implementing an automated medical record. DOD also recently established guidelines and additional policy initiatives for improving military medical surveillance. In October 1999, we reported that DOD’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System—which relies on medical staff or service members to provide needed vaccine data—may not have included some information on adverse reactions because these personnel had not received guidance needed to submit reports to the system. According to DOD officials, medical staff may also report any other reaction they think might be caused by the vaccine, but because this is not stated explicitly in DOD’s guidance on vaccinations, some medical staff may be unsure about which reactions to report. Also, in April 2000, we testified that vaccination data were not consistently recorded in paper records and in a central database, as DOD requires.For example, when comparing records from the database with paper records at four military installations, we found that information on the number of vaccinations given to service members, the dates of the vaccinations, and the vaccine lot numbers were inconsistent at all four installations. At one installation, the database and records did not agree 78 percent to 92 percent of the time. DOD has begun to make progress in implementing our recommendations, including ensuring timely and accurate data in its immunization tracking system. The Gulf War revealed the need to have information technology play a bigger role in medical surveillance to ensure that information is readily accessible to DOD and VA. In August 1997, DOD established requirements that called for the use of innovative technology, such as an automated medical record device that can document inpatient and outpatient encounters in all settings and that can archive the information for local recall and format it for an injury, illness, and exposure surveillance database. Also, in 1997, the President, responding to deficiencies in DOD’s and VA’s data capabilities for handling service members’ health information, called for the two agencies to start developing a comprehensive, lifelong medical record for each service member. As we reported in April 2001, DOD’s and VA’s numerous databases and electronic systems for capturing mission-critical data, including health information, are not linked and information cannot be readily shared. DOD has several initiatives under way to link many of its information systems—some with VA. For example, in an effort to create a comprehensive, lifelong medical record for service members and veterans and to allow health care professionals to share clinical information, DOD and VA, along with the Indian Health Service (IHS), initiated the Government Computer-Based Patient Record (GCPR) project in 1998. GCPR is seen as yielding a number of potential benefits, including improved research and quality of care, and clinical and administrative efficiencies. However, our April 2001 report described several factors— including planning weaknesses, competing priorities, and inadequate accountability—that made it unlikely that DOD and VA would accomplish GCPR or realize its benefits in the near future. To strengthen the management and oversight of GCPR, we made several recommendations, including designating a lead entity with a clear line of authority for the project and creating comprehensive and coordinated plans for sharing meaningful, accurate, and secure patient health data. For the near term, DOD and VA have decided to reconsider their approach to GCPR and focus on allowing VA to access selected health data on service members captured by DOD. According to DOD and VA officials, full operation is expected to begin the third quarter of this fiscal year, once testing of the near-term system has been completed. DOD health information is an especially critical information source given VA’s fourth mission to provide medical backup to the military health system in times of national emergency and war. Under the near-term effort, VA will be able to access laboratory and radiology results, outpatient pharmacy data, and patient demographic information. This approach, however, will not provide VA access to information on the health status of personnel when they enter military service; on medical care provided to Reservists while not on active duty; or on the care military personnel received from providers outside DOD, including TRICARE providers. In addition, because VA will only be able to view this information, physicians will not be able to easily organize or otherwise manipulate the data for quick review or research. DOD has several other initiatives for improving its information technology capabilities, which are in various stages of development. For example, DOD is developing the Theater Medical Information Program (TMIP), which is intended to capture medical information on deployed personnel and link it with medical information captured in the Department’s new medical information system. As of October 2001, officials told us that they planned to begin field testing for TMIP in spring 2002, with deployment expected in 2003. A component system of TMIP— Transportation Command Regulating and Command and Control Evacuation System—is also under development and aims to allow casualty tracking and provide in-transit visibility of casualties during wartime and peacetime. Also under development is the Global Expeditionary Medical System (GEMS), which DOD characterizes as a stepping stone to an integrated biohazard surveillance and detection system. In addition to its ongoing information technology initiatives, DOD recently issued two major policies for advancing its military medical surveillance system. Specifically, in December 2001, DOD issued clinical practice guidelines, developed collaboratively with VA, to provide a structure for primary care providers to evaluate and manage patients with deployment- related health concerns. According to DOD, the guidelines were issued in response to congressional concerns and IOM’s recommendations. The guidelines are expected to improve the continuity of care and health-risk communication for service members and their families for the wide variety of medical concerns that are related to military deployments. Because the guidelines became effective January 31, 2002, it is too early for us to comment on their implementation. Finally, DOD issued updated procedures on February 1, 2002, for deployment health surveillance and readiness. These procedures supersede those laid out in DOD’s December 1998 memorandum. The 2002 memorandum adds important procedures for occupational and environmental health surveillance and updates pre- and postdeployment health assessment requirements. These new procedures take effect on March 1, 2002. According to officials from DOD’s Health Affairs office, military medical surveillance is a top priority, as evidenced by the Department’s having placed responsibility for implementing medical surveillance policies with one authority—the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Health Protection and Readiness. However, these officials also characterized force health protection as a concept made up of multiple programs across the services. For example, we learned that each service is responsible for implementing DOD’s policy initiatives for achieving force health protection goals. This raises concerns about how the services will uniformly collect and share core information on deployments and how they will integrate data on the health status of service members. These officials also confirmed that DOD’s military medical surveillance policies will depend on the priority and resources dedicated to their implementation. Clearly, the need for comprehensive health information on service members and veterans is compelling, and much more needs to be done. However, it is also a very difficult task because of uncertainties about what conditions may exist in a deployed setting, such as potential military conflicts, environmental hazards, and the frequency of troop movements. Moreover, the outlook for successful surveillance is complicated by scientific uncertainty regarding the health effects of exposures and changes in technology that affect the feasibility of monitoring and tracking troop movements. While progress is being made, DOD will need to continue to make a concerted effort to resolve the remaining deficiencies in its surveillance system and be vigilant in its oversight. VA’s ability to perform its missions to care for veterans and compensate them for their service-connected conditions will depend in part on the adequacy of DOD’s medical surveillance system. For further information, please contact Cynthia A. Bascetta at (202) 512- 7101. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Ann Calvaresi Barr, Diana Shevlin, Karen Sloan, and Keith Steck.

The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently established a medical surveillance system to respond to the health care needs of both military personnel and veterans. A medical surveillance system involves the ongoing collection and analysis of uniform information on deployments, environmental health threats, disease monitoring, medical assessments, and medical encounters and its timely dissemination to military commanders, medical personnel, and others. GAO and others have reported extensively on weaknesses in DOD's medical surveillance capability and performance during the Gulf War and Operation Joint Endeavor. Investigations into the unexplained illnesses of Gulf War veterans revealed DOD's inability to collect, maintain, and transfer accurate data on the movement of troops, potential exposures to health risks, and medical incidents during deployment. DOD improved its medical surveillance system under Operation Joint Endeavor, which provided useful information to military commanders and medical personnel. However, several problems persist. DOD has several efforts under way to improve the reliability of deployment information and enhance its information technology capabilities. Although its recent policies and reorganization reflect a commitment to establish a comprehensive medical surveillance system, much needs to be done to implement the system. To the extent DOD's medical surveillance capability is realized, VA will be better able to serve veterans and provide backup to DOD in times of war.

In the early hours of Nov. 9, as stock markets began to rally on the news of Donald Trump’s upset win, there was another dramatic spike afoot. Interest in the bone density and cholesterol levels of an 83-year-old woman from Flatbush, New York, was also soaring. Many people wanted to know whether two-time cancer survivor Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest and perhaps the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court, had enough gas in the tank to outlast the Trump presidency, or whether Trump would get a chance to fundamentally alter the balance of the court by replacing her, a possibility he dangled successfully to entice wary Republicans to vote him. Story Continued Below As it turns out, the answer to that question lies largely in the hands of a staffer in the clerk’s office of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Asked earlier this month about the most important person in her life, Ginsburg, who was widowed in 2010 and lost a close friend with the 2016 death of Justice Antonin Scalia, responded, “My personal trainer.” That would be Bryant Johnson, 52. You could think of Johnson’s sturdy limbs as a fourth branch of government, grafted onto the judiciary, keeping it aloft. When Johnson is not helping run the District courthouse or fulfilling his duties as a Sergeant First Class in the Army Reserves, he moonlights as a physical trainer to local jurists, including not only Ginsburg, but also Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, two of the high court’s other three reliably liberal votes, as well as several appeals court judges. Since Trump’s election, Ginsburg’s continued survival has become a matter of severe anxiety for liberals, many of whom pressured her in vain to resign during the Obama years to ensure that a Democrat appointed her successor. On Thursday night, during an appearance at George Washington University, she vowed, "I will do this job as long as I can do it full steam." Worried about just how long that will be, people have been offering to send her kale or donate blood or clad her in protective padding, and it’s not entirely clear they are joking. To address their concerns, I set out to investigate the world’s most important workout, an endeavor that the chambers of Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan all promptly declined to have anything to do with.1 This was a setback. But there was a loophole. Though the justices wouldn’t touch this, Johnson was free to cooperate. Was there some way to simulate the RBG workout without Ginsburg herself? I determined to undergo the workout myself, and to write about it. To meet a sufficient evidentiary standard to prove this actually happened, we would also have to film it. I’m no athlete, but I’m young and reasonably fit. I thought the workout would be pattycake, but it was much harder than I expected. Ginsburg’s personal trainer, it turns out, is no joke. *** Muscular and bespectacled, Johnson clocks in at 5-foot-11 and just over 200 pounds. He grew up on a farm in Virginia and played football in high school, enlisted in the military in 1983 and began working in the clerk’s office three years later. In 1997, he was certified as a personal trainer. Rather than open his own gym, Johnson trained clients from his workplace—judges, deputy U.S. marshals and other court personnel—at the facility inside the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse, which houses Washington’s district court, its appeals court and the U.S. FISA Court. Word of Johnson’s prowess spread in Washington’s legal circles, and in 1999, after she recovered from colon cancer, Ginsburg began working with him at the urging of her late husband, Marty. At the time, Ginsburg has said, “I looked like a survivor of Auschwitz.” Aside from a three-year deployment in Kuwait, Johnson has trained Ginsburg nonstop since then, adding the other two justices along the way. Personal trainer Bryant Johnson takes POLITICO's Ben Schreckinger through the workout routine he designed for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201702/1672/1155968404_5333705626001_5333671114001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true Johnson’s niche makes him perhaps the world’s only personal trainer whose job it is to ensure that his clients keep riding the bench, and probably the one whose work is most consequential, whether you’re rooting for or against the liberal justices staying on the job. A number of precedents that have long been fundamental to the American legal landscape, like Roe v. Wade, and more recent landmarks, like the 2015 split decision legalizing same-sex marriage, would likely be out the window should Trump get the chance to replace one of the court’s four liberal justices. Trump has done little to allay those fears on the left, naming Neil Gorsuch, an originalist in Scalia’s mold, as his first Supreme Court pick. For her part, Ginsburg has not hidden her feelings about her contemporary from Queens. In an interview published last week by the BBC, she said, "Some terrible things have happened in the United States,” and “We are not experiencing the best times.” Last July, she was even more blunt, calling Trump a “faker” and saying, “I don’t even want to contemplate” a Trump presidency’s effect on the court, comments she later walked back. 2 Many people believe the long-lost twelfth article made clear the founders’ intent that the networks always show Mr. Trump’s tremendous crowds. Of course, at the beginning of every one of his campaign rallies, a disembodied voice playing over loudspeakers reminds attendees that Trump is a “lifelong defender of the First Amendment” in case they had forgotten his threats to lodge frivolous lawsuits against journalists, his vows to “open up” libel laws and his relentlessly hostile attacks on the “lying media,” which he recently described as “enemies of the people.” In a meeting last summer with Republican lawmakers, Trump also reportedly proclaimed his commitment to protecting Article I, Article II and Article XII2 of the Constitution, displaying an admirable willingness to defend equally the existent and the nonexistent provisions of our founding charter. 3 Losers. 4 Trump has promised to choose all of his high court nominees from a list of 21 people, mostly respected conservative jurists. Trump has also seen his “world’s greatest memory” suddenly fail him when testifying under oath and suggested with a straight face on national television that the IRS is persecuting him for being a “strong Christian,” so you be the judge. Suffice it to say some people3 are concerned that Trump, who has described the 150-year-old Geneva Conventions against torture as “the problem” and famously attacked a federal judge in Indiana for having Mexican parents, might reshape the Supreme Court in his own image based on ideas he got from watching the shows.4 Trump has little discernible constitutional philosophy, though he said in September that his appointees would “need to preserve the very core of our country and make it greater than ever before.” The future of the Supreme Court was perhaps the biggest prize up for grabs in last year’s election, and depending on attrition, Trump could get a historic chance to implement his vague vision for it. Justice Ginsburg, who will be 84 in March, is not the Supreme Court’s only octogenarian. The court’s swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is 80 years old and Breyer is 78—making it plausible that Trump could get the chance to place as many as three reliable conservatives, or three Trumpists, in seats they do not currently hold. Last week, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said “the odds are very good” that another Supreme Court seat will open up this summer—though he professed not to have any inside information. *** My investigation of RBG’s gym regimen promised to answer all sorts of questions. What is the world’s most physically fit profession, judges or journalists? And while we know that Justice is supposed to be blind, is she also ripped? 5 A government building somewhere in the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia area. 6 Rates vary. Email [email protected]. “We take the O out for obesity.” Johnson agreed to meet me on Presidents Day at an undisclosed location.5 He came dressed in a T-shirt advertising his business, BJ’s Body Justice (“It all begins with attitude”6), under his windbreaker, with an airborne pendant, a parachute with wings worn by paratroopers, hanging from his neck. Ginsburg usually works out with Johnson twice a week, on whatever days are mutually convenient, for about an hour per session. Normally, the workouts start around 7 p.m. at a gym inside the Supreme Court, and she listens to PBS NewsHour while she exercises. If the workout has to be squeezed in at another time, she will stoop to turning on cable news. Johnson and I began around 10:30 a.m. with a five-minute warmup on an elliptical machine. When Ginsburg uses the elliptical, Johnson stands at her side, ready to catch her in case she loses her balance. “I’m kind of like the security blanket, the lifeguard,” he said. “I’m just here making sure nothing happens.” You can think of Bryant Johnson’s sturdy limbs as a fourth branch of government, grafted on to the judiciary and keeping it aloft. | Getty Images Five minutes on the elliptical was a snap, leaving me unimpressed. But we were only getting started. We know a lot about Supreme Court justices’ ideological flexibility—think of the party-line ruling to end the 2000 Florida recount or John Roberts’ pragmatic vote to uphold Obamacare—but surprisingly little about their physical flexibility. After the elliptical came some light stretching, and as it turns out, Ginsburg is more flexible than I am. I was unable to bend over and touch my toes, or even grab my ankles, from a seated position with my legs extended. After some lecturing about my need to improve and a butterfly groin stretch, we proceeded to the strength training. When Johnson informed Ginsburg he would be leading me through her workout, she told him, “I hope he makes it through.” This was obviously some sort of coded instruction to humiliate me, because after the stretching, Johnson announced he would make me use double the weight that Ginsburg did on the strength exercises to achieve the same effect.7 7 Johnson said he was doing this because I am 27 and a male, or in his words, “a young ThunderCat.” Because it took place in a government building, this was arguably a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, according to many people. 8 If Johnson were put in charge of New Hampshire’s elections, the Trump administration would have a lot to investigate. 9 A little Supreme Court humor. For most of the exercises, Johnson said Ginsburg performs three sets of 10 to 13 reps, depending on his judgment of what her body is up to on a given day. Sometimes he engages in what he called “counting funny” to customize the length of a set, a habit I noticed when he would mumble a count of “four” under his breath after what felt like at least eight reps.8 The strength exercises started with a machine bench press, where Ginsburg normally puts up 70 pounds. From there it was leg curls and leg presses, chest flies and lat pull-downs, all on machines, while stretching the muscle groups being exercised in between sets. I performed three sets of seated rows and three sets of standing rows. It was so many rows I asked Johnson, “What about Wade?”9 He didn’t take the bait or hold forth on his own judicial philosophy. “I stay in my lane,” explained Johnson, who swore he never gave in to the temptation to play shadow clerk by offering his clients his two cents on matters before the court. Ginsburg also performs one-legged squats, an exercise that illustrated just how intimate the trainer-justice relationship could get. While he held my hands, Johnson instructed me to raise one leg in the air between his legs and to stand up from seated position on a bench using the other leg until I was standing, practically embracing him, 10 times for each leg, three times. This was not easy, and caused me to look at Johnson — who has jumped out of helicopters, planes and a hot air balloon in the service of this country — in a way he found deeply unsettling. He asked me not kick him in the groin, something that, for the record, Ginsburg has never done. From there, we went to the floor. Johnson said Ginsburg takes great pride in progressing from horizontal pushups against a wall when he first began working with her, to pushups with her knees down on the ground, to full pushups. “Justice Ginsburg does 10 pushups and she does not do the so-called ‘girl pushups,’” explained Georgetown Law Professor Mary Hartnett during an appearance with the justice earlier this month at the Virginia Military Institute. “She does not use her knees.10 And then she stretches back for a very brief pause and she does 10 more.” 10 Johnson doesn’t call these “girl pushups” because some of his male clients do them. I was able to match Ginsburg’s pushups feat with only a little grunting, though Ginsburg never grunts, as Johnson felt compelled to tell me at one point. He also let me know, as I peppered him with questions, that unlike me, Ginsburg barely rests between sets. Then came planks: 30 seconds of a standard plank and 30 seconds on each side. These are a recent introduction for Ginsburg, who previously performed sit-ups, and not her favorite exercise. While I planked, Johnson nudged my waist from side to side, instructing me to provide resistance, to further work my core. He does this with Ginsburg, and also stands ready to catch her should she experience muscle failure while planking. After that, we broke out a giant exercise ball which I sat on while panting, sweating and performing arm and shoulder exercises with dumbbells. Then I pinned the exercise ball between my back and the wall and alternated sets of squats with dumb-bell curls. For this, Ginsburg pumps 12 pounds and I pumped 25.11 11 I pleaded to Johnson that 25 pounds is technically more than twice as heavy as 12 pounds and he granted me clemency on the number of reps. Next, Johnson set up a platform about 18 inches high and had me step up on it while raising my knees and performing a variety of movements to promote leg strength and hip flexibility. Somewhere in there, he also had me perform leg exercises on the floor as well as while standing and holding on to a staff to keep my balance. At one point he even had me standing on an upside-down bosu—the top of an exercise ball affixed to a flat platform—and falling off while attempting to squat. Finally, he had me sit on a bench while holding a medicine ball, then stand up, toss him the ball and sit back down again after he flipped the ball back to me.12 “I told the justice that if you cannot do this exercise, you will need a nurse 24-7,” Johnson recalled. 12 With Ginsburg, he hands the ball back to her delicately. This exercise is crucial, he explained, because it employs the motion needed to use a toilet unassisted. I passed that one with flying colors. After 90 grueling minutes, panting and red in the face, I had more or less successfully completed the Ginsburg workout. After catching my breath, I asked Johnson whether he recommended that older people do a workout like the one we just went through or do Trump’s self-professed regimen: playing golf and giving stemwinder campaign speeches. “Do something. If you’re not doing anything then I advise you do something,” Johnson advised diplomatically. “It doesn’t matter what you do. You find out what is your niche and do something. Your body is made to move.” But does Johnson believe Trump, who is 70, could complete Ginsburg’s workout? Wisely, he declined to comment. 13 I did not tell Johnson that in 2015 Trump explained his lack of workout regimen by saying that exercise had forced his friends to have their knees and hips replaced. Trying a different tack, I asked Johnson what he made of older people who say they forgo vigorous exercise because their friends who work out suffer from all sorts of joint problems. Johnson compared muscles to a pair of pliers — which will get rusty from lack of use but begin to function like a fine-tuned machine if used regularly—and agreed that that sort of just sounded like an excuse.13 As for Ginsburg’s continued vitality, after going through one of her workouts I can confirm she could not be in better hands. Sore, disoriented and cranky, I didn’t feel a day over 65. Ben Schreckinger is a reporter for Politico. ||||| What makes a meaningful life for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg? “To put it simply, it means doing something outside yourself,” she said Monday night at Stanford’s Memorial Church, in conversation with the university’s The Rev. Professor Jane Shaw, dean for religious life. “I tell law students … if you are going to be a lawyer and just practice your profession, you have a skill — very much like a plumber,” she said. “But if you want to be a true professional, you will do something outside yourself … something that makes life a little better for people less fortunate than you.” Welcomed with thunderous applause, she opened by reading from her book, citing relationship advice (“sometimes it helps to be a little deaf”), her father-in-law’s career advice (“you will find a way”), raising children (“I returned to the law books with renewed will”) and her devotion to her husband (“without him, I would not have gained a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.”) The 83-year-old did not volunteer her opinion about President Donald Trump’s nomination of Colorado federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, nor the legal controversies over the administration’s temporary immigration ban on seven Muslim-majority countries. Last summer she drew criticism, and later apologized, for saying she feared for the country and the court if Trump was elected. But she mourned the loss of collegiality that was once part of Capitol Hill, and a cherished friendship with the conservative Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “I wish there was a way I could wave a magic wand and put it back when people respected each other, and voted for the good of the country and not just along party lines. Someday there will be great representatives who will say ‘Enough of this nonsense. … I hope that day comes when I’m still alive.” When asked what she would like to change: “the electoral college!” ​She decried the death penalty, saying “If ​I were queen​,​ there would be ​no death penalty​,” but praised the nation’s recent reduction of executions​. The oldest justice by more than three years, and one of the four reliably liberal jurists on the court, a student teased her about eating more kale. Then she was asked: Who she would like to see eat kale? “Justice Kennedy!” she deadpanned. A long line of students waited to ask questions. “It was such a pleasure to hear her go off script. I loved getting to hear from her more directly,” said alumnae Eliza Ridgeway of Sunnyvale. Ginsburg’s lecture is part of a series created in memory of late Stanford law professor Harry Rathbun, who delivered his distinguished “Last Lecture” every year from the 1930s to the 1950s. In years in which a lecture is scheduled, the Office for Religious Life chooses a speaker to visit campus and talk about the various paths to building a meaningful life. Previous iterations of the lecture featured former Secretary of State George Shultz, the 14th Dalai Lama, Oprah Winfrey and Ginsburg’s former colleague on the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor. ​The lecture was established by The Foundation for Global Community​. She spoke fondly of former justice O’Connor, calling her “as close to being a big sister to me as one could wish for.” O’Connor, who survived breast cancer, advised Ginsburg after chemotherapy treatment for colorectal cancer: “Be sure to get it for Friday so you can get over it during the weekend.” In a far reaching conversation, she cited music she couldn’t live without: Mozart’s “The Marriage of Figaro” and “Don Giovanni.” She confided her childhood role models: Amelia Earhart and the fictional heroine Nancy Drew. She recounted a New Year’s Eve dinner with late Justice Antonin Scalia, when her husband struggled to find a good recipe for wild boar. ​She described her attitude toward combating cancer: “Never have a defeatist atti​tude ​… and I’m going to surmount this​.” The most important person in her life? “My personal trainer,” she joked. To the delight of the crowd, Ginsburg showed off her tote bag with the motto: “I dissent.” When asked, 100 years from now, how she would like to be remembered: “That I was a judge who worked as hard as she could to the best of her ability — to do the job right.”

With Democrats fearful that some ill might befall Ruth Bader Ginsburg, leaving another opening on the Supreme Court for President Trump to fill, Ben Schreckinger set out to determine just how fit the 83-year-old RBG is. To do so, he went to Ginsburg's personal trainer Bryant Johnson—whom she jokingly named earlier this month as the most important person in her life—and set out to do Ginsburg's hourlong exercise routine, which she carries out with Johnson about twice a week. Writing in Politico, he says the workout "nearly broke" him. It started with a warmup on the elliptical and stretching (RBG is apparently more flexible than Schreckinger) before moving on to strength training; Schreckinger used more weight in order to simulate what RBG does, since Schreckinger is younger and male. He went through the same series of push-ups, planks, side planks, squats, and more, and learned along the way that Ginsburg barely rests between sets. "As for Ginsburg’s continued vitality, after going through one of her workouts I can confirm she could not be in better hands," he writes. "Sore, disoriented and cranky, I didn’t feel a day over 65." Click for his full piece.

In an unassuming Italian restaurant in Santa Monica, I wait for Jennifer Garner. You’ve seen thousands of photographs of her: jeans, sweater, thick chestnut locks swept up in a ponytail—the definition of what it is to be California casual. This native West Virginian’s relaxed, unpretentious style has made her arguably one of the most respected public mothers in America and still a draw at the box office. Her walk is brisk and to the point as she joins me at a table in the back. She lives up to expectations—flawless skin, no makeup, big smile. This is one of her favorite places; the busboy even asks how the children are. The reason she was a few minutes late: “I didn’t think I was nervous, but then I realized I was at the wrong restaurant.” It’s been a “year of wine,” as the 43-year-old actress describes it, laughing. Late last June, after their children (Violet, 10, Seraphina, 7, and Sam, 4) were finished with the school year, Garner and her husband, Ben Affleck, announced their plan to divorce one day after their 10th anniversary—an eternity for most Hollywood marriages. A month later, plastered over the tabloids and gossip sites, came reports that Affleck was having an affair with the family nanny, 28-year-old Christine Ouzounian, something his camp adamantly denies. It’s a mother and wife’s nightmare. (After a few inappropriate Instagram moments, the nanny has since dissolved into the background.) “When I can’t sleep—and I am not someone who typically has that problem, but I really have in the last year—and I need something to switch my brain off, it has been Tina Fey and Amy Poehler,” Garner says. “God bless those girls. I used to think I would never watch television on my phone, but there I am, because I am sleeping next to my daughter.” Garner tells me she and Violet have become temporary roommates. “I’m happy to have her; she’s happy to have me.” We live in a visual world, where a picture paints a thousand words. Millions of people had grown accustomed to seeing photos of this family to the point where we felt we knew them and their daily routines: getting coffee, going to the farmers’ market, working out, dropping the kids off at school. The combination of the two movie stars and their perfect family was both tabloid gold and aspirational ideal. After all, Garner and Affleck were a glamorous version of normal that almost defied believability. “It was a real marriage,” Garner tells me. “It wasn’t for the cameras. And it was a huge priority for me to stay in it. And that did not work.” Now to end on what the gossip pages call “nannygate”—it’s all so unsavory and such a cliché. “Let me just tell you something,” Garner says. “We had been separated for months before I ever heard about the nanny. She had nothing to do with our decision to divorce. She was not a part of the equation. Bad judgment? Yes. It’s not great for your kids for [a nanny] to disappear from their lives.” Months later, she’s still assessing the damage. “I have had to have conversations about the meaning of ‘scandal,’ ” she says, with her children. It was during this trying time last summer that Garner was working on Miracles from Heaven, directed by relative newcomer Patricia Riggen (The 33). Perhaps it’s no coincidence that she gives one of her most emotionally wrenching performances to date in what is her first lead in years. Garner plays a real-life Texas mother, Christy Beam, whose young daughter Annabel (played by Kylie Rogers) is ill with a life-threatening disease that miraculously heals after a near-fatal fall from a tree. (The film is based on Beam’s best-selling memoir of the same name.) Think Terms of Endearment with a fair share of spiritual overtones. “The book kept me up all night,” Garner says. “It was so compelling and tangible. Her pain, the daughter’s pain, what it did to the family. Christy was so steadfast; she didn’t try to whitewash what was wrong with her daughter. She was next to her helping her know she was strong enough to get through it, and I wanted to be in her skin.” She adds: “I certainly was never on set thinking of my own life, except for my own gratitude. One of the great gifts of the movie was the perspective that came with it.” Miracles from Heaven—set for release right before Easter—will also put Garner before the public eye for the first time since the divorce announcement, and force her to deal with all the media chatter about her private life. “I turned on CNN one day,” she says, “and there we were. I just won’t do it anymore. I took a silent oath with myself last summer to really stay offline. I am totally clueless about all of it.” In this constant, 24-hour media age, unplugging takes real discipline—which can be interpreted, by some, as indifference. “Ben says, ‘Oh, you just don’t care,’ and I say, ‘No, it’s the opposite.’ It hurts me so much, and I care so much,” she says, choosing to not “give a shit” how the divorce looks to the outside world. “I cannot be driven by the optics of this. I cannot let anger or hurt be my engine. I need to move with the big picture always on my mind, and the kids first and foremost.” Garner won America’s hearts 14 years ago as the star of J. J. Abrams’s popular ABC series Alias. She was Sydney Bristow, coed by day, spy by night. Alias was the first time since Wonder Woman in the 1970s that audiences saw a sexy, badass female action hero. “I don’t remember having more fun working with anyone than I’ve had working with her,” Abrams reflects. “She’s smart-funny—she makes you want to be funnier and smarter, and you know that when you throw the best you’ve got her way she’ll make it better. No one’s perfect. But no one’s Jen Garner.” Abrams, whose Star Wars: The Force Awakens broke box-office records last year, makes no bones about wanting to work with Garner again. “It would be a dream and we talk about it. She really is on the cusp of the most interesting, the most complex and satisfying roles as an actor.” It was also on Alias—which ran for five seasons before going off the air, in 2006—that she met the veteran actor Victor Garber, who played her father, Jack Bristow. They have remained close friends. (He is also Violet’s godfather.) “From the first moment we met,” he says, “there was this inexplicable chemistry and connection, this understanding that we were on the same page. She’s one of the most important people in my life.” The feeling’s mutual, as Garber was the one chosen to officiate at Garner and Affleck’s wedding, when they eloped to Turks and Caicos, in 2005, and, other than his partner, Rainer, was the only person present at the nuptials. “That experience was one of the greatest we’ve ever had,” Garber says. “As difficult as this time is, as sad as this time is, I think there is a great love between them, and that will always be there.” Garner echoes that sentiment. “I didn’t marry the big fat movie star; I married him,” she says. “And I would go back and remake that decision. I ran down the beach to him, and I would again. You can’t have these three babies and so much of what we had. He’s the love of my life. What am I going to do about that? He’s the most brilliant person in any room, the most charismatic, the most generous. He’s just a complicated guy. I always say, ‘When his sun shines on you, you feel it.’ But when the sun is shining elsewhere, it’s cold. He can cast quite a shadow.” But if time is any measure, Garber feels that his friend is out from underneath that shadow and finally finding the light—not only as a woman but also as an artist. “She is becoming the person that I could see in her that she almost couldn’t see in herself,” he says. “Her strength, her fortitude. I think she went from someone that wanted to take care of everybody to be someone who said, ‘In order to do that I have to really take care of myself.’ ” Garner has just completed filming Wakefield, written and directed by Robin Swicord, based on E. L. Doctorow’s retelling of a Nathaniel Hawthorne tale. She plays the wife in this drama, due out later this year, about a husband (Bryan Cranston) who fakes his own death in order to watch his spouse from their attic. It’s too early to tell, but it could turn out to be some of her most interesting work as an actress since director Jason Reitman cast her in 2007’s Juno, which was made for $7.5 million and grossed $143 million, receiving four Oscar nominations and winning one for best screenplay (Diablo Cody). Reitman says that movie could not have been made without Garner lending her star power, from green-lighting to completion. “She was extraordinarily generous with her talent,” he says, “and also her professionalism. I felt like she protected me, frankly.” Her role in Wakefield required her to do a love scene. “When you haven’t been kissed for over eight months,” she says, “it’s strange. But it’s my job. It’s nine in the morning and you think, I could really use a shot of alcohol. Then, after a take or two, after everyone has seen your boobs and love handles, you just want to take every crew member and be like, ‘Please have mercy on me!’ ” Meanwhile, Garner is managing to maintain a lucrative career with endorsements, currently for Capital One and Neutrogena. According to the Nielsen ratings, she is, in fact, the No. 1 female spokesperson—another testament, perhaps, to her authentic and genuine quality, an essential approachability that has not been diminished by recent personal upheavals. And, yes, there is an edge to her. Steve Carell, who worked with Garner on 2014’s Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, compares her to Julie Andrews. “She’s even better in person than you would have imagined,” he says. “Everyone knows that she is incredibly talented, and she’s a very kind and warm person, but beyond that she’s bitingly funny, like Julie. She can definitely have a caustic sense of humor and a sophisticated sense of humor. She’s not all puppy dogs and ice cream. There’s some real depth and weight to her.” It’s clear that family has always been the most important thing to Garner. This comes from her upbringing, in West Virginia, as the middle daughter of a middle-class family. Mom was an English teacher and Dad was a chemical engineer. “I wasn’t raised in a household where vanity was celebrated,” she says. “That just wasn’t on the top of our list.” Garner says her older sister, Melissa, was the bright star of the family. “She is perfect. She won the state math competition every single year against Governor [Jay] Rockefeller’s son. She graduated with a 4.0, was head majorette, and the prettiest person in the world. It took me a while to grow into my face.” Garner first found her passion for performance with dance as a child: “I danced six hours a day. My cross to bear is that my children have no interest in ballet. I think they could smell how much I wanted to put their hair in a bun.” She studied drama at Denison University and, after graduation, did stints at various summer stocks. She eventually got her first real break as nerdy Hannah Bibb in three episodes of Abrams’s first television show, Felicity, in 1998. Matthew McConaughey, who starred alongside Garner in 2013’s Dallas Buyers Club (for which he won a best-actor Oscar), says that “Jennifer always brings a simple humanity” to whatever she does. This extends beyond the screen. What many people may not realize is how much work Garner has done as a board member of Save the Children and her efforts to get a California paparazzi law passed that would prevent the harassment of children. Katie McGrath, who sits on the board of the Children’s Defense Fund and is married to J. J. Abrams, has known Garner for nearly 20 years, since the days of Felicity. “I would say that she’s very unusual in Hollywood because service is in her DNA,” she says. “She’s not in it for the photo opportunity. She lives her values. She’s just sort of the anti-diva, and that’s unusual in this community.” Mark K. Shriver, president of the Save the Children Action Network, confirms that Garner’s commitment is total. “She is really relentless about wanting to go out in the field, to see the kids and families to learn more about what’s going on in the world,” he says. “She is as comfortable with the senator of West Virginia as she is with a woman living in poverty in a trailer. People interact and relate to her very easily. It’s a real gift.” Full ScreenPhotos: 1 / 6 See Jennifer Garner’s Intimate Vanity Fair Photo Shoot Photo: Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. Photo: Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. Photo: Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. Photo: Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. Photo: Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. Photo: Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. Previous Next DRIVING FORCE Jennifer Garner, photographed in Los Angeles in a 1954 Jaguar XK120. Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. STAR TURN “I definitely put a lot of time towards my marriage that I will now have for myself,” Garner says. Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. Photograph by Patrick Demarchelier; Styled by Jessica Diehl. I ask Garner if she knew what she was getting into when she married Ben Affleck. He had a bit of a bad-boy image when they came together and was in actor jail after a string of disappointing films (Reindeer Games, Jersey Girl, Surviving Christmas), whereas Garner’s star was on the rise. Affleck had also had a few high-profile romances, the last of which was an engagement to Jennifer Lopez, which was immortalized in 2003’s Gigli. (Garner had a starter marriage at 28 to actor Scott Foley, whom she met on the set of Felicity; it ended after two years.) “Of course this is not what I imagined when I ran down the beach, but it is where I am,” she says. “We still have to help each other get through this. He’s still the only person who really knows the truth about things. And I’m still the only person that knows some of his truths.” She puts up a strong front, but that doesn’t mean things are always easy. Last October, when Affleck started his new film, Live by Night, which he is directing and starring in, she says, “I wasn’t part of it. It was starting and it was a hard day for me. I got the kids to school, and I went home and went to bed. I haven’t had a lot of those days.” And she gets that people—friends, supporters, total strangers—would love to see a simple resolution. “When Jen Aniston and Brad Pitt broke up,” she admits, “I was dying to see something that said they were getting back together.” It’s getting back to essentials that has given Garner the solace and support she’s needed this past year. “When the earth shakes,” she says, “you go to what you know from childhood. All of a sudden I’m sitting down at the piano. I went back to church. I sat down and wrote bad poetry all day because I was so sad. I needed a dance class; it reminded me of my fight scenes [in Alias] and how I missed that. I feel the need to be physical and I feel the need to punch someone. You know what I look forward to? I look forward to getting past the pity stage. I look forward to just having a sense of humor.” And does that mean dating? A fellow airline passenger apparently thought it was worth a try. “We were waiting for the bathroom at JetBlue,” Garner says, “and I was so floored. I had to remind myself that that was something that could happen. He said, ‘Could I take you for a cup of coffee?’ And I was like, ‘No! You may not take me for a cup of coffee, sir.’ And then I said, ‘But thanks for asking.’ ” All joking aside, I ask her if she can see herself dating. “I guess. I don’t know. It’s just that [from] everyone that I know that is dating it just seems, well…. Men don’t call anymore…. I want flowers; I don’t want to text. What does that make me? What kind of dinosaur am I?” So, what’s next for her moving forward? “It’s not Ben’s job to make me happy,” she insists. “The main thing is these kids—and we’re completely in line with what we hope for them. Sure, I lost the dream of dancing with my husband at my daughter’s wedding. But you should see their faces when he walks through the door. And if you see your kids love someone so purely and wholly, then you’re going to be friends with that person.” But with that evolved outlook, did it still smart when, at the Golden Globes in January, host Ricky Gervais introduced Matt Damon as “the only person who Ben Affleck hasn’t been unfaithful to”? She admits to watching it and adds, “I laughed. People have pain—they do regrettable things, they feel shame, and shame equals pain. No one needs to hate him for me. I don’t hate him. Certainly we don’t have to beat the guy up. Don’t worry—my eyes were wide open during the marriage. I’m taking good care of myself.” Last fall, it was reported that Garner and Affleck were putting their Cliff May-designed Pacific Palisades estate—whose previous owners have included Gregory Peck and producer Brian Grazer—on the market for $45 million. However, it is not true. Garner is staying put. For the time being, Affleck has been staying in the three-acre estate’s guesthouse. ||||| Jennifer Garner answers just about every question her fans could possibly have about her split with husband Ben Affleck. In a no-holds-barred interview with Vanity Fair magazine, the 43-year-old actress goes into great detail about her relationship with Affleck and his alleged affair with their children's nanny, Christine Ouzounian. WATCH: Jennifer Garner Says Filming 'Miracles From Heaven' Reminded Her of What 'Really Matters' "Let me just tell you something," Garner says. "We had been separated for months before I ever heard about the nanny. She had nothing to with our decision to divorce. She was not a part of the equation." Garner admits that "nannygate" wasn't easy, especially for their three children, Violet, 10, Seraphina, 7, and Sam, 4. "Bad judgment? Yes. It's not great for your kids for [a nanny] to disappear from their lives," she explains. "I have had to have conversations [with my children] about the meaning of 'scandal.'" In June 2015, Affleck and Garner announced their plans to divorce, which immediately sparked a media frenzy around the beloved couple. "I turned on CNN one day," she recalls, "and there we were. I just won't do it anymore. I took a silent oath to myself last summer to really stay offline. I am totally clueless about all of it." Vanity Fair MORE: The NannyGate Diaries: A Complete Timeline of Ben Affleck's Divorce Scandal Garner says that her ex didn't feel that way. "Ben says, 'Oh, you just don't care,' and I say, 'No, it's the opposite.' It hurts me so much, and I care so much." The actress insists that, despite what has been reported, she was in a "real marriage" with Affleck. "I didn't marry a movie star; I married him," she asserts. "And I would go back and remake that decision. I ran down the beach to him, and I would again." "You can't have these three babies and so much of what we had. He's the love of my life. What am I going to say about that?" Garner continues. "He's the most brilliant person in any room, the most charismatic, the most generous." NEWS: Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck Vacation in Yellowstone With Their Kids That being said, the mother-of-three doesn't deny that her estranged husband is a "complicated guy." "When his sun shines on you, you feel it. But when the sun is shining elsewhere, it's cold," she explains. "He can cast quite a shadow." While Garner speaks highly of Affleck, 43, she doesn't offer any hope that her marriage can be salvaged, though she understands why outsiders remain hopeful. "When Jen Aniston and Brad Pitt broke up, I was dying to see something that said they were getting back together," she admits. Garner says she has now accepted a future without Affleck as her husband. "The main thing is these kids -- and we're completely in line with what we hope for them," she insists. "Sure, I lost a dream of dancing with my husband at my daughter's wedding. But you should see their faces when he walks through the door. And if you see your kids love someone so purely and wholly, then you're going to be friends with that person.” WATCH: Jennifer Garner Stuns in First Red Carpet Appearance Since Split From Ben Affleck While she is currently great at taking the high road in her VF interview, Garner still can't help but quip about Affleck's post-split tattoo of a rising phoenix that covers his entire back. "You know what we would say in my hometown about that? 'Bless his heart,'" the West Virginia native says. "A phoenix rising from the ashes. Am I the ashes in this scenario? I take umbrage. I refuse to be the ashes." Related Gallery ||||| Don't blame Jennifer Garner for Ben Affleck's big phoenix tattoo! The actress covers the latest issue of Vanity Fair, where she had the most hilarious response to the gigantic back tattoo her estranged husband was spotted with last year. MORE: Jennifer Garner Breaks Silence About Ben Affleck Split and the Nanny Scandal Vanity Fair "You know what we would say in my hometown about that? 'Bless his heart," Garner jokes. "A phoenix rising from the ashes. Am I the ashes in this scenario?" "I take umbrage. I refuse to be the ashes," the Miracles From Heaven actress playfully adds. In case you don't remember, here's the ink in question: Vasquez/Dunkin D/FAMEFLYNET PICTURES WATCH: Jennifer Garner Seen Smiling and Hugging Mystery Man While Out in L.A. The Ben's back beat actually has somewhat of a history. The Batman v Superman actor first revealed a glimpse of the artwork last July, just days after his split from Garner -- after 10 years of marriage -- was announced. Though, it was not until the above on-set photo in December, when we witnessed the mythological beast in all its glory. And while Affleck has spoken regretfully of tattoos he's gotten in the past, that did not stop him from this bold new look. Meanwhile, Affleck is set to appear on Jimmy Kimmel Live! after the Oscars on Sunday, leaving all of us to wonder whether he will address his former flame's playful dig at his body art. WATCH: Ben Affleck's Giant Back Tattoo Is Super Confusing Don't miss ET’s live Academy Awards pre-show on Pop this Sunday, Feb. 28., starting at 5 p.m. ET/2 p.m. PT. Go to PopTV.com to find out where to watch. Watch the video below for more on Affleck's tattoo. ||||| Jennifer Garner is finally letting the world know her side of the story. In a tell-all interview with Vanity Fair, the 43-year-old actress breaks her silence on her highly-publicized split from husband Ben Affleck last June, the rumors of his alleged affair with their 28-year-old nanny, Christine Ouzounian, and single life. WATCH: Jennifer Garner Says Filming 'Miracles From Heaven' Reminded Her of What 'Really Matters' The past year -- which Garner refers to as the "year of wine" -- was not an easy one for the Miracles from Heaven actress, as she and Affleck, 43, announced their plans to divorce just one day before their 10-year wedding anniversary. Now, we're breaking down the most interesting revelations we learned from her no-holding-back interview. Vanity Fair 1. Nothing about her relationship with Affleck was fake. "It was a real marriage," she explained. "It wasn't for the cameras. And it was a huge priority for me to stay in it. And that did not work." 2. If she had the chance, she'd do it all over again. "I didn't marry the big fat movie star; I married him," Garner gushed. "And I would go back and remake that decision. He's the love of my life. What am I going to do about that?" "I always say, 'When his sun shines on you, you feel it.' But when the sun is shining elsewhere, it's cold," she added. "He can cast quite a shadow." MORE: The Nannygate Diaries: A Timeline of Ben Affleck's Divorce Scandal 3. Though they're not together anymore, they still share a special connection. "Of course this is not what I imagined when I ran down the beach, but it is where I am," she confessed. "We still have to help each other get through this. He's still the only person who really knows the truth about things. And I'm still the only person that knows some of his truths." 4. "Nannygate" wasn't necessarily as dramatic as it seemed. "We had been separated for months before I ever heard about the nanny," Garner confirmed. "She had nothing to do with our decision to divorce. She was not a part of the equation. Bad judgment? Yes. It's not great for your kids for [a nanny] to disappear from their lives." "I have had to have conversations [with our kids, Violet, Seraphina and Samuel] about the meaning of 'scandal,'" she added. 5. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler helped her cope. "When I can't sleep -- and I am not someone who typically has that problem, but I really have in the last year -- and I need something to switch my brain off, it has been Tina Fey and Amy Poehler," the mother of three explained. "God bless those girls." WATCH: Jennifer Garner Stuns in First Red Carpet Appearance Since Split From Ben Affleck 6. She temporarily shares a room with her eldest daughter. "I'm happy to have [Violet]; she's happy to have me," she shared. 7. Her children don't plan to follow in their mama's footsteps. "I danced six hours a day," Garner remembered. "My cross to bear is that my children have no interest in ballet. I think they could smell how much I wanted to put their hair in a bun." 8. She sometimes gets the urge to punch things. "When the earth shakes, you go to what you know from childhood," she explained. "All of a sudden I'm sitting down at the piano. I went back to church. I sat down and wrote bad poetry all day because I was so sad. I needed a dance class." "I feel the need to be physical and I feel the need to punch someone," she added. NEWS: Jennifer Garner Responds to Ben Affleck's Giant Back Tattoo: 'Bless His Heart' 9. …Which is why she stays offline! "I turned on CNN one day, and here we were. I just won't do it anymore," the West Virginia native admitted. "I took a silent oath with myself last summer to really stay offline. I am totally clueless about all of it." "Ben says, 'Oh, you just don't care,' and I say, 'No, it's the opposite.' It hurts me so much, and I care so much," she added, referring to "not giving a sh*t" about what the world thinks of her divorce. 10. It's been a long time since she's been kissed. "When you haven't been kissed for over eight months, it's strange," she revealed, referring to the love scene she had to film for Wakefield, a drama she stars in opposite Bryan Cranston. PHOTOS: Jennifer Garner Dons Sexy LBD for Solo Night Out 11. She might not be receiving any real-life smooches, but she does get hit on. She recalled a time where a fellow airplane passenger asked her out for a cup of coffee. Though she didn't accept it, she doesn't oppose the idea of going on dates -- as long as the lucky man can impress her! "Men don’t call anymore," she stated. "I want flowers; I don't want to text." 12. Even she was rooting for Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston to make it work. "When Jen Aniston and Brad Pitt broke up, I was dying to see something that said they were getting back together." 13. Despite all the hardship, she's OK. "No one needs to hate [Ben] for me," Garner said. "I don't hate him. Certainly we don't have to beat the guy up. Don't worry -- my eyes were wide open during the marriage." WATCH: Jennifer Garner Breaks Silence On Ben Affleck Split Related Gallery

Jennifer Garner really opened up during her recent interview with Vanity Fair, tackling such subjects as her feelings about estranged husband Ben Affleck and even his affair with their kids' nanny. But perhaps her best response comes to a question about what VF calls Affleck's "midlife-crisis tattoo," a huge phoenix rising on his back. "You know what we would say in my hometown about that? 'Bless his heart,'" Garner says. "A phoenix rising from the ashes. Am I the ashes in this scenario?" She winks: "I take umbrage. I refuse to be the ashes." More from the interview here and here, or see Affleck's tattoo here.

In the United States, product safety, including fire safety, is largely promoted through a process of consensus-based standards and voluntary certification programs. ANSI establishes requirements to ensure that standards are formulated through a consensus-based process that is open and transparent and that adequately considers and resolves comments received from manufacturers, the fire safety community, consumers, government agencies, and other stakeholders. Standards are generally developed in the technical committees of organizations that include independent laboratories, such as Underwriters Laboratories; and trade and professional associations, such as the American Society for Testing and Materials. These entities form a decentralized, largely self-regulated network of private, independent, standards-development organizations. For those organizations that choose to follow ANSI procedures, ANSI performs audits and investigations to ensure that standards-development organizations follow approved consensus-based procedures for establishing standards. Standards promulgated by such organizations can become part of a system of American National Standards currently listed by ANSI. Overall, according to NFPA, the U.S. standards community maintains over 94,000 active standards, both American National Standards and others. These 94,000 active standards include private sector voluntary standards as well as regulatory and procurement standards. The process of developing consensus-based standards is designed to balance the needs of consumers, federal and nonfederal regulators, and manufacturers. According to ANSI officials, new standards are commonly adopted or existing ones are frequently revised because manufacturers express a need for such actions on the basis of the development of new products. Representatives of other parties—such as regulators or consumers—may raise concerns about product safety and performance. For marketing and consumer safety purposes, product manufacturers may have their products tested at independent testing laboratories to certify that the products meet applicable product standards. This testing and certification process is called “product conformity testing and certification.” Some local, state and federal agencies require such testing and certification. For example, manufacturers of electrical home appliances have their products tested and certified by Underwriters Laboratories to enable them to attest that the products meet safety standards regarding fire, electrical shock, and casualty hazards. Alternatively, where acceptable, manufacturers can certify on their own that their products were tested and met applicable standards. Standards are also voluntarily accepted and widely used by manufacturers and regulatory agencies to provide guidance and specifications to manufacturers, contractors, and procurement officials. Each year millions of products are sold in the United States and throughout the world that bear the mark of testing organizations. Consumers, manufacturers, and federal agencies follow the very widespread, internationally recognized practice of relying on consensus standards and testing at laboratories to promote public safety. In the case of facilities and residences, the most extensive use of the standards is their adoption into model building codes by reference. Model building codes contain standards published by many organizations, including professional engineering societies, building materials trade associations, federal agencies, and testing laboratories. When erecting facilities; renovating offices; and purchasing equipment, materials, and supplies, federal agencies rely on the fire safety standards developed by private standards-development organizations. Furthermore, the federal government has historically encouraged its agencies to use standards developed by these organizations. For example, in its 1983 Circular A-119, OMB encouraged agencies to use these standards. Moreover, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 requires agencies to use standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies, except when it is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Essentially, OMB Circular A-119 and the act direct federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards whenever possible. They also direct federal agencies to consult with and participate, when appropriate, in standards-setting organizations and provide explanations when they do not use voluntary consensus standards in their procurement or regulatory activities. As of June 2001, according to NFPA, about 15 percent of the estimated 94,000 standards effective in the United States had been developed by civilian federal agencies. Furthermore, the Public Buildings Amendments of 1988 require GSA to construct or alter buildings in compliance with the national building codes and other nationally recognized codes to the maximum extent feasible. Federal agencies also engage in a variety of activities related to certifying that products conform to standards. For example, the National Institute of Standards and Technology publishes directories listing more than 200 federal government procurement and regulatory programs in which agencies are actively involved in procuring or requiring others to procure products meeting certification, accreditation, listing, or registration requirements. Furthermore, many federal agencies participate in the development of fire standards and product-testing procedures. For example, GSA participates on technical committees, such as those of NFPA and Underwriters Laboratories. As a result, GSA specifies numerous products and building code regulations that meet standards and testing requirements from standards-development organizations and testing laboratories. In addition, voluntary standards and the testing of products to those standards are widely accepted by other civilian federal agencies, such as the departments of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, Transportation, and the Treasury as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. The federal government has no comprehensive, centralized database regarding the incidence of fires in federal facilities or the causes of such fires. According to NFPA, fires in office facilities, including federal civilian facilities, annually cause about 90 injuries and about $130 million in property damages. Although responsible for maintaining a national fire incident database and for serving as the lead agency in coordinating fire data collection and analysis, the U.S. Fire Administration does not collect data on the number of fires in federal office facilities and the causes of those fires, nor about specific types of products involved in the fires. For its part, GSA collects a minimal amount of information in the facilities for which it is responsible—about 330 million square feet in over 8,300 buildings—to determine the number and causes of fires that have occurred in the facilities. In addition, like the U.S. Fire Administration, NFPA does not gather specific information about whether a fire occurred on private or government property or whether the fire involved specific products. Thus, these databases do not contain sufficiently detailed data to allow the identification of fire incidents in federal facilities or fires associated with specific product defects. Also, the government does not have a mechanism for providing fire incident data to standards- development organizations when they consider the revision of product standards and testing procedures. As a result of a lack of detailed data collection and reporting systems, the government cannot assess the number and causes of fires in federal facilities and therefore cannot determine if any action is needed to ease the threat of fire. Certain private sector firms take steps to identify the nature of the fire threat in their facilities. For example, to help insurance companies, communities, and others evaluate fire risks, the Insurance Services Office, an affiliate of the insurance industry of the United States, maintains detailed records and performs investigations about individual properties and communities around the country, including such factors as the physical features of buildings, detailed engineering analyses of building construction, occupancy hazards, and internal and external fire protection. In addition, the Marriott Corporation, a worldwide hotel chain, maintains data on fires throughout its facilities. According to a Marriott official, Marriott uses this information to assess the risk of fire in its facilities and to take corrective actions. At the same time, the number and causes of fires in federal workspace are not known. The federal government—an employer of over two million civilian employees—does not have a system for centrally and comprehensively reporting fire incidents in its facilities and the causes of those incidents. For example, according to GSA officials, the agency-- which manages over 300 million square feet of office space--collects information on fires that cause over $100,000 in damage. However, when we requested this information, GSA could not provide it and provided examples of only two fires. According to a GSA official, GSA cancelled a requirement for its regional offices to report smaller fires to a central repository. GSA explained that it found the task of reporting smaller fires to be very labor intensive and time consuming. GSA also found that analysis of the reported information could not determine specific fire trends. Databases that are available and maintained by federal agencies—such as databases of the Department of Labor, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and U.S. Fire Administration—do not provide sufficient detail for determining the number and causes of fires in federal facilities, including the products involved in the fires. For example, according to the Department of Labor (Labor), 7 civilian federal employees died (excluding the 21 who died in forest or brush fires), and 1,818 civilian federal employees were injured while at work as a result of fires or explosions between 1992 and 1999. Although Labor gathers information about federal employees’ injuries and fatalities caused by fires, this information does not identify details, such as the cause of the fire. Furthermore, because of a lack of reporting detail, the data do not lend themselves to an analysis of what specific products may have been involved in the fire and whether the product had been certified as meeting appropriate product standards. Within Labor, OSHA’s Office of Federal Agency Programs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs routinely gather information about federal employee injuries and fatalities. OSHA’s Office of Federal Agency Programs, whose mission is to provide guidance to each federal agency on occupational and health issues, also collects annual injury statistics from each federal agency. These statistics are in aggregated form, however, and do not provide detail about the nature or source of the injury. The Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics has been collecting information on federal employee fatalities since 1992 through its Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI). This census contains information regarding work-related fatality data that the federal government and the states have gathered from workers’ compensation reports, death certificates, the news media, and other sources. According to the CFOI, between 1992 and 1999, 7 civilian federal employees were fatally injured due to fire-related incidents while working (excluding the 21 who died in brush or forest fires). Although the fatal injuries census does identify federal employee fatalities due to fires, it does not contain details about the fire, such as the cause of the fire or the types of products or materials that may have been involved in the fire. Also within the Department of Labor, the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs maintains information about federal employees or families of federal employees who have filed claims due to work-related traumas. The office was able to provide from its database information about the claims of federal employees or their families resulting from fire- related incidents. According to the Office of Workers’ Compensation, between 1992 and 1999 1,818 civilian federal employees were injured in federal workspace as a result of fire-related incidents while working. However, this information includes data only for those federal employees who actually filed claims. Similar to CFOI data, this database does not contain additional details about the fire, such as the cause of the fire or the types of products or materials that may have been involved in the fire. The Consumer Product Safety Commission maintains a variety of data on product recalls and incidents related to consumer products. However, none of the four databases that it maintains can identify information about federal facilities or federal employees. The U.S. Fire Administration is chartered as the nation’s lead federal agency for coordinating fire data collection and analysis. However, the national fire incident databases maintained by the U.S. Fire Administration do not gather specific information about whether a fire occurred on private or government property or whether the fire involved specific products. The Fire Administration maintains the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS)—a national database through which local fire departments report annually on the numbers and types of fires that occur within their jurisdictions, including the causes of those fires. Reporting, however, is voluntary; according to the U.S. Fire Administration, this results in about one-half of all fires that occur each year being reported. In addition, the U.S. Fire Administration does not collect data on the number of fires in federal office facilities and the causes of those fires, nor about specific types of products involved in a fire. According to its comments on a draft of our report, the Fire Administration does not have the resources or authority to implement a nationwide study of fires in federal workspace. In addition to the federal databases, NFPA also maintains a national fire incident database. According to NFPA, between 1993 and 1997, an average of 6,100 fires occurred per year in federal and nonfederal office space, resulting in an average of 1 death, 91 injuries, and $131.5 million in property damage per year. NFPA’s estimates are based on information that fire departments report to the Fire Administration’s NFIRS system and on information from NFPA’s annual survey. NFPA annually samples the nation’s fire departments about their fire experiences during the year; using this data, NFPA projects overall information about fires and their causes to the nation as a whole. However, neither the U.S. Fire Administration nor NFPA gathers specific information about whether a fire occurred on private or government property or whether the fire involved specific products. In the past, the federal government has collected data regarding fires occurring on federal property. The Federal Fire Council was originally established by Executive Order within GSA in 1936 to act as an advisory agency to protect federal employees from fire. The council was specifically authorized to collect data concerning fire losses on government property. However, the council moved to the Department of Commerce in 1972 and was abolished in 1982. Along with manufacturers, consumer representatives, fire safety officials, and others, the federal government is one of several important stakeholders involved in the standards-development process. However, as previously discussed, the government does not consistently and comprehensively collect information on fire incidents in federal facilities, and hence it cannot systematically provide these data to standards- development organizations for consideration during revisions of standards. Furthermore, some federal agencies may be slow to respond to information about failures of certain products, including those products intended to suppress fires. In at least one case, a fire sprinkler product that failed in both the work place and the testing laboratory, as early as 1990, continued to be used in federal facilities, and it has only recently been replaced at some facilities. This case is discussed below. Omega sprinklers were installed in hundreds of thousands of nonfederal facilities and in about 100 GSA-managed buildings. In 1990, a fire occurred at a hospital in Miami, FL, resulting in four injuries. During this fire, Omega sprinklers failed to activate. Through 1998, at least 16 additional fires occurred, during which Omega sprinklers failed to work, including a May 16, 1995, fire at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in Canandaigua, NY. During the New York fire, an Omega sprinkler head located directly over the fire failed to activate. Losses resulting from these and other fires were estimated at over $4.3 million (see table 1). Although none of the fires reported in table 1 occurred in Fairfax County, VA, the County fire department became concerned that many of the sprinklers were installed in public and private facilities in the county. Throughout the mid-1990s, by publicizing its concerns about the sprinklers, the County fire department contributed to the widespread dissemination of information about the sprinklers in the media. In addition, tests performed in 1996 at independent testing laboratories— Underwriters Laboratories and Factory Mutual Research Corporation— revealed failure rates of 30 percent to 40 percent. On March 3, 1998, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that it had filed an administrative complaint against the manufacturer, resulting in the October 1998 nationwide recall of more than 8 million Omega sprinklers. The agency began investigating Central Sprinkler Company’s Omega sprinklers in 1996 when an agency fire engineer learned about a fire at a Marriott hotel in Romulus, MI, where an Omega sprinkler failed to activate. After identifying that there was a hazard that warranted recalling the product, the Commission staff sought a voluntary recall from Central. Unable to reach such an agreement with Central, the agency’s staff were authorized to file an administrative complaint against the company. Moreover, the Commission attempted to coordinate with other federal agencies, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and GSA. The Department of Veterans Affairs participated in the recall in accordance with the terms of the Commission’s settlement agreement with the manufacturer. GSA officials stated that they became aware of the problems associated with Omega sprinklers in 1996 after hearing about them from the news media and Fairfax County Fire Department officials. GSA began a survey to identify the 100 GSA-managed buildings that contained the sprinklers. It also pursued an agreement with the manufacturer, resulting in a 1997 negotiated settlement for the replacement of some 27,000 devices in GSA- controlled buildings. Officials from OSHA stated that they were unsure about when they became aware of the problems associated with Omega sprinklers. An agency official explained that OSHA generally does not monitor information regarding problems with specific products, except for Consumer Product Safety Commission recalls. According to OSHA, it checks such recalls only informally and within the limited context of one of its programs, but not as a part of its primary compliance efforts. In addition, according to OSHA officials, when OSHA did find out about the Omega sprinklers problems, it took no action because such problems are outside the agency’s jurisdiction unless the problems involve noncompliance with applicable OSHA requirements. According to an OSHA official, OSHA does issue “Hazard Information Bulletins” that could potentially contain information about failures of specific products. However, these bulletins do not generally duplicate Consumer Product Safety Commission recall information and do not generally concern consumer products. Federal facilities not controlled by GSA—including those of Capitol Hill (the House of Representatives, the Capitol, the Senate, and the Library of Congress) and the Smithsonian Institution—have either recently replaced or are just now replacing the defective Omega sprinklers. According to an official of the Architect of the Capitol, although the facility’s management was aware of the problems with the sprinklers, it continued using them because of cost considerations. At the time our review was completed, the Architect of the Capitol had removed and replaced the Omega sprinklers from all of the House of Representatives buildings and Capitol buildings, most of the Senate buildings, and one of the Library of Congress’ buildings. The Architect of the Capitol was also in the process of replacing them in the remainder of the Senate and Library buildings. In addition, according to the Chief Fire Protection Engineer of the Smithsonian, agreement for a free-of-cost replacement of the Omega sprinklers has been reached, although the process of replacing them had not begun at the time we completed our work. At your request, we also reviewed concerns about the extent to which information technology equipment—such as computer printers, monitors, and processing units—could be a source of fires in offices, homes, and other places, including federal workspace. A private testing laboratory in Sweden recently performed experiments that suggested that some types of information technology equipment could be subject to damage from flames that originate from external sources. In response to these concerns, the Information Technology Industry Council convened a panel of stakeholders—including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Underwriters Laboratories, and others—to study the issue. The panel found that information technology equipment did not pose a widespread fire threat in the United States. According to the representatives of the American Chemistry Council, the threat of information technology equipment fires from external sources is mitigated by the presence of various types of flame retardants in the casings of this equipment. Moreover, representatives of the Information Technology Industry Council stated that the industry has a policy of making its equipment as safe as possible for consumers. They agreed, however, that the issue of the flammability of information technology equipment needed further study. Fires, even relatively small ones, can have tragic and costly consequences. Knowing the numbers and types of fires in workspace, as well as the causes of fires and any products involved, is critical for understanding the extent of the risk of fire and can lead to identification and implementation of steps to reduce this risk. Some private sector organizations—for example, a major hotel chain and some insurance organizations—track the number of fires in different types of facilities and their causes. Such information is used to manage this risk and reduce property damage, injuries, and the loss of life. However, the federal government, which employs over two million people in space that GSA and other agencies manage, collects very limited information on fires and lacks information on the risk of fires in its workspace. Without more complete information on fires, the federal government—a key player in the standards- development process—cannot provide timely information on the causes of fires in federal facilities to standards-development organizations for their use in developing and revising standards, testing procedures, and certification decisions. Collecting and analyzing data on the risk of fire in its workspace could enable the government to better protect its employees and enhance its ability to participate in producing standards that would better protect the public at large from fire. We recommend that the Administrator, U.S. Fire Administration, in conjunction with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, GSA, OSHA, and other federal agencies that the Fire Administration identifies as being relevant, examine whether the systematic collection and analysis of data on fires in federal workspace is warranted. If they determine that data collection and analysis are warranted, data that should be considered for collection and analysis include: the number of fires in federal workspace; property damage, injuries, and deaths resulting from such fires; and the causes of these fires, including any products involved. In addition, the agencies should discuss, among other topics deemed relevant, the availability of resources for implementing any data collection system and any needed authority to facilitate federal agencies’ cooperation in this effort. We provided copies of a draft of this report to the heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Fire Administration and GSA, as well as the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Department of Labor. Because of its role in testing Omega sprinklers, we also provided a copy of the report to Underwriters Laboratories. Although Underwriters Laboratories had no comments on the draft, the other recipients of the draft provided comments via E-mail. These comments, and our responses to them, are discussed below. In commenting on our draft report, the Director of the Fire Administration’s National Fire Data Center agreed in principle with our recommendation by stating that Fire Administration officials would gladly meet with GSA and others to examine whether specialized data collection is warranted. We welcome the Fire Administration's proposal. In addition, the Fire Administration listed several obstacles to the creation of a complete and accurate fire incident reporting system: (1) its lack of resources, (2) its lack of authority to require other federal agencies to report fires, and (3) its lack of on-site management and control over an existing fire incident reporting system, the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). Moreover, the Fire Administration does not specifically collect data on the number and causes of fires in federal office facilities, and no indication exists that the fire problem in federal facilities differs significantly from the overall national fire experience in similar workplace environments. We agree that data on federal fires are not currently collected, and we would cite this lack of information as a significant reason for exploring the need for a system to report the number and causes of fires in federal space. We further agree that a lack of resources, of authority to compel fire incident reporting, and of management over reporting may pose serious obstacles to improved fire incident reporting; therefore, we urge that the Fire Administration address these factors with other agencies when it meets with them to discuss the need for more specialized reporting on fires in federal work space. GSA senior program officials commented on a draft or our report. They requested that we delete a statement in our draft report that GSA could not provide us with complete information on fires that caused over $100,000 damage in federal facilities it manages. GSA said that our statement was not germane. We declined to make this change because the statement is germane to our discussion about a lack of information on fires in the federal workplace. GSA’s inability to provide the information we requested serves to illustrate this very point. In addition, we added information in our report regarding GSA’s explanation that it had cancelled a previous requirement for its regional offices to report smaller fires to a central repository. GSA explained that such reporting was labor intensive and time consuming, and analyses of this information could not yield specific fire trends. We agree with GSA that some reporting requirements may be labor intensive, time consuming, and not helpful. Therefore, in our view, as stated above and as reflected in our recommendation, the Fire Administration should address these factors with GSA and other agencies when it meets with them to discuss the need for more specialized reporting on fires in federal work space. GSA did not comment on the recommendation in the draft of our report. In addition, Department of Labor officials provided technical and clarifying comments, all of which we incorporated into our report. However, they did not comment on the recommendation. The Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics Assistant Commissioner, Office of Safety and Health, provided additional data regarding the number of federal employees who died as a result of fires or explosions from 1992 through 1999, clarifying that most of these fatalities occurred outside of federal buildings. The Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Acting Director for Policy provided additional information, which we incorporated into our report, about the extent of its involvement in the Omega sprinkler case and the rationale for the actions it took. The Consumer Product Safety Commission stated that its comments were editorial in nature, and we revised our report to incorporate these comments. As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the cognizant congressional committees; the Administrator, General Services Administration; the Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission; the Secretary of Labor; and the Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. We will also make copies available to others on request. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 4907. Key contributors to this report were Geraldine Beard, Ernie Hazera, Bonnie Pignatiello Leer, Bert Japikse, and John Rose. Our report (1) provides information on the federal government’s reliance on private voluntary fire standards and testing products against those standards and (2) discusses whether data that are available about fire incidents and their causes in civilian federal facilities are sufficient to protect federal workers from the threat of fire. To examine the government’s reliance on fire safety standards and testing, we reviewed policies and procedures regarding how standards-setting organizations and independent laboratories establish fire safety standards and test products, as well as the roles of federal agencies and other interested parties in these processes. We contacted standards- development organizations, including Factory Mutual Research, Underwriters Laboratories, Southwest Research Institute, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and the American Society for Testing and Materials. We also obtained information regarding how testing and standards-setting laboratories and organizations consider fire incident data and other information about fire hazards when revising fire safety standards and testing procedures. We obtained and analyzed regulatory and statutory criteria regarding the federal role in fire safety standards and testing. We interviewed federal officials from the General Services Administration (GSA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the U.S. Fire Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Department of Labor, as well as officials from standards- development organizations. We also interviewed fire protection officials, including officials from the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Fairfax County, VA, Fire Department to obtain information on setting standards and testing products. To examine whether data are available about incidents and causes of fires in civilian federal facilities, we contacted GSA, the manager of about 40 percent of all civilian, federal office space. However, GSA does not routinely collect information about all fires that occur in federal facilities. Therefore, we obtained and analyzed fire protection incident data from the Fire Administration and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The U.S. Fire Administration maintains the National Fire Incident Reporting System, which is the world’s largest national annual database of fire incident information. State participation is voluntary, with 42 states and the District of Columbia providing reports. The data in the National Fire Incident Reporting System comprise roughly one half of all reported fires that occur annually. NFPA annually surveys a sample (about one- third) of all U.S. fire departments to determine their fire experiences during the year. NFPA uses this annual survey together with the National Fire Incident Reporting System to produce national estimates of the specific characteristics of fires nationwide. Through a review of the databases, we found that there was not sufficient detail to determine which of the fires reported occurred in federal facilities. In addition, the fire departments do not document the name brands of any product that might have been involved in a fire. However, NFPA was able to provide information about fires that have occurred in office space (federal and nonfederal) from 1993 through 1998. Finally, we did not conduct a reliability assessment of NFPA’s database or the National Fire Incident Reporting System. We also attempted to determine the number of civilian federal employees who may have been injured or killed as a result of a fire-related incident while at work. In this regard, we obtained information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) regarding civilian federal employee fatalities from 1992 through 1999. The federal government and the states work together to collect work-related fatality data from workers’ compensation reports, death certificates, news stories, and other sources for CFOI. All 50 states participate in CFOI. The Bureau of Labor Statistics was able to provide information from CFOI describing the number of civilian federal employees fatally injured due to fire-related incidents while at work. We also obtained information from the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs from 1992 through April 2001 regarding civilian federal employees or their families who have filed for workmen’s compensation as a result of an injury or fatality due to a fire-related incident while at work. However, the data represent only those incidents for which a civilian federal employee or the family filed a claim. With the limited data available from the fatal injuries census and Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, we were unable to do an analysis of the number of claims filed due to bombings, such as the April 1995 Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City, OK, and the August 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. In addition, according to CFOI, the fatality data do not include fatalities due to bombings, such as the Oklahoma City bombing and the Dar Es Salaam bombing. When a fatality is reported, CFOI requires that Assaults and Violent Acts, Transportation Accidents, Fires, and Explosions reports take precedence in the reporting process. When two or more of these events occur, whoever inputs the information selects the first event listed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics classified the Oklahoma City bombing deaths as homicides under the Assaults and Violent Acts category. In addition, the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs was able to provide information on the number of injuries to civilian federal employees that its Dallas District Office reported for 1995 as resulting from explosions. According to the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, it is likely that many of these injuries resulted from the Oklahoma City bombing. Furthermore, the databases do not contain any details of fires. We used the fatality data from CFOI, because it is the more comprehensive source of federal employee fatality information. Finally, we did not conduct a reliability assessment of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CFOI database or the database of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. We also obtained information about fire incidents related to consumer products by contacting the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Commission maintains several databases that allow it to conduct trend analyses of incidents involving various types of products, including the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, a Death Certificate File, the Injury or Potential Injury Database, and the In-Depth Investigation File. In addition, the Commission maintains a library (paper files) of information on products that have been recalled. However, none of these sources contained information that would identify information about federal facilities, federal employees, or product brand names, with the exception of those that have been recalled. To examine the quality and limitations of these data, we reviewed relevant documents and interviewed officials from organizations that compile and report the data, including the National Fire Protection Association, Fire Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, and National Institute of Standards and Technology. As requested, we examined details about reporting incidents and concerns involving Omega sprinkler heads and how standards-development organizations, federal agencies, and others responded to reports about the failures of these devices. We contacted officials from, and in some cases obtained documentation from, the Fairfax County (VA) Fire Department. We also contacted various federal regulatory agencies or agencies that used or were indirectly involved in using Omega sprinklers, including GSA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Architect of the Capitol, Smithsonian Institution, and Department of Veterans Affairs. We also contacted officials from various laboratories that had tested Omega sprinklers, including Underwriters Laboratories, Factory Mutual, and the Southwest Research Institute. We also interviewed officials from the Marriott Corporation, which, along with Fairfax County, had publicized the problems associated with the sprinklers. As requested, we also reviewed concerns about the possible flammability of information technology equipment. In this regard, we inquired and obtained information about such factors as the types of flame retardants currently used in the casings of information technology equipment and concerns about the environmental and health impacts of these substances, the standards used to mitigate the flammability of information technology equipment, and the tests used to determine the flammability of this equipment. Our sources of information were the American Chemistry Council; the Great Lakes Chemistry Council; the Information Technology Industry Council; the National Association of State Fire Marshals; SP (a private testing laboratory in Sweden); the National Fire Protection Association; Underwriters Laboratories; and federal agencies, including the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology. We conducted our work from December 2000 through August 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. American Society for Testing and Materials Southwest Research Institute Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

Developing fire protection standards and testing products against them are critical to promoting fire safety. Business offices, including federal facilities, experience thousands of fires, more than $100 million in property losses, and dozens of casualties each year. Knowing the number and types of fires in the workplace, as well as their causes, is critical to understanding and reducing fire risks. Some private-sector groups track the number and causes of fires in different types of buildings. Such information is used to manage risk and reduce property damage, injuries, and deaths. However, the federal government collects little information on the fire risks in its facilities. As a result, the federal government cannot provide standards-development organizations with timely information that could be used to develop or revise fire safety standards, testing procedures, and certification decisions. Collecting and analyzing such data would help the government to better protect its employees and would contribute to the production of better standards to protect the public from fire.

The Florida Channel News Brief is a daily review of state government news . It’s the perfect complement to the weekly Capitol Update program when the Legislature is not in session. Florida Crossroads takes viewers on a journey of our state – exploring issues of state-wide interest in each half hour program. LIVE STREAMS begin streaming 10 minutes prior to their scheduled start times. TV 24/7 events begin streaming at their scheduled start times. Audio is available when events officially convene. Go to our Storm Coverage page for the latest briefings and press availabilities. When searching for a date, please use m/d/yy for the most accurate results. (Examples: 3/4/14 House Session or 3/18/14 Senate Session). TERMS of USE: Programming produced by The Florida Channel CANNOT be used for political, campaign, advocacy or commercial purposes! ANY editing, embedding or distribution without permission is strictly PROHIBITED. Direct linking to complete video files is permissible, except in the case of political campaigns. ||||| Hurricane Central Hurricane Watches Issued Along Northeast Florida Gulf Coast as Tropical Storm Michael Intensifies By weather.com meteorologists October 08 2018 06:45 AM EDT weather.com 00:26 Tropical Storm Pabuk Producing a Lot of Rain in Asia Meteorologist Heather Tesch takes a look at the path of Tropical Storm Pabuk/ The storm has already proved deadly in Thailand. This is a previous version of our forecast for Hurricane Michael. To see the latest updates, click here . The Weather Company’s primary journalistic mission is to report on breaking weather news, the environment and the importance of science to our lives. This story does not necessarily represent the position of our parent company, IBM. ||||| Whipping winds, torrential downpours, power outages and floods — hurricane season in the Atlantic brings a host of dramatic and dangerous weather with it. But when exactly does the Atlantic hurricane season start and how long does it last? And what can people do to prepare in the face of the most dangerous storms on Earth? From hurricane naming conventions to staying safe in a storm, we'll detail all you need to know about this year's hurricane season. (The Atlantic saw its first hurricane of the season on July 6, and it's called Beryl.) Hurricanes so far this season: Hurricanes are tropical cyclones. When a tropical cyclone's sustained winds reach 39 to 73 mph (63 to 118 km/h), it is considered a tropical storm and it gets a name from a list put out by the World Meteorological Organization. Once those sustained winds reach 74 to 95 mph (119 to 153 km/h), that storm becomes a Category 1 hurricane. According to the Saffir-Simpson scale, here are the sustained winds linked to categories 2 through 5 hurricanes: Category 2: 96 to 110 mph (154 to 177 km/h) Category 3: 111 to 129 mph (178 to 208 km/h) Category 4: 130 to 156 mph (209 to 251 km/h) Category 5: 157 mph or higher (252 km/h or higher) Hurricanes are the most violent storms on Earth, according to NASA. At heart, hurricanes are fueled by just two ingredients: heat and water. Hurricanes are seeded over the warm waters above the equator, where the air above the ocean's surface takes in heat and moisture. As the hot air rises, it leaves a lower pressure region below it. This process repeats as air from higher pressure areas moves into the lower pressure area, heats up, and rises, in turn, producing swirls in the air, according to NASA. Once this hot air gets high enough into the atmosphere, it cools off and condenses into clouds. Now, the growing, swirling vortex of air and clouds grows and grows and can become a thunderstorm. So, the first condition needed for hurricanes is warmer waters in the Atlantic Ocean, which cause a number of other conditions favorable to hurricanes. "When the waters are warmer, it tends to mean you have lower pressures. It means a more unstable atmosphere, which is conducive to hurricanes intensifying," said Phil Klotzbach, an atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University. "These thunderstorms, which are the building blocks of hurricanes, are better able to organize and get going." Another key factor: wind shear, or the change in wind direction with height into the atmosphere, Klotzbach said. "When you have a warm tropical Atlantic, you have reduced levels of wind shear," Klotzbach told Live Science. "When you have a lot of wind shear it basically tears apart the hurricane." (Storms that form on different sides of the equator have different spin orientations, thanks to Earth's slight tilt on its axis, according to NASA.) The individual ingredients for hurricanes, however, don't pop up at random; they are guided by larger weather systems. "There are two dominant climate patterns that really control the wind and pressure patterns across the Atlantic," said Gerry Bell, the lead seasonal hurricane forecaster for NOAA's Climate Prediction Center in Washington, D.C. The first is the El Niño/La Niña cycle. During an El Niño, in which ocean water around the northwestern coast of South America becomes warner than usual, Atlantic hurricanes are suppressed, while La Niña creates more favorable conditions for hurricanes, Bell said. The second climate pattern is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is, as the name implies, a trend that lasts anywhere from 25 to 40 years and is associated with warmer waters in the Atlantic and stronger African monsoons, Bell said. "When this pattern is in its warm phase, or a warmer tropical Atlantic Ocean, we tend to see stronger hurricane patterns for decades at a time," Bell told Live Science. A warm-phase AMO conducive to hurricanes prevailed between 1950 and 1970 and since 1995, Bell said. Officially, the Atlantic hurricane season starts on June 1 and runs until Nov. 30. In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, hurricane season begins May 15 and ends Nov. 30, according to the National Weather Service. However, most of these storms hit during peak hurricane season between August and October, on both coasts, according to the National Weather Service's Climate Prediction Center. Hurricane scientists at Colorado State University predicted a slightly above-average Atlantic hurricane season in 2018, they announced on April 5. At the time, he researchers, who are part of CSU's Tropical Meteorology Project team, forecast 14 named storms, and of those about seven will become full-blown hurricanes and three will reach major hurricane strength, meaning a Category 3, 4 or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale (sustained winds of at least 111 mph, or 179 km/h). On July 2, CSU revised their forecast, and now predict a below-average season with 11 named storms, four hurricanes and one major hurricane. Their downgraded forecast was due to cooling waters in parts of the Atlantic Ocean as well as a higher chance of a weak El Niño, which puts the brakes on hurricanes, forming in the next few months. "With the decrease in our forecast, the probability for major hurricanes making landfall along the United States coastline and in the Caribbean has decreased as well," CSU said in a statement. The CSU team will update their hurricane season forecast again on Aug. 2, they said. On May 24, NOAA released its forecast for the 2018 hurricane season, predicting that the season would be be slightly more active than usual, with a 75 percent chance of an above-normal or near-normal season. To make their predictions, scientists analyze a host of factors, from wind speed to sea surface temperatures. Because the El Niño/La Niña cycle typically materializes in summer or early fall, forecasts done too early have limited meaning, Bell said. [A History of Destruction: 8 Great Hurricanes] The Climate Prediction Center classifies hurricane seasons as above-normal (between 12 and 28 tropical storms and between seven and 15 hurricanes); near-normal (Between 10 and 15 tropical storms and between four and nine hurricanes) and below-normal (Between four and nine tropical storms and two to four hurricanes). During this season, according to NOAA, there is a 70 percent chance of 10 to 16 named storms developing, with winds of 39 mph (63 km/h) or higher. Of those named storms, five to nine could achieve hurricane strength, with winds of at least 74 mph (119 km/h) or higher, and one to four storms could develop into major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5, with winds reaching at least 111 mph, or 179 km/h). On July 6, the Atlantic's first hurricane of the season whipped into shape, transforming from a tropical depression to a full-strength Category 1 hurricane in a mere 24 hours. Called Beryl, the hurricane was packing sustained winds of 80 mph (130 km/h) as of 5 p.m. ET on July 6, with higher gusts, according to NOAA. On July 10, a system that had formed south of Bermuda on July 3 reached hurricane status to become the second hurricane of the year. Hurricane Chris strengthened to a Category 2 storm the following day, only to later weaken and fizzle out as it moved north, crossing the Gulf Stream. Last year ended up being an extremely active hurricane season, with 17 named storms. Of those named storms, 10 became hurricanes, with six of those reaching major hurricane status. The season saw the first two major hurricanes — Harvey in Texas and Irma in the southeastern U.S. — to hit the continental U.S. in 12 years, according to the Climate Prediction Center. Another notably devastating hurricane of 2017, Maria tore through Puerto Rico, leaving most of the island without power and clean water. [Hurricane Maria's Aftermath: Photos Reveal Devastation on Caribbean Islands] Hurricane Harvey, which at its peak had maximums sustained wind speeds of 110 mph (175 km/h), making it just shy of a category 4 hurricane when it made landfall in Port Aransas, Texas, according to the National Hurricane Center. Harvey was downgraded to a category 1 storm by the time it hit Houston, but it caused record rainfall, killed at least 60 people, flooded huge swaths of Houston, and caused bilions of dollars in damage, Live Science reported. [In Photos: Hurricane Harvey Takes Aim at Texas] Barely a week after Harvey's onslaught, Hurricane Irma, another major hurricane , battered several Caribbean islands, completely destroying the island of Barbuda, grazed Puerto Rico, and barreled directly into Florida, causing massive flooding, storm surges and during the worst part of the storm for Florida, 15 million people, or about three-fourths of Florida's population, lacked power, according to the Department of Homeland Security. At its peak, Hurricane Irma had maximum sustained wind speeds of 180 mph (290 km/h) and spanned hundreds of miles across, making it one of the strongest and biggest storms ever recorded in the Atlantic Ocean, according to the National Hurricane Center. Hurricane Irma killed at least 69 people across the state of Florida and has also caused billions of dollars in damage. According to HurricaneCity, a hurricane-tracking website, here are the top 10 cities most frequently hit or affected by hurricanes since record-keeping began in 1871: Cape Hatteras, North Carolina: Every 1.36 years (affected by 108 hurricanes since 1871) Morehead City, North Carolina: Every 1.54 years Grand Bahamas Island, Bahamas: Every 1.62 years Cayman Islands (most affected area in the Caribbean): Every 1.72 years Wilmington, North Carolina: Every 1.72 years Great Abaco Island, Bahamas: Every 1.8 years Andros Island, Bahamas: Every 1.83 years (affected 80 times since 1871) Bermuda: Every 1.85 years (hit by hurricanes 36 times since 1871 and affected 79 times) Savannah, Georgia: Every 1.92 years Miami, Florida: Every 1.97 years (affected 74 times) Once a storm has wind speeds of 38 mph (58 km/h), it is officially a tropical storm. At 74 mph (119 km/h), the storm has reached hurricane levels. At that point, scientists use a 1 to 5 scale known as the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale to classify hurricane strength, with category 1 being the least severe hurricanes and category 5 being the strongest. Some scientists have also proposed adding a category 6 to account for storms that are well beyond the highest sustained wind speed for a category 5 hurricane. Category Sustained wind speed (mph) Potential damage 1 74-95 Minimal, with some roof leakage, gutter damage, snapped tree branches and toppled trees with shallow roots 2 96-110 Moderate, with major roof and siding damage; uprooted trees could block roads; power loss possible for days to weeks 3 111-129 Devastating damage, with gable and decking damage, many more uprooted trees and extended power outages 4 130-156 Catastrophic damage; roofs and exterior walls will be destroyed; trees will snap; power outages for weeks to months. Large area uninhabitable for weeks or months 5 157 or higher High fraction of framed houses will be destroyed; power outages for weeks to months; and huge swaths uninhabitable for same period Source: NOAA's National Hurricane Center Some scientists have argued against using just wind speed as a metric to determine a storm's severity and potential damage, arguing that other metrics such as storm surge height or rainfall could provide better insight into a storm's ferocity. However, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) has argued that metrics like storm surges can be hard to predict because local differences in the shape of the terrain of the ocean floor leading up to the coastline can determine the height of storm surges. Hurricanes, tropical storms and typhoons refer to the same type of storm, but the nomenclature reveals where they form. Tropical cyclone refers to any storm that formed 300 miles (482 km) south of the equator, whereas hurricanes are storms formed in the Northeast Pacificand Atlantic, typhoons are tropical storms that form in the Northwest Pacific and cyclone is the term used for storms in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean, according to NOAA's ocean service. Hurricanes initially were named in honor of the feast day for a Catholic saint. For instance, Hurricane San Felipe occurred on Sept. 13, 1876, or the feast day of Saint Phillip, according to the National Hurricane Center. Hurricanes that struck on the same day would be distinguished by a suffix placed on the later one, Live Science previously reported. For example, a storm that struck on Sept. 13, 1928, was dubbed Hurricane San Felipe II, to distinguish it from the 1876 storm. However, by the 1950s, the naming convention changed and in the U.S., hurricanes were given female names based on the international alphabet, according to the NHC. The practice of calling storms by female names only was abandoned in 1978. Despite the seemingly open-ended possibilities, meteorologists do not have free reign in deciding names. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has a long list of alphabetical storm names that repeats on a six-year cycle. The organization aims for clear and simple names. Names are in English, Spanish, Dutch and French, to account for the many languages spoken by people potentially affected by hurricanes. "Experience shows that the use of short, distinctive given names in written as well as spoken communications is quicker and less subject to error than the older, more cumbersome, latitude-longitude identification methods. These advantages are especially important in exchanging detailed storm information between hundreds of widely scattered stations, coastal bases and ships at sea," the organization says on its website. If a storm was so devastating that using the name again would be insensitive, the group meets and agrees to strike the name from the list. For instance, people don't have to worry about facing the wrath of a Hurricane Katrina, Ike, Hattie or Opal again, because those names have been retired, according to the NHC. For the 2018 hurricane season, the following hurricane names could come into play in the North Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, according to the WMO: Alberto Beryl Chris Debby Ernesto Florence Gordon Helene Isaac Joyce Kirk Leslie Michael Nadine Oscar Patty Rafael Sara Tony Valerie William Staying safe during the hurricane season starts with a simple step: Have a plan. People can plan for hurricanes using a simple guide at Ready.gov. Plans need to be worked out for all family members. And for those animal lovers out there, Fido and Mr. Whiskers also need an escape plan. This plan includes figuring out how to determe whether it's safe to hunker down at home during a storm or whether you are in an evacuation zone. If so, there is likely a specific route you should take in the event of an evacuation, as many roads may be closed, Live Science previously reported. If you are in an evacuation zone, you also need to figure out accommodations during the storm — this could be anything from staying with family and friends to renting a motel to staying in a shelter. Family members often have trouble reaching each other during hurricanes, so determining a preset meeting place and protocol can be helpful. Sometimes, local cellphone lines are overloaded during a storm, so consider texting. Another alternative is to have a central out-of-state contact who can relay messages between separated family members. During a storm, pets should be leashed or placed in a carrier, and their emergency supplies should include a list of their vaccinations as well as a photo in case they get lost, according to the Humane Society for the United States. Also important is finding someone who can care for them, in the event that a hotel or shelter does not accept pets. During an emergency, they should also be wearing a collar with the information of an out-of-state contact in case they get separated from you, according to the HSUS. Anyone who lives in a hurricane-prone area would do well to protect their property in advance of a flood. Because hurricanes often cause their damage when trees fall on property, homeowners can reduce the risk of damage by trimming trees or removing damaged trees and limbs, according to Ready.gov. Another easy step is to make sure rain gutters are fixed in place and free of debris. Reinforcing the roof, doors and windows, including a garage door, is also important, according to Ready.gov. Power generators can also be an important tool if the power is cut off for long periods of time. A power generator needs to be kept outside, as they produce dangerous levels of carbon monoxide. People who are very serious about prevention may even consider building a "safe room" — a fortified room designed to withstand the punishing winds of a tornado or hurricane, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency pamphlet "Taking Shelter from the Storm: Building a Safe Room for Your Home or Small Business," (FEMA, 2014). People living in hurricane country also need to have a stash of emergency supplies, ideally placed in multiple locations throughout a dwelling. According to Ready.gov, a basic disaster kit should include: A gallon of water per person per day for at least three days A three-day supply of non-perishable food A battery-powered or hand-crank radio A flashlight with extra batteries A first aid kit A whistle to get help Dust mask Moist towelettes, garbage cans and plastic ties for sanitation A wrench or pliers for turning off busted pipes Maps A can opener for food And cellphone chargers Originally published on Live Science. ||||| (CNN) Michael, now a Category 1 hurricane slashing Cuba, is forecast to be a "dangerous major hurricane" when it smacks the US Gulf Coast on Wednesday, the National Hurricane Center said. The forecast indicates Michael may be a Category 3 hurricane -- with winds from 111 to 129 mph -- when it strikes. "Life-threatening storm surge is possible along portions of the Florida Gulf Coast regardless of the storm's exact track or intensity," the center said. "Well-built framed homes may incur major damage or removal of roof decking and gable ends. Many trees will be snapped or uprooted, blocking numerous roads. Electricity and water will be unavailable for several days to weeks after the storm passes." Floridians scurried to prepare after Gov. Rick Scott expanded a state of emergency declaration to include 35 counties and activated 1,250 National Guardsmen for hurricane duty. #Michael could produce three life-threatening hazards along portions of the northeastern Gulf Coast: storm surge, heavy rainfall, and hurricane-force winds, with storm surge and hurricane watches in effect. Residents in these areas should follow advice given by local officials. pic.twitter.com/JZENNHSQTK "Heavy rainfall from Michael could produce life-threatening flash flooding from the Florida Panhandle and Big Bend region into portions of the Carolinas through Thursday," the hurricane center said. Michael has undergone a period of "rapid intensification" -- defined as an increase of sustained winds of 35 mph in a 24-hour period. The storm went from 40 mph on Sunday to 75 mph on Monday and is expected to undergo rapid intensification again in the next 24 hours. The Category 1 hurricane now has maximum sustained winds of 90 mph. A Category 2 hurricane has sustained winds of 96 to 110 mph . Storms with winds of at least 111 mph are designated as "major" hurricanes. Late Monday, Michael's center was about 485 miles south of Panama City, Florida and 450 miles south of Apalachicola, with the storm moving northward at 12 miles per hour. Hurricane-force winds extended outward up to 35 miles from the center and tropical-storm-force winds extended outward up to 175 miles, the National Hurricane Center said. The storm is aiming at a region that stretches from Mobile, Alabama, through the Florida Panhandle and into the Big Bend area of northern Florida. A hurricane warning from the National Weather Service was declared for the Alabama-Florida border to the Suwannee River in Florida. A warning means that hurricane conditions are expected somewhere within the designated area, and warnings are typically issued 36 hours before tropical-storm-force winds are expected, the weather service said. Storm and storm surge watches were issued for the Gulf Coast from the Mississippi-Alabama border to Chassahowitzka, Florida, north of Tampa Bay. As forecast, Michael would be the first Category 3 or higher hurricane to hit the Panhandle since Hurricane Dennis in 2005. Monday, it became the seventh hurricane of 2018 in the Atlantic Basin. On average, the Atlantic would have about five hurricanes by October 8. 'Everybody's got to get ready' Scott warned that Michael could reach land as a Category 2 hurricane, with winds in excess of 100 mph. "This storm has the potential to bring devastating impacts to communities across the Panhandle and Big Bend and every family must be prepared." "Everybody's got to get ready. Don't take a chance," he said. "We're going to get storm surge, we have wind, we have a chance of flooding, we have a significant chance of tornadoes." The governor declared a state of emergency for Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Holmes, Washington, Bay, Jackson, Calhoun, Gulf, Gadsden, Liberty, Franklin, Leon, Wakulla, Jefferson, Madison, Taylor, Hamilton, Suwannee, Lafayette, Dixie, Columbia, Gilchrist, Levy and Citrus counties. Voluntary, and in some cases, mandatory, evacuations were issued in some areas along the Florida Panhandle coast. Florida State University campuses in Tallahassee and Panama City plan to close Tuesday through Friday. In Alabama, Gov. Kay Ivey issued a statewide state of emergency in anticipation of damage from Hurricane Michael. The governor's declaration activates the state's emergency operations plan, according to Ivey's office. Michael will dump heavy rain on Cuba before heading toward the US. Hurricane conditions expected in western Cuba In the Caribbean, a hurricane warning is in effect for the Cuban province of Pinar del Rio -- where most of Cuba's famed cigar tobacco is grown -- and a tropical storm warning has been issued for the Isle of Youth. A warning for the coast of Mexico from Tulum to Cabo Catoche, was canceled late Monday. "Hurricane conditions will continue over portions of the far western Cuban province of Pinar del Rio through this evening. Tropical storm conditions are expected across the remainder of the warning areas in Cuba and the Yucatan Peninsula through tonight," the center said. "Michael is expected to produce heavy rainfall and flash flooding over portions of western Cuba and the northeastern Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico during the next couple of days," it said. According to an alert published by the Cuban Civil Defense, meteorologists warned affected residents that they could experience hurricane-force winds. Officials also alerted residents living on the coast of the possibility of flooding caused by the storm.

The Atlantic hurricane season officially runs through Nov. 30, and it looks like Florida may be about to get socked with at least one more. CNN reports Gov. Rick Scott has declared a state of emergency in 26 counties in preparation for Tropical Storm Michael as it heads away from Cuba and toward the northeastern Gulf Coast, expected to make landfall anywhere between Tuesday night and early Thursday, depending on which way the storm travels and how quickly. But the weather system may not remain a tropical storm much longer: "Michael expected to become a hurricane very soon," read a National Hurricane Center advisory early Monday. In a Sunday presser, Scott, who has activated 500 National Guard troops, warned that Michael—which the Weather Channel noted "rapidly intensified" from Sunday into Monday morning—could come ashore as a Category 2 hurricane, with winds gusting at more than 100mph. "This storm has the potential to bring devastating impacts to communities across the Panhandle and Big Bend and every family must be prepared," he noted. "We're going to get storm surge, we have wind, we have a chance of flooding, we have a significant chance of tornadoes."

At least 14 people killed in trolleybus explosion, the day after 17 died in another suicide attack at city's railway station At least 14 people have been killed in a suicide bombing on a trolleybus crowded with morning commuters in Volgograd, less than 24 hours after another deadly suicide attack at the city's main train station. The authorities initially said 15 people were dead, but a statement from local authorities subsequently put the toll at 14. Dozens were reported injured, including a one-year-old child who was in a critical condition. The blast ripped apart the trolleybus, leaving a disfigured carcass without the roof and walls. It is the third bombing attack in Volgograd in three months, with most security experts linking the wave of attacks to the pledge by the Chechen jihadist leader Doku Umarov to disrupt the Olympic Games in Sochi, which start in six weeks' time. The explosion occurred as the trolleybus approached a stop near a market and the hospital, where many casualties from the train station attack were taken on Sunday. Russian investigators said the explosion was caused by a male suicide bomber. Local news sites reported that people in Volgograd, a city of more than 1 million inhabitants, were avoiding public transport and walking to work on foot. "For the second day, we are dying – it's a nightmare," a woman near the scene told the Reuters news agency, her voice trembling as she choked back tears. "What are we supposed to do – just walk now?" The attacks sent waves of horror across Russia. Popular writer Sergey Minayev said on Twitter the atmosphere reminded him of 1999, when a series of bombing attacks on apartment blocs shook Moscow. "It's like someone has declared a war on us," he wrote. The death toll from Sunday's attack rose to 17 overnight, with more than 40 injured, some of them still in grave condition. The bomb went off near security gates at the entrance to Volgograd's main train station. The authorities said it was detonated by a suicide bomber but there were conflicting reports about whether the perpetrator was a man or woman. The two attacks will raise fears of a concerted campaign of violence before the Olympics, which start on 7 February in Sochi, about 430 miles south-west of Volgograd. In a video posted on the web in July, Umarov, the leader of insurgents who want to carve an Islamic state out of the north Caucasus, a string of Muslim provinces south of Volgograd, urged militants to use "maximum force" to prevent the games from being held. Two months ago, another bomb killed 10 people on a bus in Volgograd, which is a few hundred miles from the restive north Caucasus region. Volgograd, formerly known as Stalingrad, is also of great symbolic importance for Russians as the site of the bloodiest battle of the second world war – something that north Caucausian jihadist websites were quick to emphasise after the train station blast. Security expert Andrey Soldatov told the Guardian on Sunday the Volgograd tragedy showed that militants from the north Caucasus had sufficient capability and manpower to stage deadly attacks beyond their region. It also means that Russian security bodies will be forced to divert their attention to other regions at a crucial time on the eve of the Olympic Games. ||||| At least 16 people have been killed in a trolley bus blast in Volgograd, emergency services report, only a day after a suicide bomb ripped through the city's railway station, killing 18. Security has been ramped up across the nation. Read our full story of the second Volgograd suicide bombing Monday, January 6 19:54 GMT: A special police squad set to be on duty 24/7 has been created in Volgograd, just over a week after the city was hit by two bombings that left 34 people dead. 70 policemen are set to take part, checking all the transport that enters the city, examining vehicles for drugs and weapons, the official representative of the region’s Interior Ministry Svetlana Smolyaninova told Interfax. 16:35 GMT: A special plane from Russia’s Federal Medicobiological agency has arrived in Saint-Petersburg, bringing a victim of the Volgograd bombings for treatment, the agency’s representative told RIA-Novosti. There are currently 38 people in Volgograd’s hospitals, and 22 people have been sent to Moscow to be hospitalized in the capital. Thursday, January 2 12:58 GMT: The transportation to Moscow of one more person injured in the Volgograd blasts, which was scheduled for today, was delayed until Friday, Jan. 3, reports FMBA press service. It could be connected to the deterioration of the patient’s medical condition, they added. A total of 18 victims of Volgograd attacks are now being treated in Moscow hospitals. On Monday and Tuesday 16 people were flown to Moscow. Two girls were also taken to the capital on Wednesday. 12:34 GMT: According to the investigation's preliminary results, the suicide bombers arrived in Volgograd from one of the republics in Russia’s North Caucasus, a law enforcement source told Interfax news agency. Also, evidence showed that the blast in the Volgograd trolleybus on Monday was carried out by a male suicide bomber, the source added. "A preliminary analysis based on evidence shows that the suicide bombers who blew themselves up at the Volgograd railway station and in Trolleybus No. 15 have not been trained in the Volgograd region. Presumably, they have arrived in Volgograd with a specific task to destabilize the city by suicide bombings, taking a heavy toll in deaths and injuries," he said. 12:03 GMT: Six families of people who died in the Volgograd bombings have each received payments of 2 million rubles ($60,000) from the authorities, while 28 families of people injured in the blasts each received compensation of 200,000 rubles ($6,000). Other families of the victims will receive money as soon as possible, Volgograd Governor Sergey Bozhenov says. 11:10 GMT: Volgograd policeman Dmitry Makovkin, who sacrificed his life shielding people from a suicide bomber's deadly blast at the city's train station on Sunday, has been buried in the city’s central cemetery. He was posthumously awarded the Order of Courage. 10:50 GMT: Five people injured in the Volgograd blasts remain in critical condition, the Russian Ministry of Health says. A total of 64 people are still receiving medical treatment. 10:20 GMT: The investigation into the suicide bombings in Volgograd has already produced its first results, Russia's National Anti-Terrorism Committee announced. Wednesday, January 1 13:26 GMT: Six people injured in the Volgograd blasts remain in critical condition, Interfax reports a medical source as saying. According to the source, 64 people are still receiving medical treatment. 12:11 GMT:The Federal Medical and Biological Agency (FMBA) plane with two girls who remain in critical condition after the Volgograd blasts has just landed in Moscow, the Russian Ministry of Health says in a statement. 08:03 GMT: Fifteen more people who now remain in either serious or critical conditions may be flown to Moscow on Wednesday and Thursday, said the head of the FMBA, Vladimir Uiba. He said the people will be transported in small groups of two or three. On Monday and Tuesday 15 people injured in the Volgograd blasts were flown to Moscow hospitals. Two girls were also taken to the capital on Wednesday. 07:28 GMT: Two girls who remain in critical condition after the Volgograd blasts have been transported for further treatment to Moscow by plane from the Federal Medical and Biological Agency (FMBA). One of the girls, a three-month-old infant is still in critical condition. The 9-year-old was taken off artificial lung ventilation on Tuesday but her condition also remains critical. Two specially-equipped ambulances took the girls to a plane which was also specially equipped. 06:32 GMT: The counter-terrorism operation in Volgograd, codenamed “Vortex-Anti-Terror” continues into a third day. The operation began on December 30 after the blast in a trolleybus, which followed the bombing of the city’s railway station the day before. Over 3,000 police officers guarded the city streets on New Year’s Eve, local police reported. A total of 4,579 facilities, including 2,700 from the private sector, 112 parking lots and 27 bus stations were checked. 04:46 GMT: President Putin visited one of the hospitals in Volgograd where the injured from twin bomb blasts are being treated. He spoke with the doctors and with some of the injured, wishing them a speedy recovery. Prior to hospital’s visit, Putin laid flowers at the site of Monday’s explosion. A total of 34 people have been killed in the violence that has shaken the southern Russian city. 03:55 GMT: There was no excuse for terrorist attacks committed in Volgograd, the Russian president said early Wednesday. "The hideousness of crimes committed here in Volgograd, needs no additional comments. There is no justification for whatever motivated the criminals’ actions for crimes against civilians, especially women and children," said President Vladimir Putin, opening a meeting on combating terrorism in Volgograd, where he arrived on Wednesday morning. At the same time, Putin pointed out that Russian Special Forces were doing everything to “ensure the safety of civilians, primarily of women and children." Putin discussed measures for battling terrorism with the head of the FSB Alexander Bortnikov and Russian Minister of Internal Affairs, Vladimir Kolokoltsev. Tuesday, December 31 13:45 GMT: Putin declared that Russia would "fiercely and consistently continue the fight against terrorists until their complete annihilation", speaking at a New Year’s reception in the Russian Far East city of Khabarovsk that suffered massive flooding this summer. “This year, we had to face problems, including inhuman terrorist attacks in Volgograd and unprecedented natural disasters in Russia’s Far East,” Putin said. According to the latest data, 34 people were killed in the terrorist attacks in Volgograd, while 72 others were wounded, with 62 of them currently in hospitals, Russia’s Health Ministry reported, as cited by Interfax news agency. 13:05 GMT: Over 150 units of firearms, as well as almost 5 kilograms of drugs, have been seized in Volgograd in a special operation, Interfax reported citing the region’s security forces as saying. Following the terrorist attacks in Volgograd, people have been actively helping the security forces, calling them and reporting on any suspicious objects in the city. 12:37 GMT: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the terrorist acts in Volgograd and expressed his condolences in a telephone conversation with President Vladimir Putin. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that the conversation took place at the request of the Israelis, Itar-Tass reported. 12:10 GMT: The father of the three-month-old girl wounded in the Volgograd trolleybus blast has been found in Volgograd. He has already identified the bodies of the girl’s mother and grandmother, who died in the explosion. The girl’s condition is critical and is causing concern. As soon as it’s stabilized, the baby will be sent to Moscow for treatment. 10:48 GMT: As of Tuesday, over 550 people have donated blood for the wounded in the Volgograd terrorist attacks. Total blood donated was 200 liters, with 400 people participating. The institutions that accept blood donations are set to keep working until all would-be donors have given blood, RIA Novosti news agency reported authorities as saying. My most sincere condolences to the families of those killed in the Volgograd bombings. We mourn with you. http://t.co/mH6US0ZApm — Dmitry Medvedev (@MedvedevRussiaE) December 31, 2013 09:27 GMT: The condition of two girls in intensive care after being wounded in the Volgograd blasts remains critical. Doctors are considering whether the girls will be transferred to Moscow for further treatment. On Tuesday, one of the girls, a 9-year-old, was taken off artificial lung ventilation and is able to breathe herself. Treatment for the second girl, a three-month-old infant, is to be assessed by specialist pediatricians from Moscow who are flying to Volgograd. Five women and two men have already been flown to Moscow for treatment on Tuesday following the two terrorist attacks that struck the southern Russian city. 07:55 GMT: The death toll in the Volgograd trolleybus explosion, the second terrorist attack in two days, has risen to 16 people, Russia’s Health Ministry said. A total of 34 people have been killed in the violence that's shaken the southern Russian city. 07:50 GMT: Volgograd policeman Dmitry Makovkin, who sacrificed his life shielding people from a suicide bomber's deadly blast at the city's train station on Sunday, has been posthumously awarded the Order of Courage. He will be buried January 2. Makovkin died trying to prevent the suicide bomber from entering the railway station. His actions significantly reduced the number of casualties in the attack, investigators say. 07:47 GMT: Additional police troops are now patrolling the streets of Volgograd, with over 5,200 police and Interior Ministry troops engaged, says the representative of the Operational Headquarters in the Volgograd Region, Andrey Philipchuk. “Over 4,795 objects, including 1,606 places from the private sector, have been checked since this morning. Also 500 crowded places, such as railway stations and shopping malls, have been inspected,” he says. The identities of 174 people have been checked in accordance with migration laws, he says. 03:20 GMT: The number of casualties in the two blasts has risen to 33, with another victim from the Sunday railway station blast dying in the hospital, the Ministry of Emergencies said in a statement. Monday, December 30 23:36 GMT: All of the victims of the terrorist blasts have been identified, Emergency Response Unit chief Olga Makarova told reporters. She added that special units of psychologists are working on the scene to assist the relatives of the victims or offer help via a specially set up hotline. 22:00 GMT: The first funeral services for those killed in the Sunday train station bombing will be held on Tuesday for two of the victims, local authorities announced on their website. 21:11 GMT: Over 100 million rubles (US$3 million) is ready to be transferred to families and victims of the two Volgograd explosions, according to the regional government website. Seventeen families have already received 200,000 rubles for the Sunday explosion at the station. 20:50 GMT: UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon expressed his condolences for the Volgograd tragedies in a phone conversation with President Putin. Ban also emphasized the need to for international cooperation in fighting terrorism. Putin concurred, noting that the international community must collaborate to prevent terrorist atrocities from taking place. The Russian leader assured the UN chief that Moscow would work within the framework of international law to pursue those responsible for the bombings. 20:33 GMT: In the city of Saratov, 147 people have donated blood for the victims of Monday’s bombings, local medical officials report. “Today the Regional Blood Transfusion Station received 172 people, 147 of which were admitted for a blood donation from which we harvested more than 70 liters of blood,” local health minister Alexey Danilov said, as quoted by RIA Novosti. The shipment of blood will now be sent to Volgograd. 20:12 GMT: The United Nations Security Council has condemned the terrorist attacks in Volgograd, saying that it is “outraged” by the second suicide bombing in the city within a 24-hour period. “These abhorrent and abominable attacks deliberately targeted places of mass gathering, in particular public transportation,” said the Council. “The members of the Security Council underlined the need to bring perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism to justice, and urged all States, in accordance with their obligations under international law and relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate actively with all relevant authorities in this regard.” 19:46 GMT: People in Ukraine are paying respects to the victims of the Volgograd bombings, bringing flowers and candles to Kiev’s central Independence Square, Maidan. В Киеве на Майдане поминают погибших в Волгограде: http://t.co/B68JKjMnerpic.twitter.com/HMDQ5PqzzH — Новая Газета (@novaya_gazeta) December 30, 2013 19:45 GMT: Three of the 14 people killed in the trolleybus bombing remain unidentified, the regional government press office reported. Two of the unidentified bodies are women. 19:42 GMT: The Emergencies Ministry plane has left Volgograd, carrying another seven critically injured victims on board. Earlier on Monday, another plane transported seven wounded people to Moscow hospitals for treatment. 19:34 GMT: The US government has voiced concerns that more attacks might target the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi in February. Washington has offered closer cooperation with Russia on providing security. "We're taking lots of security precautions" related to the Winter Games, a US State Department official said. 19:02 GMT: Aleksy Valento, 12, (L), and his cousin Aleksandr Dolgikh, 11, (R), were inside Volgograd’s railway station. The boys were buying tickets for Aleksey’s father, Vladislav Valento, when a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device. Both Aleksey and Aleksandr died at the scene. Vladislav was hospitalized after losing a leg. Леша Валента, 12 лет и Саша Долгих, 11 лет. Двоюродные братья. Погибли на вокзале, покупали билет с папой Алеши pic.twitter.com/aFrqzhaKce — Ekaterina Simohina (@SimKati) December 30, 2013 18:30 GMT: As the International Olympic Committee (IOC) expresses confidence that Russia will keep the Games “safe and secure,” RT’s Thabang Motsei reports from the Olympic city of Sochi on what is being done to make sure that the Volgograd scenario will not be repeated there. 18:11 GMT: I'm shocked and saddened by the Volgograd attacks. I've written to President Putin to say the UK will help Russia in whatever way we can. — David Cameron (@David_Cameron) December 30, 2013 17:34 GMT: At least 27 people injured in the Volgograd bus bombing remain in hospital, including an eight-month-old infant. Two people are still in critical condition, the Health Ministry said in its recent statement. 16:50 GMT: A counter-terror operation has been launched in Volgograd, with over 4,000 police and interior troops engaged, according to the national anti-terror committee. More than 260 search groups and 142 investigative squads are operating in the city, paying special attention to railway stations, shopping malls, and other crowded places. Over 1,500 such places have been checked since morning. Eighty-seven people were taken to police stations for refusing to show IDs, bearing arms, resisting the police, and other offenses. 15:53 GMT: The Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Tatarstan has allocated a million rubles ($30,471) to the families of those killed or injured in the suicide bombings in Volgograd. “We, the Muslims, should not stay indifferent to other people's grief. Our religion teaches us to help people in trouble. That is why we have decided to transfer a million rubles to the families of people who were killed or injured in the terrorist acts in Volgograd," Mufti Kamil Samigullin said, as cited by the Itar-Tass news agency. 15:46 GMT: All of those detained during the police dispersal operation in central Volgograd have been released without being charged, Gazeta.ru portal reported. A total of 50 people were detained. Earlier today, Gazeta.ru reported that about 200 people had gathered for a “Russian rally against terror” event, organized on social networks. The rally was not authorized, according to the portal’s correspondent. 15:30 GMT: Volgograd railway station has been partly opened for passengers. However, the box-office area and waiting rooms will remain closed till Tuesday. The area of the main entrance where the suicide attack took place has been closed for major reconstruction, Itar-Tass reported. 15:19 GMT: The International Olympic Committee (IOC) remains confident that despite recent suicide attacks, Russia will deliver a ''safe and secure'' games in Sochi in February 7-23. IOC President Thomas Bach has offered his condolences in a letter to President Vladimir Putin, AP reports. Bach said he is ''certain that everything will be done to ensure the security of the athletes and all the participants of the Olympic Games.'' 15:05 GMT: Muscovites are bringing flowers to the representative office of the Volgograd region in the capital. Russians bring flowers & light candles at representative office of Volgograd in Moscow http://t.co/P0ABGxZHGQpic.twitter.com/UADKZj0QiQ — RT (@RT_com) December 30, 2013 15:04 GMT: As the terror threat level in the region has been set at “yellow,” the second highest, for the next 15 days, Volgograd authorities have called on all residents not to use fireworks during the New Year celebrations as a precautionary measure. 15:01 GMT: The responsibility for security in the region lies “personally” on the heads of each and every citizen of the Russian Federation, Russia’s National Antiterrorist Committee said after an emergency meeting in Volgograd. 14:55 GMT: The Emergencies Ministry plane has arrived in Volgograd for possible transportation of seriously wounded blast victims. Seven patients were transported to Moscow earlier today. 14:42 GMT: At least five people remain in critical condition in hospitals. Some of the injured are expected to be transported to Moscow hospitals “in due course”, First Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets said. For now, relatives of the hospitalized are in constant attendance at the bedsides of those who sustained severe injuries. This video was shot in one of Volgograd’s hospitals. 14:24 GMT: The Russia Foreign Ministry likened the Volgograd bombing to “terrorist attacks” in the US, Syria or elsewhere, organized by groups with the “same motivator”, and vowed not to retreat. The Ministry has expressed “deep appreciation” to all world leaders, who condemned the attacks. Such reaction by heads of states Russia considers as a confirmation of the commitment of the world community to increase the fight against terrorists. 14:21 GMT:“Cynically planned on the eve of New Year celebrations, this strike is another attempt by terrorists to open an internal front, spread panic and chaos, cause inter-religious hatred and conflict in Russian society,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement published on its website. 14:17 GMT: A video showing Sunday’s blast inside the Volgograd railway station has been published online by LifeNews TV channel. The 16-second CCTV footage shows an unrecognizable man in dark outfit approaching and then trying to go through the metal detector. The next moment a bomb went off. A total of 17 people were killed in the blast, at least 44 were injured. 13:43 GMT: The Spiritual Administration of Muslims in Moscow has launched a fundraiser to collect money for the families of the bombing victims. “Moscow Mufti Ildar Alyautdinov has personally donated 50,000 rub ($1,520),” the Administration press-service told RIA Novosti. Volunteers from Moscow’s Spiritual Administration of Muslims are planning to go to Volgograd “to provide help and moral support”, the Administration said. In Moscow there will be organized visits to hospitals and blood donor stations if needed. 13:22 GMT: Moscow volunteers have expressed their readiness to abandon festive meals during the holidays to be able to donate blood for those injured in the Volgograd blasts, the Mosvolonter movement said on its website. “On behalf of all volunteers in our city we offer our condolences to the families of victims of the two blasts in Volgograd,” the statement reads. The movement has called on everyone to join them at a blood donor station on January 4-5. 13:05 GMT: The Emergencies Ministry has sent a plane equipped with five medical transportation units. Each of them has four beds and relevant medical equipment needed to fly a patient. The aircraft is also carrying two special ambulances and medical personnel, which will assist with the relief effort in Volgograd. Earlier on Sunday, a similar plane flew seven survivors of the railway station bombing to Moscow. 13:02 GMT: Sergey Avdienko, retired police colonel, former Interpol officer, speaking to RT, said the attacks are "exactly a part of the same chain, including the past explosion in October, the people behind it are the same. It’s quite clear who is behind these attacks – it’s people from a place fairly close to Volgograd; I’m speaking about the Caucasus, where radical Islamic groups thrive. The entire point of doing this, especially on the cusp of the New Year, is to intimidate the population and to destabilize the situation in the country as well, particularly in view of the coming Olympic Games that are going to take place in Sochi, which is about 700 kilometers from Volgograd. The choice of this place for suicide attacks is obvious. It has to do with the history of the place itself. This city was known as Stalingrad in World War II, and to my mind, bringing those horrifying suicide bomb attacks to the town has to do also with the intimidation of the population of this particular place to show that Islamic extremists are aiming at the heart of the Russian nation." 13:00 GMT: Peter Powell, Managing Director of Crisis Management at Visor Consultants told RT that the terrorists concentrate on obvious targets, "and it’s quite clear, even though Volgograd is somehow 400 miles away from the sight of the Winter Olympics. It’s a transport hub for this part of Russia. So transport, communication, economy – all these issues are pretty obvious targets to hit and produce an immediate impact on the Russian public, and not only Russian but also for those who are travelling there next year." 12:47 GMT: Volgograd police are dispersing a crowd of some 200 people who gathered in the city center on a “Russian rally against terror”, organized on the social network, Vkontakte. Over 12,000 people have subscribed for the event. Police are detaining those who turn up because the meeting has not been authorized, Gazeta.ru news portal reported. 12:27 GMT: FSB director Aleksandr Bortnikov said there are "tangible leads" available that could speed along the investigation of the Volgograd bombings. The Ministry of Interior has meanwhile started taking additional security precautions. "Apart from increased security set up in advance of the new year's festivities, the MoE will undertake additional safeguards. More thorough checks are being carried out, especially in more congested, public places, like public transportation hubs," the police said, adding that a number of special units are working the streets, including canines. 12:23 GMT: Moscow will receive another injured person from Volgograd for treatment, ITAR-TASS learned from the Federal Medical-Biological Agency. “A special FMBA flight will land in Moscow after 16:00, delivering a patient with mixed injuries.” The same agency will be dispatching 14 of its specialists to Volgograd on an Emergencies Ministry flight. Aboard the plane will also be two mobile hospital units of the FMBA, the agency said. 12:12 GMT: The United States Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Michael McFaul, has condemned the suicide attacks in Volgograd on behalf of the US. “All my thoughts and prayers – about victims of these heinous atrocities,” McFaul said on his Twitter account. США решительно осуждают теракты в Волгограде. Все мои мысли и молитвы – о жертвах и пострадавших в результате этих варварских злодеяний. — Michael McFaul (@McFaul) December 30, 2013 12:08 GMT: Volgograd may not as an attractive target for terrorists as Olympic Sochi, but hitting it is still quite painful for Russia, Asher Pirt, Researcher in Russian Affairs for the British East-West Centre, told RT that “Sochi is quite a hard target to base the attack, but places like Volgograd are incredibly significant because of the struggle that went on here in 1943; it’s an important place to attack but sadly it’s weaker than Moscow or Saint Petersburg,” he said. 12:00 GMT: The French government condemns the terrorist attacks in Russia, the country’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “France with all decisiveness condemns the terrorist act, which was conducted this morning in Volgograd. This attack, which targeted civilians and public transport, is a cowardly and barbaric action,” it said. France expressed condolences and its full support to the people of Russia in its fight against terrorism. 11:54 GMT: A representative of the populist Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) has proposed canceling a moratorium on the death penalty in Russia for selected offences. "Should the moratorium on the death penalty be canceled, there would be much less crime on the territory of the Russian Federation,” a State Duma deputy, Roman Khudyakov, said. However, the United Russia party has ruled out the possibility of lifting the moratorium. 11:50 GMT: By looks of it, central metro stations near the Kremlin are being evacuated; a cam'man is heading there right now to see what's happening — Irina Galushko (@IrinaGalushkoRT) December 30, 2013 11:44 GMT: FSB director, Aleksandr Bortnikov, who also chairs the anti-terror committee, has arrived to Volgograd. He is expected to hold an emergency meeting soon. 11:37 GMT: A basketball game scheduled for January 6 has been canceled over security reasons. “We can’t risk people’s lives,” Artem Panchenko, General Manager of Volgograd’s Basketball club "Red October" said. 11:21 GMT: Doctors are now reporting 41 injured, 27 of whom are in hospitals. 11:19 GMT: Deputies from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation have called on President Putin to impose a nationwide day of mourning and cancel all planned entertainment events, saying all festive activities would be “blasphemous and inappropriate”. A second horrific terror attack in #Volgograd. My thoughts are with victims & their loved ones — AndersFogh Rasmussen (@AndersFoghR) December 30, 2013 11:05 GMT: More than 600 people have volunteered to give blood at the Volgograd regional blood bank, the head doctor Andrey Valikov told RIA Novosti. Despite an overabundance of blood, people keep showing up all the same. The space in the building is not enough, so the line stretches far outside. "There is already enough blood. Our needs are well covered, we have more than enough... but we will not refuse anyone," he said. 11:00 GMT: Russian TV programming has experienced changes after the Volgograd attacks, the various channels' respective press offices told RIA Novosti. The changes had mainly to do with content of a comedic nature, most such programs have been removed and substituted for others. 10:31 GMT: The death toll from the trolley suicide bombing is expected to go up due to the critical condition of many of the injured, Veronika Skvortsova - head of the Russian Ministry of Health, told Interfax. "At this time, there are 14 fatalities already. Twelve people have died on the spot. And that figure is not final, it is expected to grow," she told the Rossiya 24 channel. 10:30 GMT: Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko voiced condolences to Russia over the Volgograd suicide bombings. “We in the Republic of Belarus have learned with great grief the tragic news about the deaths in the terrorist attacks in the city of Volgograd,” Lukashenko’s message to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, said. “Individuals behind those inhuman deeds have no excuse,” it added. The Belarus leader wished a speedy recovery to the survivors of the two bombings. 10:25 GMT: The identities of the victims of the railway station bombing have been determined, according to a statement by the governor's office of the Volgograd region, RIA Novosti reports. "At present, all the identities of the of the victims of the railway station blast have been confirmed. Fourteen people have died at the scene, three of them later at hospitals," a statement said, adding that there are 12 men and five women among them. 10:23 GMT: Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko voiced condolences to Russia due to the Volgograd suicide bombings. “We at the Republic of Belarus have learned with great grief the tragic news about the deaths in the terrorist attacks in the city of Volgograd,” Lukashenko’s message to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin said. “Individuals behind those inhuman deeds have no excuse,” it added. The Belarus leader wished recovery to survivors of the two bombings. People to gather tonight at Volgograd's Moscow regional office to commemorate bombing victims with flowers & candles http://t.co/P0ABGxZHGQ — RT (@RT_com) December 30, 2013 10:09 GMT: Russian security troops killed three militants, who were planning terrorist attacks during the New Year holidays, Russia’s National Antiterrorist Committee reported. The three militants, including a gang leader, were blockaded and killed on Monday in Kabardino-Balkar Republic in Russia’s North Caucasus. All of them were on the federal wanted list for crimes, including the killings of two Penitentiary Service officers, the statement said. A woman with a little girl was in the house at the time it was surrounded. Both were released by the militants and escorted to a safe distance by security forces. The militants refused to surrender and were killed in the ensuing firefight. Two security troops received minor injuries in the operation, the committee said. 10:05 GMT: The suicide bomber behind the bombing of the Volgograd railway station may be Pavel Pechenkin, a security source told Interfax. He was born in the city of Volzhsk in Mari El republic in central Russia. In spring 2012, he joined a Dagestan-based militant gang after converting to Islam and changing his name to Ansar ar-Rusi, the source said. The information was not officially confirmed. A DNA test of the remains of the bomber is currently being conducted. The news agency’s source said Pechenking’s father donated a blood sample to match against that of the terrorist. 10:01 GMT: There is a heavy police presence in town, various officers, including canine units, are performing checks and searches, with particular attention being paid to the migrants, ITAR-TASS reports. 09:47 GMT: The combined total of victims of the Volgograd terror attacks stands at 32, with 72 more people injured, the Emergencies Ministry reported. 09:37 GMT: A million rubles will be given to the families of the victims of the bus blast; others will receive 200,000 to 400,000 rubles, depending on the injuries, authorities have said. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has made the order. 09:33 GMT: Orthodox Christian churches are praying for the victims of the two suicide bombings in Volgograd. Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, said a special prayer for those currently in hospital in the wake of the attacks, his office reported. Churches throughout Volgograd are holding special services in commemoration of those killed in the bombings and for the health of the survivors. “For years our long-suffering land enjoyed a time of peace and calm. Now some forces are trying to seed panic among our people and instill fear in our souls. That will not happen,” Metropolitan German of Volgograd stated. 09:18 GMT: The Red Square, previously cordoned off because of a suspicious bag, has once again been opened up; the woman who had left the bag was later found to be mentally ill. 09:17 GMT: The Volgograd region has declared a period of mourning, starting on Monday for the victims of the two latest bombings. This is a 48 hour extension of the commemoration, which was originally intended to run from Wednesday to Friday. 09:16 GMT: Russian pole vault champion, Elena Isinbayeva, who was born in Volgograd, says she is shocked by the terrorist attacks on her home city. “I find it difficult to say anything right now. I’m shocked. Nobody among my family or friends suffered, but I am scared, simply scared,” she told Itar-Tass. 09:15 GMT: A doctor at a diagnostics lab told RT that "yesterday, at the time of the blast I was near the railway station. I saw everything. I saw the blast, I saw the bodies, and I helped to evacuate people. Now I’ve come here [to Volgograd’s regional blood center] to donate blood. If it were possible to donate 1 liter, I would have done it. It’s really scary when you see something like this. I’ll never forget it." 09:11 GMT: Authorities have discounted the idea that there was a second device near the trolley blast site. 09:03 GMT: Andrey Valikov, chief doctor at Volgograd’s regional blood center told RT that "after yesterday’s blast we received more than 16 liters of blood. In a short period of time (1-1.5 hours) after the tragedy, hospitals were supplied with blood. We have enough blood and if hospitals need more, they’ll receive it. During the night we received many calls from people who would like to help somehow. Also we had many volunteers who came in the morning, and expect around 300 people to come and donate blood. Though we have enough blood, we’ll accept everyone today and tomorrow; we won’t refuse anyone because we understand that people are trying to help the victims of the terrorist attacks." 09:00 GMT: Moscow's most central point, the Red Square, is currently being evacuated as a safety precaution. A suspicious bag has been discovered, prompting the authorities to cordon off the entire area. 08:53 GMT: Russian Railways advised passengers to arrive early to stations because it ramped up the security checks and screening may take additional time. The company calls on the people to immediately report any suspicious objects to police officers. 08:45 GMT: Vladimir Bugaev, an eyewitness told RT: "I was going home from work, I was giving a lift to a woman, to a co-worker of mine who lives nearby. As I was turning around I heard an exploration. I was already waiting in a queue and another driver asked me “What’s happening?”. Somebody said “There must be an explosion somewhere”. We heard a cry a way ahead, I drove up to save some children but I was told the only wounded person there was a driver. So I drove up to a driver, his name was Sergey. I was told the person who was selling tickets for the trolley bus was dead. I saw about six dead bodies myself." Another eyewitness, Evgeniy Volchansky, said that "we saw debris, remains of bodies, there was very strong smell of things burning and of TNT. Very soon the police showed up and representatives of the governor, investigative activities started, there were a lot of people trying to offer help." 08:41 GMT: Vladimir Markin of the investigative committee has confirmed the connection to between the Sunday and Monday bombings. UPDATE: Two terrorist acts in Volgograd prepared in one place - investigators http://t.co/P0ABGxZHGQpic.twitter.com/XMmJClV65L — RT (@RT_com) December 30, 2013 08:40 GMT: President Putin has given new orders to boost security measures across the entire country, with special attention paid to Volgograd, the anti-terror committee said. 08:31 GMT: The death toll rises to 14 people. 27 are now hospitalized, two of whom are in critical condition. 08:30 GMT: An explosion equal in strength to 4 kilograms of TNT took place in the attack, according to the investigative committee. 08:00 GMT: The president of Russia's Olympic Committee, Aleksandr Zhukov told ITAR-TASS that "as far as the Olympics in Sochi are concerned, all precautionary measures have been taken... I don't think any further measures in the aftermath of the Volgograd terror attack are going to be taken, we are confident that everything that could have been done, was." Among the security measures are special spectator ID cards and other state-of-the-art technologies. 07:50 GMT: Arthur Atayev, Russia’s Institute of Strategic Research told RT that "the purpose is to destabilize all of Southern Russia, especially in the run up to the Winter Olympics in Sochi. Those behind the attack pursue the goal of showing to their own investors in turn that terrorism, jihadism is bearing fruit, it's profitable and has a foothold in Southern Russia. Right now it’s very difficult to sort out who the specific sponsors or clients are, but if you analyze the terrorist underground in the North Caucuses or in the world in general, you can come to the conclusion that those customers are part of a complicated chain, and if you go to the top, you arrive at certain political forces that are located outside Russia and they have been launching destabilizing processes in the country for a long time in order to reduce its foreign policy influence and also the influence of the Federal state in Russian regions." 07:45 GMT: The aftermath of the deadly trolley blast. 07:42 GMT: The number of dead has risen to 13 people, an ITAR-TASS source reported. Cell phone cam footage, however, is being collected from bystanders. 07:41 GMT: The bus was from a time before video surveillance started to be used in public transportation, complicating the investigation of how the situation transpired inside at the time of the blast. 07:40 GMT: The number of wounded in the trolley bus incident has risen to 28 people, 22 of which have been hospitalized. A five to six-month old child is in critical condition, a spokesman told the Rossiya 24 channel. 07:30 GMT: Coroners have identified 17 victims of the Sunday blast at the railway station - among them two children, sources tell Interfax. 07:26 GMT: Aleksey Popov, former member of an Alpha Special Forces unit, believes one possible reason for the bombing could be to dissuade people from coming to the Sochi Winter Olympics. "All the attacks in Volgograd are a part of the same chain. Terrorists try to spread fear ahead of the Winter Olympics so that people become scared to go to Sochi. No wonder they have chosen the holiday season to make it even more painful for the people and to draw plenty of world attention. But I believe it won’t have any effect on the Olympics and the people who were planning to come will still do it. They are safety because almost $2 billion was allocated to security measures, that’s even more than the sum for London." 07:12 GMT: Gordon Hahn of the Center of International Strategy told RT the reason that other major cities might not have been targeted in the two blasts: "It’s harder to penetrate there, so they decided it will be easy to strike Russian city closer to the North Caucuses. Suicide bomb attacks are carried out in Russia by mujahidin. It’s very likely that a group affiliated with the Caucasus Emirate could be involved and we talked about ethnic Russian suicide bombers, which these organizations try to recruit." "Another possible perpetrator is a mujahidin who converted into Islam about a decade ago and eventually joined the mujahidin. He is a former Russian military person by the name of Pavel Kosolapov and he is from Volgograd. He was involved in a train bombing back in 2007 and suspected of several other bombings. He also claims he is responsible for a train bombing in 2009. He was silent since then so we can consider the possibility that he was planning the 'big show' all these years." 07:10 GMT: Volgograd emergency help phone lines have been set up. 07:05 GMT: CCTV cam footage is being collected by security services. 07:00 GMT: Rumors of other terror attacks in Volgograd - namely the tram blast or the attack that supposedly occurred at the 'Monolith' factory - are completely unfounded, Svetlana Smolyanova, head spokeswoman for the Volgograd Region interior ministry told Interfax. "There are no other bombings to report. People have constantly been phoning in with questions regarding that, but there's nothing to confirm the rumors." 06:58 GMT: Moscow security has likewise been ramped up, regional security head Aleksey Mayorov tells Interfax. 06:50 GMT: A number of companies in Volgograd are contributing to the transportation, providing commuters with rides to work. People are terrified of using public transportation services. 06:41 GMT: The FSB now officially says there is a strong chance today's trolley bus blast is connected to yesterday afternoon's railway station suicide bombing. 06:40 GMT: The Ministry of Health now puts the number of injured at 25. Doctors from a special unit dealing with catastrophic-accident injuries are soon to arrive. 06:37 GMT: An eyewitness told reporters that there is currently a "transportation breakdown" in Volgograd, it is at a standstill. «В Волгограде транспортный коллапс, со связью также беда» - очевидец в интервью RT http://t.co/PhKqSptxyMpic.twitter.com/xorbbkwvgp — RT на русском (@RT_russian) December 30, 2013 06:36 GMT: Alina Averyasova, eyewitness: [before the blast] everything was as usual up until the blast itself. Just before the blast everything was calm and peaceful. We were sleeping at home because today is a holiday. And just after the blast panic took off. 06:31 GMT: 06:30 GMT: Eyewitness, Alina Averyasova, says that "at the moment of the explosion I was asleep, I woke up because of an enormous blast. I heard the glass shattering in the first two stories of the building. I looked out the window, it was still dark, and I saw a bus that was ripped by a blast and people were running away from it screaming. Some of them were wounded, a lot of people were panicking... Within minutes a police car and an ambulance and a fire engine drove up. All the roads and streets were sealed off, nobody could approach the area, people got evacuated, nobody could approach. Police came over and started looking for a bomb nearby. this is all that I saw and I was very scared." 06:26 GMT: The blast was of such magnitude that it shattered the windows on neighboring shops and apartment buildings, authorities tell reporters. 06:25 GMT: Burns and multiple traumas have been sustained by the victims of the trolley blast. Moscow is standing by to receive more wounded, if the need arises, health ministry head Veronika Skvortsova told RIA Novosti. 06:18 GMT: FSB director, Aleksandr Botnikov, has been ordered by the President to fly to the scene, RIA Novosti reports. 06:20 GMT: The situation is being handled effectively - no shortage in medicine has been reported and efforts by emergency services are proving to be quite effective. 06:16 GMT: The number of fatalities varies from at least 10 to 15 at this point, as official sources differ on the matter. 06:13 GMT: Ministry of Health spokesperson said a child has been badly injured and is in critical condition. 06:06 GMT: The Emergencies Ministry has strongly tightened security in Volgograd. Teams of psychologists and other doctors are also being dispatched to the scene of the blast, the ministry reported. Their plane is to leave Moscow at 10:30AM local time. 06:00 GMT:"We are terrified. Everyone disembarked from buses and trams to walk on foot. I live 200 meters away from that place, I was just passing it on my way to work," Sergey Stukalov, an eyewitness, told RIA Novosti. Sergey also said that the blast occurred on the No.15 trolley route, connecting a suburb to Volgograd's downtown area. 05:55 GMT: Panic has spread on Twitter, describing yet another blast - this time in a busy tram. However, the rumors have since been proven false. 05:50 GMT:"The people are in a state of shock and bewilderment. A second terrorist attack in two days....a third in recent months. I was there 15 minutes after the explosion occurred," Artem Tolkachev, an eyewitness, told Life News. 05:47 GMT: В результате взрыва троллейбуса в Волгограде погибли 15 человек, 23 пострадали (ФОТО) http://t.co/PhKqSptxyMpic.twitter.com/GNh1FGmMan — RT на русском (@RT_russian) December 30, 2013 05:43 GMT: The death toll from the blast has risen to 15 people, with a further 23 receiving injuries, the Volgograd Region's vice-governor Vasiliy Galushin told Interfax. "The emergency services have reacted very swiftly. All those injured have been taken to hospitals, as their identities are being determined," he said. 05:41 GMT: НАК: Наиболее вероятная версия взрыва в Волгограде – подрыв взрывного устройства в салоне троллейбуса (ФОТО) pic.twitter.com/XKj7wPZee7 — RT на русском (@RT_russian) December 30, 2013 05:37 GMT: According to witness reports to ITAR-TASS, there were many students on the bus. "There was a loud 'pop', then a flash, everything was enveloped in smoke," one female witness said, describing the sudden realization. 05:34 GMT: The Investigative Committee now puts the number of injured at 15. 05:30 GMT: In describing the character of the blast, ITAR-TASS law enforcement sources have said that it appears to be a suicide attack, "judging from the body fragments characteristic of such a bombing." 05:28 GMT: President Vladimir Putin has met with the head of Russia's FSB, Aleksandr Bortnikov, who has briefed him on the situation, the Kremlin press office reported. 05:25 GMT: 05:23 GMT: The Investigative Committee's spokesman has informed the press the incident is being treated as an act of terror. 05:21 GMT: Bodies were seen scattered next to the vehicle, which has been split nearly in half by the powerful blast, which took place as the trolley was passing one of the city's busy markets. 05:17 GMT: Police are currently at the scene investigating. Правоохранители считают, что новый теракт в Волгограде схож по почерку с 2 предыдущими (ФОТО) http://t.co/PhKqSptxyMpic.twitter.com/NNoZIoFuwX — RT на русском (@RT_russian) December 30, 2013 05:00 GMT: Authorities have reason to believe the trolley blast may also be a terrorist act, as the signature closely matches the one witnessed in yesterday's railway station bombing, the Investigative Committee told RIA Novosti 05:00 GMT: A trolley bus blast has claimed 10 lives in Volgograd, just one day after 17 lives were lost in the city's railway station explosion in a suicide bombing.

A second major terrorist attack in the space of 24 hours has shaken the Russian city of Volgograd, less than six weeks before the start of the Sochi Olympics. Authorities say at least 14 people were killed in an apparent suicide attack on an electric trolleybus close to a hospital where victims of yesterday's suicide attack in a railway station were being treated, the Guardian reports, describing a "disfigured" bus left without a roof or walls. Another 41 have been injured, reports RT. Officials say they believe the two attacks are linked, though no group has claimed responsibility. But the Guardian notes that security experts are drawing a link between the attacks—which now number three in three months—to Chechen jihadist leader Doku Umarov, who has vowed to interfere with the Games. RT notes a Volgograd basketball game scheduled for next Monday has pre-emptively been canceled over security fears.

With the passage of the health reform law, interest turned to determining not only how the new law may be interpreted and implemented, but also how it may interact with existing law. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA, P.L. 111-148 , as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, P.L. 111-152 ), among other things, created a number of significant reforms to the private health insurance market. These reforms include changes that will limit the ability of a group health plan or health insurance issuer to set premiums or determine eligibility for coverage based on criteria such as health status. Title I of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA, P.L. 110-233 ) also contains requirements affecting health insurance premiums and coverage eligibility, and thus questions may be raised about the potential for interaction between these two acts. In addition, the ACA includes provisions relating to the implementation of employer wellness programs. Title II of GINA prohibits discrimination in employment based on genetic information and generally prohibits the collection of genetic information. However, there is a specific exception for wellness programs with attendant privacy protections. This raises questions about the potential for interaction between these two sets of provisions, specifically with respect to requirements around the release of genetic information and incentives for participation in such a program. This report provides a brief overview of GINA, an overview of relevant ACA and GINA provisions relating to the provision of health insurance through the private market, an overview of relevant ACA and GINA provisions relating to the implementation of employer wellness programs, and statutory analysis of the potential interactions between the related provisions in both laws. On May 21, 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), referred to by its sponsors as the first civil rights act of the 21 st century, was enacted. GINA prohibits discrimination by health insurers and employers based on genetic information. Genetic information is considered sensitive for a number of reasons, including that it may be predictive or indicate a predisposition to disease, and that it can affect not only an individual but also family members. GINA is divided into two main parts: Title I, which prohibits discrimination in health insurance based on genetic information, and Title II, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on genetic information. Title I of GINA amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), as well as the Social Security Act (SSA), to prohibit group health plans and health insurance issuers providing group and individual health coverage from engaging in genetic discrimination and to strengthen and clarify existing HIPAA nondiscrimination and portability provisions with respect to genetic information and genetic testing. The complexity of the health care financing system required this multifaceted approach in order to ensure protection for all individuals, regardless of their coverage arrangements. On October 7, 2009, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury issued interim final regulations implementing the majority of provisions in Title I of GINA. These regulations became effective as of December 7, 2009, and specifically for plan years beginning on or after December 7, 2009, for group health plans and health insurance issuers. In addition, on January 25, 2013, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, published a final rule to implement Section 105 of GINA. Title II of GINA prohibits discrimination in employment based on genetic information and, with certain exceptions, prohibits an employer from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information. The law prohibits the use of genetic information in employment decisions—including hiring, firing, job assignments, and promotions—by employers, unions, employment agencies, and labor management training programs. On November 9, 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued final regulations for Title II that take effect on January 10, 2010. These regulations generally closely track the statutory language. GINA prohibits the use of genetic information in determining premiums for individuals or groups or for serving as the basis for conditioning health coverage. The ACA, on the other hand, specifically defines the factors on which insurers may predicate issuance of coverage or determination of premiums. Thus, questions may be raised as to how the two statutes might interact with one another in the specific area of private health insurance market reforms. This section provides an overview of relevant GINA and ACA provisions concerning coverage eligibility and premium determination to provide context for a statutory analysis outlining the potential interactions between the relevant provisions. Broadly, GINA prohibits group health plans and health insurance issuers from engaging in three practices: (1) using genetic information about an individual to adjust a group plan's premiums, or, in the case of individual plans, to deny coverage, adjust premiums, or impose a preexisting condition exclusion; (2) requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information for underwriting purposes or prior to enrollment; and (3) requiring or requesting genetic testing. Each of these prohibitions is discussed below in more detail. GINA prohibits health plans, group and individual health insurance issuers, and issuers of Medicare supplemental policies from adjusting a group or individual's premium or contribution amount based on genetic information about an individual in the group, an individual seeking individual coverage, or an individual's family members. GINA prohibits health plans, group and individual health insurers and issuers, and issuers of Medicare supplemental policies from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information for the purposes of underwriting or prior to an individual's enrollment or in connection with enrollment. "Incidental collection" of genetic information—genetic information obtained incidentally to the requesting, requiring, or purchasing of other information concerning any individual—would not be considered a violation of the prohibition on collecting genetic information prior to enrollment if it is not done for underwriting purposes. "Underwriting purposes," as defined by GINA, includes (1) rules for, or determination of, eligibility for benefits; (2) the computation of premium or contribution amounts; (3) the application of any preexisting condition exclusion; and (4) other activities related to the creation, renewal, or replacement of a contract of health insurance or health benefits. GINA also prohibits individual insurers from conditioning eligibility or continuing eligibility on genetic information, and prohibits individual insurers from treating genetic information as a preexisting condition. Issuers of supplemental Medicare policies may not deny or condition the issuance of a policy based on genetic information (and may not impose a preexisting condition exclusion based on genetic information). GINA prohibits health plans, group and individual health insurance issuers, and issuers of Medicare supplemental policies from requesting or requiring that individuals or their family members undergo a genetic test. This prohibition does not limit the authority of a health care professional to request that an individual undergo genetic testing as part of his or her course of health care. The act provides for a research exception to this provision, by allowing a group or individual insurance issuer to request, but not require, an individual to undergo genetic testing if specific conditions are met. As noted above, the ACA creates new federal standards applicable to private health insurance coverage. The ACA establishes new rating requirements that allow insurers to vary premiums based only on certain key characteristics. These characteristics are self or family enrollment in a plan or coverage; rating area (as established by a state and reviewed by the Secretary); age (by no more than a 3:1 ratio across age rating bands established by the Secretary, in consultation with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners [NAIC]); and tobacco use (by no more than a 1.5:1 ratio). Thus, health insurance issuers subject to this provision are precluded from charging premiums based on health factors and other additional criteria (e.g., the sex of the covered individual). Further, the ACA prohibits group health plans and health insurance issuers in the individual and group markets from excluding coverage for preexisting health conditions. In addition, the ACA requires individual and group health insurance issuers to offer coverage on a guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewal basis. Under the act, health insurance issuers offering health insurance coverage in the individual or group market in a state must accept every employer and individual in the state that applies for such coverage, subject to certain conditions. Further, the ACA provides that health insurance issuers offering coverage in the individual or group market must renew or continue in force such coverage at the option of the plan sponsor or the individual, subject to exceptions such as nonpayment of premiums, or an act or practice of fraud. Thus, based on these provisions, a health insurance issuer would be precluded from denying coverage, or denying a renewal of coverage, based on factors such as the individual's health. In examining provisions of GINA in relation to comparable provisions in Title I of the ACA pertaining to health insurance, there appears to be some overlap in the reach of these acts. For example, under GINA, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer may not adjust premium or contribution amounts on the basis of genetic information. Alternatively, under Section 2701 of the PHSA, as created by the ACA, certain health insurance issuers may only vary premiums based on certain specified factors (i.e., tobacco use, age, geographic area, and self-only or family enrollment). In evaluating the interaction of these two statutes, one may argue that it is possible to read these statutes together as establishing non-conflicting limitations on insurance premiums. While the ACA creates criteria for premium rates, GINA prohibits premium adjustments based on genetic information. Further, it seems that a health insurance issuer can simultaneously comply with the requirements of the ACA and GINA. While a violation of this provision of GINA may also be a violation of Section 2701 of the PHSA, there does not appear to be a barrier to offering penalties for the same conduct under these two statutes. Though one may argue that Section 2701 of the PHSA renders GINA, at least in part, ineffective and therefore amends or repeals GINA by implication, given that amendments by implication are disfavored, and without a demonstrated clear intention to override its provisions, a court may be more likely to dismiss this argument. Further, it should be noted that these provisions of the ACA and GINA are not identical in scope. For example, the limitations on premium amounts as added by the ACA apply only to health insurance issuers in the individual and small group markets, and do not apply (as GINA does), for example, to self-insured group health plans or insurers in the large group market. Further, this section of the ACA applies only to premium rates, whereas GINA applies to premiums as well as contribution amounts. The provisions of GINA seem likely to remain intact, because the reach of GINA is beyond that of the ACA and, where there is not a direct conflict, courts are reluctant to amend or repeal a statute by implication. As discussed above, GINA also prohibits group health plans and health insurance issuers from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information for the purposes of underwriting or prior to an individual's enrollment or in connection with enrollment. As mentioned above, underwriting purposes include, among other things, rules or determination of eligibility for benefits, the application of any preexisting condition exclusion, and other activities related to the creation, renewal, or replacement of a contract of health insurance or health benefits. The ACA, however, curtails application of these underwriting practices and contains requirements related to insurance enrollment. For example, under the ACA, a group health plan and a health insurance issuer will no longer be able to impose a preexisting condition exclusion. In addition, as discussed above, health insurance issuers must accept every individual and employer that applies for coverage and renew or continue such coverage at the option of the plan sponsor or individual. Thus, it seems that the provisions of the ACA may obviate some of the requirements of GINA. If a health insurance issuer generally cannot use certain underwriting practices or limit enrollment to certain individuals, they may not be inclined to obtain genetic information for these purposes. However, this is not to say that GINA is therefore repealed by the ACA. It is likely that a court may read these statutes in concert with each other: while the ACA removes certain limitations to obtaining health insurance, GINA prohibits obtaining genetic information as part of certain insurance practices. Further, it should also be noted that these provisions of GINA and the ACA are also not identical in scope. For example, the guaranteed availability and renewability requirements of the ACA apply only to health insurance issuers and, accordingly, the effects of this provision of GINA on self-insured group health plans may not be affected by the ACA. Finally, in terms of the prohibition on group health plans and health insurers from requiring an individual or family member to undergo a genetic test, there does not seem to be a comparable provision in the ACA. Given no express language in the ACA that alters this provision, and because the ACA does not seem to have a requirement that interacts with this provision, it appears that this requirement is also not affected by the ACA. GINA and the ACA both include provisions that relate specifically to employer wellness programs, although neither statute specifically requires the use of wellness programs. In GINA, the relevant provisions are limited to the conditions under which an employer might lawfully collect genetic information pursuant to an employer wellness program. The ACA's provisions are broader, encourage the use of wellness programs, and include specifics about these programs, including the extent of financial incentives that an employer may use to encourage participation in wellness programs. This raises questions about the potential interaction between these two statutes with respect to employer wellness programs. This section provides an overview of relevant employer wellness program provisions in GINA and the ACA to provide context for a statutory analysis of the potential interactions between these provisions. As the cost of health insurance has continued to rise in recent years, employers providing health insurance, as well as other insurance providers, have worked to find ways to contain costs. This has led to the introduction of incentives to promote healthy behaviors, often referred to as wellness programs. These programs take a myriad of forms, from providing a gym at the workplace to subsidizing the co-pays of certain medications and linking health care benefits or discounts to certain healthy lifestyles. In Arkansas, for example, state employees who exercise more frequently or eat healthier foods can earn up to three extra days off from work each year. These healthy lifestyle programs can include requirements for no tobacco use, as well as requirements for certain cholesterol, blood pressure, and body mass index (BMI) measurements. Most, if not all, employer wellness programs collect medical information from participants. Programs may request or require participating employees to answer questions about family history of certain diseases, conditions, or disorders. This information falls under the definition of genetic information under GINA, and therefore its acquisition and use by employers is strictly regulated and is protected differently than is employer acquisition of other medical information. GINA broadly prohibits both the acquisition of genetic information, as well as the use of genetic information by employers in employment decisions; however, it does provide for several exceptions to the prohibition on employer acquisition of this information. Specifically, Title II of GINA allows employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and training programs to acquire genetic information pursuant to the offering of health or genetic services, including services offered as part of a wellness program. The statute states, in pertinent part, "[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee except – ... (2) where health or genetic services are offered by the employer, including such services offered as part of a wellness program." The exception provided for by this provision is materially identical for employment agencies, labor organizations, and training programs. However, employers may collect genetic information as part of a wellness program, pursuant to this exception, only if they meet three requirements: the employee must provide prior, knowing, voluntary, and written authorization; only the employee and the licensed health care professional or board-certified genetic counselor involved in providing such services receive individually identifiable information concerning the results of such services; and any individually identifiable genetic information provided in connection with the health or genetic services provided under this exception is only available for the purposes of such services and shall not be disclosed to the employer except in aggregate terms that do not disclose the identity of specific employees. The EEOC final regulations reiterate the exception for wellness programs and its requirements. In the proposed regulations, EEOC emphasized that such programs must be voluntary, and asked for comments concerning the appropriate level of inducement offered for participation in a wellness program. In the final regulations, the EEOC concluded that inducements may be offered to encourage individuals to participate in wellness programs, but inducements may not be offered to provide genetic information. The EEOC provides the following example in the regulations as a situation that does not violate GINA: A covered entity offers $150 to employees who complete a health risk assessment with 100 questions, the last 20 of them concerning family medical history and other genetic information. The instructions for completing the health risk assessment make clear that the inducement will be provided to all employees who respond to the first 80 questions, whether or not the remaining 20 questions concerning family medical history and other genetic information are answered. However, if the health risk assessment does not make clear which questions must be answered, it would violate GINA. Similarly, the regulations state that financial inducements may be offered to encourage participation in wellness programs for individuals who have voluntarily provided genetic information. In order to comply with GINA, these programs must also be offered to individuals with health conditions or life style choices that put them at an increased risk of developing a condition. For example, it would not violate GINA to offer $150 for participation in a weight loss program to employees who voluntarily disclose a family history of diabetes, heart disease, or high blood pressure, and to employees who have a current diagnosis of one of these conditions. Importantly, regardless of how an employer may acquire genetic information (either inadvertently or through these exceptions), the employer is still absolutely prohibited from using the information to discriminate in employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, and promotion. The ACA contains several provisions specifically relating to wellness programs. Of most significance in the context of a discussion of GINA are ACA Section 1001, which creates a new Section 2717 in the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) concerning reporting requirements for group health plans; ACA Section 1201, which creates a new Section 2705 in the PHSA prohibiting discrimination on the basis of health status; ACA Section 4303, amended by Section 10404 of P.L. 111-152 , creates sections in the PHSA, including Section 399MM, which provides for Centers for Disease Control (CDC) technical assistance for employer-based wellness programs; and ACA Section 10408, concerning workplace wellness grants. The new Section 2705 in the PHSA (ACA §1201) prohibits discrimination by group health plans and health insurance issuers on the basis of health status and specifically includes genetic information as a health status related factor. Effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, this section generally codifies HIPAA wellness program regulations. Wellness programs that do not require the satisfaction of a standard relating to a health factor and are made available to all similarly situated individuals are not considered discriminatory. If, however, a wellness program conditions receiving a reward (such as a premium rebate) on meeting a health factor-related standard (such as a blood pressure measurement), there are specific requirements, including a cap on the amount of the reward. The reward in these situations must be capped at 30% of the cost of the employee-only coverage under the plan. Under pre-ACA HIPAA regulations, the cap was set at 20%. In addition, under the ACA the Secretaries of HHS, Labor, and Treasury have the discretion to increase this reward to up to 50%. Wellness programs that provide a reward must also be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease and not be a subterfuge for discriminating based on a health status factor; provide eligible individuals the opportunity to qualify for the reward at least once a year; be available to all similarly situated individuals; and disclose in all plan materials the availability of a reasonable alternative standard or the possibility of a waiver. The requirement that the program be available to similarly situated individuals is further elaborated on in the ACA. The law states that this requirement is not met unless the wellness program allows for "a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard) for obtaining the reward for any individual for whom, for that period, it is unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition to satisfy the otherwise applicable standard" or for whom is it is medically inadvisable to attempt to satisfy the otherwise applicable standard. The ACA allows the plan or issuer, "if reasonable under the circumstances," to seek verification "such as a statement from an individual's physician, that a health status factor makes it unreasonably difficult or medically inadvisable for the individual to satisfy or attempt to satisfy the otherwise applicable standard." The other three ACA sections mentioned above, ACA Sections 1001, 4303, and 10408, all encourage the provision of wellness programs. Both Title II of GINA and the ACA include provisions relating to wellness programs, although the statutes have a different focus. The ACA addresses wellness programs as a means to increase the health of employees and reduce medical costs; Title II of GINA prohibits employment discrimination, generally prohibiting employers from collecting genetic information, and contains broad privacy protections. GINA permits the collection of genetic information for the purpose of wellness programs and contains detailed requirements including, for example, written authorization for the collection of this data. The ACA does not contain similar privacy protections and does not address its relationship with GINA; however, the two statutes do not directly contradict one another. Thus, it could be argued that the disfavored statutory construction approach of repeal by implication would not be appropriate; the two statutes can be read in a complementary manner. Another rule of statutory construction states that where there is a conflict between the statutes, the most recent statute generally takes precedence. However, it would appear that the provisions of the ACA and GINA are complementary, not contradictory. Like the previous analysis, the ACA and Title II of GINA could be read together in such a way as to give effect to both. Although the ACA does not contain the specific detailed privacy provisions regarding wellness programs contained in GINA, it could be argued that GINA's provisions supplement the ACA's nondiscrimination requirements. This argument is further supported by the fact that the nondiscrimination requirements were in the pre-ACA version of HIPAA and the HIPAA regulations contained similar, but not identical, requirements relating to wellness programs. It could even be contended that reading the provisions together would advance the ACA goal of prohibiting discrimination against individuals based on health status, because privacy protections regarding genetic information would decrease the likelihood of discrimination. Thus, it would appear likely that a court would interpret the wellness provisions of the ACA and Title II of GINA as complementary. The Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act ( H.R. 1189 / S. 620 ) was introduced on March 2, 2015. As noted, ACA and GINA —as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) —may be implicated by any given employer-based wellness program. Generally, S. 620 / H.R. 1189 would seek in part to clarify the interaction of these three laws by indicating that those workplace wellness programs that comply with the requirements of the ACA are not in violation of GINA or the ADA. A recent case has highlighted the lack of clarity around the interaction between these three statutes in the context of employer wellness programs. Specifically, on November 6, 2014, a federal district judge in Minnesota declined to enjoin the operation of Honeywell International's corporate wellness program involving biometric testing in a case brought by the EEOC, claiming violations of both Title II of GINA and the ADA. Although the judge did not express an opinion on either party's likelihood of success on the merits, she observed that great uncertainty persists in regard to how the ACA, ADA, and other federal statutes such as GINA are intended to interact." On April 20, 2015, the EEOC published a proposed rule to clarify the interaction between the ADA and the ACA employer wellness program provisions; this proposed rule noted that the interaction between GINA and the ACA wellness provisions would be addressed in future rulemaking. As noted above, both GINA and the ACA contain provisions affecting certain elements of health insurance, as well as wellness programs. GINA is a civil rights statute and has as its purpose the prohibition of discrimination against individuals on the basis of genetic information. In order to effectuate this prohibition, GINA not only contains certain requirements for health insurance and a general prohibition of employment discrimination provisions, but also has strong privacy protections. On the other hand, the ACA is comprehensive health care legislation that is intended to, among other things, enhance consumer protections in the private health insurance market and expand health coverage. The ACA, the more recent statute, does not specifically amend GINA and also does not reference GINA's requirements. Generally, when interpreting the interactions of two statutes that address similar situations or subject matter, courts will try to read the statutes in such a way as to give effect to the language of both. Further, when Congress enacts legislation to amend an existing statute, courts may attempt to read new provisions together with those that were left unchanged and to interpret the provisions so they do not conflict. A leading treatise on statutory construction also notes that repeal of a prior law by implication is disfavored, and observes that "[t]he point of the rules of interpretation is to give harmonious effect to all acts on a subject where reasonably possible." However, where a new statute is a comprehensive revision of a subject area there is "a strong implication of a legislative intent to repeal former statutory law." While the ACA has been described as a comprehensive revision of federal law regarding health care, the act evidences no intent to be the sole regulation of the health care system. Therefore, courts would be more likely to examine the issue through the specific requirements of the statutes of the ACA and GINA and attempt to reconcile these statutes. This more nuanced approach would appear to better reflect and give full effect to the actual language of GINA and the ACA. Ultimately, the precise landscape of these requirements may await final regulations from these agencies and, perhaps, judicial decisions.

Upon the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), as amended, certain questions have been raised about how the ACA might affect existing law. One such existing law, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), is a civil rights statute and has as its purpose the prohibition of discrimination against individuals on the basis of genetic information. In order to effectuate this prohibition, GINA not only contains certain requirements for health insurance and a general prohibition of employment discrimination provisions, but also has strong privacy protections. On the other hand, the ACA is comprehensive health care legislation that is intended to, among other things, enhance consumer protections in the private health insurance market. Both GINA and the ACA contain provisions affecting certain elements of health insurance, as well as employment-based wellness programs. The ACA, the more recent statute, does not specifically amend GINA and also does not reference GINA's requirements. The two laws serve different but complementary purposes, and there is no explicit conflict or contradiction in their terms. Still, the interaction of these two acts may be analyzed. This report provides a brief overview of GINA; an overview of relevant ACA and GINA provisions relating to the provision of health insurance through the private market and the implementation of employer wellness programs; and statutory analysis of the potential interactions between the related provisions in both laws.

This report provides a cumulative history of Department of Energy (DOE) funding for renewable energy compared with funding for the other energy technologies—nuclear energy, fossil energy, energy efficiency, and electric systems. Specifically, it provides a comparison that covers cumulative funding over the past 10 years (FY2009-FY2018), a second comparison that covers the 41-year period since DOE was established at the beginning of FY1978 through FY2018, and a third comparison that covers a 71-year funding history (FY1948-FY2018) for DOE and predecessor agencies. The final amount of FY2017 Energy and Water Development appropriations for DOE energy technologies was established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ), which was signed by the President on May 5, 2017. The act contained appropriations for all FY2017 appropriations bills, including Energy and Water Development programs (Division D). Final funding for FY2018 was set by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ), which was signed by the President on May 23, 2018. Funding levels for DOE are included in Energy and Water Development programs (Division D). Figure 1 presents the fiscal year funding totals for DOE in real terms (2016 dollars) since 1978 for each technology or energy source. Table 1 shows the cumulative funding totals in real terms (2016 dollars) for the past 10 years (first column), 41 years (second column), and 71 years (third column). Table 2 converts the data from Table 1 into relative shares of spending for each technology or energy source, expressed as a percentage of total spending for each period. Figure 2 displays the data from the first column of Table 2 as a pie chart. That chart shows the relative shares of cumulative DOE spending for each technology or energy source over the 10 years from FY2009 through FY2018. Figure 3 provides a similar chart for the period from FY1978 through FY2018. Figure 4 shows a chart for FY1948 through FY2018. The availability of energy—especially gasoline and other liquid fuels—played a critical role in World War II. Another energy-related factor was the application of research and development (R&D) to the atomic bomb (Manhattan Project) and other military technologies. During the post-World War II era, the federal government began to apply R&D to the peacetime development of energy sources to support economic growth. At that time, the primary R&D focus was on fossil fuels and new forms of energy derived from nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 established the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which inherited all of the Manhattan Project's R&D activities and placed nuclear weapon development and nuclear power management under civilian control. A major focus of the AEC was research on "atoms for peace," the use of nuclear energy for civilian electric power production. Prompted by the oil embargo declared by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries in 1973, the Federal Energy Administration was established in mid-1974. In early 1975, the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) was established, incorporating the AEC and several energy programs that had been operating under the Department of the Interior and other federal agencies. The Department of Energy (DOE) was established by law in 1977, incorporating activities of the FEA and ERDA. All of the energy R&D programs—fossil, nuclear, renewable, and energy efficiency—were brought under its administration. DOE also undertook a small program in energy storage and electricity system R&D that supports the four main energy technology programs. From FY1948 through FY1977, the majority of federal government support for energy R&D focused on fossil energy and nuclear power technologies. Total spending on fossil energy technologies over that period amounted to about $17.1 billion, in constant FY2016 dollars. The federal government spent about $51.6 billion (in constant FY2016 dollars) during that period for nuclear energy R&D (in all the tables and figures in this report, the "nuclear" category includes both fission and fusion). The energy crises of the 1970s spurred the federal government to expand its R&D programs to include renewable (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro) energy and energy efficiency technologies. Comparatively modest efforts to support renewable energy and energy efficiency began during the early 1970s. Since FY1978, DOE has been the main supplier of energy R&D funding compared to other federal agencies. In real (constant dollar) terms, funding support for all four of the main energy technologies skyrocketed during the 1970s to a combined peak in FY1979 at about $8.6 billion (2016 constant dollars). Funding then dropped steadily, to about $2.0 billion (2016 dollars) per year during the late 1990s. Since then, funding has increased gradually—except that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ) provided a one-year spike of $13 billion (2016 dollars) in FY2009. For FY2018, DOE energy R&D funding stood at nearly $4.5 billion (2016 dollars).

Energy-related research and development (R&D)—on coal-based synthetic petroleum and on atomic bombs—played an important role in the successful outcome of World War II. In the postwar era, the federal government conducted R&D on fossil and nuclear energy sources to support peacetime economic growth. The energy crises of the 1970s spurred the government to broaden the focus to include renewable energy and energy efficiency. Over the 41-year period from the Department of Energy's (DOE's) inception at the beginning of FY1978 through FY2018, federal funding for renewable energy R&D amounted to about 18% of the energy R&D total, compared with 6% for electric systems, 16% for energy efficiency, 24% for fossil, and 37% for nuclear. For the 71-year period from 1948 through 2018, nearly 13% went to renewables, compared with nearly 5% for electric systems, 11% for energy efficiency, 24% for fossil, and 48% for nuclear.

DLA is the Department of Defense’s (DOD) logistics manager for all DOD consumable items and some department repair items. Its primary business function is to provide supply support in order to sustain military operations and readiness. In addition to this primary function, which DLA refers to as either “materiel management” or “supply-chain management,” DLA performs five other major business functions: distributing materiel ordered from its inventory; purchasing fuels for DOD and the U.S. government; storing strategic materiel; marketing surplus DOD materiel for reuse and disposal; and providing numerous information services, such as item cataloging, for DOD, the United States, and selected foreign governments. DLA consists of a central command authority supported by a number of field commands that manage the agency’s six business functions. Until about 1997, DLA generally developed its systems in-house. Since then, the agency has begun to acquire systems, relying on contractors for system development and managing the acquisition of these systems. Currently, DLA is in the process of acquiring two systems: Business Systems Modernization (BSM) and Fuels Automated System (FAS). BSM is intended to modernize DLA’s materiel management business function, changing the agency from being solely a provider and manager of physical inventory to being a manager of supply chains. In this role, DLA would link customers with appropriate suppliers and track physical and financial business practices. It is planning to replace two large legacy systems, as well as several supporting programs, that are more than 30 years old and are not integrated. BSM is based on commercially available software products. DLA plans to acquire and deploy its BSM system solution through a series of four system releases/increments. First, it plans to demonstrate successful application of its new concept of doing business for selected commodities—namely, earth-moving equipment, medical/pharmaceutical supplies, and F/A-18 engine components—at the three Defense Supply Centers. If this first release is successfully demonstrated, DLA plans to expand the system solution to other commodities in three additional increments. DLA plans to invest approximately $658 million to acquire and implement BSM from fiscal years 2000 through 2005. FAS is intended to help the Defense Energy Support Center manage about $5 billion in contracts with petroleum suppliers each year. FAS is to be a multifunctional system that provides for, among other things, point-of-sale data collection inventory control, finance and accounting, procurement, and facilities management. FAS, which relies on a commercially available software package, is being fielded incrementally. Increment 1 is the base- level operational module that is currently being deployed to base-level sites worldwide. The second increment is the enterprise-level system, which is to be deployed to its direct delivery commodity business unit. DLA plans to invest $293 million in FAS from fiscal year 1995 through 2002. SEI’s SA-CMM is used to measure an organization’s capability to manage the acquisition of software. SEI’s expertise in, and model and methods for, determining software process assessment are recognized and accepted throughout the software industry. The model defines five levels of software acquisition maturity. Each level of maturity (except level 1) indicates process capability in relation to key process areas. For a maturity level to be achieved, all key process areas related to that level must be implemented effectively. The second level of process maturity, level 2 (referred to as the repeatable level), demonstrates that basic management processes are established to track performance, cost, and schedule, and the necessary discipline is in place to repeat earlier successes on similar projects. Organizations that do not effectively implement all key process areas for the repeatable level are, by default, at level 1, the initial level of maturity. Level-1 processes can be described as immature, ad hoc, and sometimes chaotic; success in software acquisition for these organizations depends on the ability and commitment of the staff involved. Figure 1 further explains the five-level software acquisition model. We evaluated DLA against six of the seven level-2 (repeatable) key process areas in the SA-CMM. We did not evaluate DLA on the seventh key process area—transition to support—because the contractors who are implementing BSM and FAS will support these systems when they are operational, rendering transition to support irrelevant for these acquisitions. We evaluated DLA against one level-3 (defined) key process area—acquisition risk management—because many software acquisition experts consider it to be one of the most important key process areas. These key process areas are described in table 1. As established by the model, each key process area contains five common features—commitment to perform, ability to perform, activities to be performed, measurement and analysis of activities, and verification of activities’ implementation. These five features collectively provide a framework for the implementation and institutionalization of the key process areas. The common feature definitions are as follows: Commitment to perform: This feature describes the actions that the organization takes to establish the process and ensure that it can endure. Key practices typically involve establishing organizational policies and sponsorship. Ability to perform: This feature describes the preconditions that must exist in the project or organization to implement the software acquisition process competently. Key practices typically include assigning responsibility and providing training. Activities to be performed: This feature describes the roles and procedures necessary to implement a key process area. Key practices typically involve establishing plans and procedures, performing the work, tracking it, and taking appropriate management actions. Measurement and analysis of activities: This feature describes the steps necessary to measure progress and analyze the measurements. Key practices typically involve defining the measurements to be taken and the analyses to be conducted to determine the status and effectiveness of the activities performed. Verification of activities’ implementation: This feature describes the steps the organization must take to ensure that project activities are performed in accordance with established processes. Key practices typically involve regular reviews by management. Each common feature consists of a number of key practices—specific actions such as developing an organizational policy for software acquisition, developing various plans for software acquisition activities, and tracking a contractor’s progress. When an organization is evaluated against the SA-CMM, comparisons of actual performance against a key practice can result in one of four possible outcomes or ratings: Strength: The key practice involved was effectively implemented. Weakness: The key practice was not effectively implemented or was not implemented. Observation: The key practice was evaluated, but cannot be characterized as a strength because (1) the project team did not provide sufficient evidence to support a strength rating or (2) the key practice was only partially performed. Not rated: The key practice is not relevant to the project. To achieve the repeatable level, DLA would have to demonstrate that the key practices related to this level were implemented effectively in the software acquisition projects being evaluated, and thus the project successes can be repeated in future projects. DLA is not at level 2 (the repeatable level of maturity) when compared with the SA-CMM—meaning that DLA does not possess an agencywide or corporate ability to effectively acquire software-intensive systems. Whereas DLA’s BSM project fully or substantially satisfied SEI’s SA-CMM requirements for the key process areas for level 2, as well as requirements for one level 3 (defined level) key process area, its FAS project did not satisfy all the criteria for any of these key process areas. A discussion of how each system compared with the SA-CMM is summarized below. BSM completely satisfied requirements for three of the level-2 key process areas, as well as for the one level-3 key process area, and substantially satisfied requirements for the remaining three level-2 key process areas that we evaluated. (See table 2 for the percentage of strengths and weakness for each area evaluated.) According to BSM officials, satisfying the criteria for the key process areas is attributable to the following factors: allocating adequate resources; following good program management practices, as defined in DOD Directive 5000; and working closely with relevant oversight groups. To address those few weaknesses that we identified, project officials told us that they have initiated corrective action. BSM satisfied all key practices in software acquisition planning, such as (1) having a written software acquisition policy, (2) having adequate resources for software acquisition planning activities, (3) developing and documenting the software acquisition strategy and plan, and (4) making and using measurements to determine the status of software acquisition planning activities. project management, including (1) designating responsibility for project management, (2) having a written policy for the management of the software project, (3) having adequate resources for the duration of the software acquisition project, and (4) tracking the risks associated with cost, schedule, resources, and the technical aspects of the project. contract tracking and oversight, including (1) designating responsibility for contract tracking and oversight, (2) including contract specialists in the project team, and (3) having a documented plan for contract tracking and oversight. acquisition risk management, such as (1) having a risk management plan, (2) having a written policy for the management of software acquisition risk, and (3) measuring and reporting on the status of acquisition risk management activities to management. BSM also satisfied all but one key practice in solicitation. Strengths included (1) designating responsibility for the software portion of the solicitation, (2) preparing cost and schedule estimates for the software products and services being acquired, and (3) having an independent review of cost and schedule estimates for the software products and services being acquired. BSM’s one weakness in this key process area was in not having a written policy for the software portion of the solicitation. This is significant because, according to the SEI, an institutional policy provides for establishing an enduring process. BSM also satisfied all but three key practices in requirements development and management. Strengths included (1) having a written policy for managing the software-related contractual requirements, (2) having a group that is responsible for performing requirements development and management activities, and (3) measuring and reporting to management on the status of requirements development and management activities. One of the three weaknesses was the lack of a documented requirements development and management plan. Such a plan provides a roadmap for completing important requirements development and management activities. Without it, projects risk either not performing important tasks or not performing them effectively. The other two weaknesses involved the project office’s appraisal of system requirements changes. Specifically, BSM did not appraise (1) requests to change system requirements for their impact on the software being acquired or (2) all changes to the requirements for impact on performance and contract schedule and cost. These activities are critical to making informed, risk-based decisions about whether to approve requirements changes. Last, BSM satisfied all but one key practice in evaluation, and we do not view that practice as significant. Strengths included (1) designating responsibility for contract tracking and oversight, (2) documenting evaluation plans and conducting evaluation activities in accordance with the plan, and (3) developing and managing evaluation requirements in conjunction with developing software technical requirements. By generally satisfying these key process areas for its BSM project, DLA has increased the chances that the software acquired on this project will meet stated requirements and will be delivered on time and within budget. See appendix II for more detailed information on key process areas and our findings on BSM. Because of the number and severity of its key practice weaknesses, FAS did not fully satisfy all the criteria for any of the five level-2 SA-CMM key process areas or for the one level-3 key process area that we evaluated.(See table 3 for the percentage of strengths and weakness for each area evaluated.) According to FAS officials, these weaknesses are attributable to a lack of adequate resources for the process areas. However, these officials stated that they are currently in the process of reorganizing and addressing resource shortages. In the software-acquisition–planning key process area, FAS had 12 strengths, 2 weaknesses, and 1 observation. Strengths included, among other things, (1) having a written software acquisition policy, (2) developing and documenting the software acquisition strategy and plan, and (3) having management review software-acquisition–planning activities. Weaknesses included (1) not having adequate resources for software-acquisition–planning activities and (2) not measuring the status of the software-acquisition–planning activities and resultant products. The weaknesses are significant because they could prevent management from developing effective plans, from being aware of problems in meeting planned commitments, or from taking necessary corrective actions expeditiously. In the requirements development and management key process area, FAS had six strengths, six weaknesses, and two observations. Examples of strengths included (1) having a written policy for managing the software- related contractual requirements and (2) having a group that is responsible for performing requirements development and management activities. However, we found weaknesses in important key practices that jeopardize effective control of the requirements baseline and can result in software products that do not meet cost, schedule, or performance objectives. Specific examples of weaknesses included (1) not having a documented requirements development and management plan, (2) not appraising requests to change system requirements for their impact on the software being acquired, (3) not appraising changes to the software-related contractual requirements for their impact on performance and contract schedule and cost, and (4) not measuring and reporting to management on the status of requirements development and management activities. In the project management key process area, FAS had 10 strengths and 6 weaknesses. Strengths included, among other things, (1) designating responsibility for project management, (2) having a written policy for the management of the software project, and (3) using a corrective action system for identifying, recording, tracking, and correcting problems. Examples of weaknesses included (1) not having adequate resources for the duration of the software acquisition project, (2) not documenting the roles, responsibilities, and authority for the project functions, and (3) not tracking the risks associated with cost, schedule, and resources. These weaknesses are significant because they could jeopardize the project’s ability to ensure that important project management and contractor activities are defined, understood, and completed. FAS had 11 strengths, 5 weaknesses, and 1 observation in the contract tracking and oversight key process area. Strengths included, among other things, (1) designating responsibility for contract tracking and oversight, (2) including contract specialists on the project team, and (3) ensuring that individuals performing contract tracking and oversight activities had experience or received training. Examples of weaknesses included (1) not having a documented plan for contract tracking and oversight and (2) not comparing the actual cost and schedule of the contractor’s software engineering effort with planned schedules and budgets. Because of these weaknesses, FAS contractor tracking and oversight activities are undisciplined and unstructured, thereby increasing the chances of FAS software acquisitions being late, costing more than expected, and not performing as intended. In the evaluation key process area, FAS had nine strengths, two weaknesses, two observations, and two areas that were not rated. Strengths included, among other things, (1) designating responsibility for planning, managing, and performing evaluation activities, (2) documenting evaluation plans and conducting evaluation activities in accordance with the plan, and (3) developing and managing evaluation requirements in conjunction with developing software technical requirements. Weaknesses were (1) not ensuring that adequate resources were provided for evaluating activities and (2) not measuring and reporting on the status of evaluation activities to management. These weaknesses are significant because they preclude DLA decisionmakers from knowing whether contractor-developed software is meeting defined requirements. FAS performed poorly in the one level-3 key process area that we evaluated—acquisition risk management—with 3 strengths, 11 weaknesses, and 1 observation. Examples of strengths included (1) having a written policy for the management of software acquisition risk and (2) designating responsibility for software acquisition risk activities. Weaknesses included, among others, (1) not having adequate resources for performing risk management activities, (2) not having a software risk management plan, and (3) not measuring and reporting on the status of acquisition risk management activities to management. Because of these weaknesses, the project office does not have adequate assurance that it will promptly identify risks and effectively mitigate them before they become problems. By not satisfying any of these key process areas for its FAS project, DLA is unnecessarily increasing the risk that the software acquired on this project will not meet stated requirements and will not be delivered on time and within budget. Appendix III provides more details on the key process areas and our findings on FAS. The quality of the processes involved in developing, acquiring, and engineering software and systems has a significant effect on the quality of the resulting products. Accordingly, process improvement programs can increase product quality and decrease product costs. Public and private organizations have reported significant returns on investment through such process improvement programs. In particular, SEI has published reports of benefits realized through process improvement programs. For example, SEI reported in 1995 that a major defense contractor had implemented a process improvement program in 1988 and by 1995 had reduced its re-work costs from about 40 percent of project cost to about 10 percent, increased staff productivity by about 170 percent, and reduced defects by about 75 percent. According to a 1999 SEI report, a software development contractor reduced its average deviation from estimated schedule time from 112 percent to 5 percent between 1988 and 1996. During the same period, SEI reported that this contractor reduced its average deviation from estimated cost from 87 percent to minus 4 percent. DLA does not currently have a software process improvement program, and recent efforts to establish one have not made much progress. We recently reported on DOD’s software process improvement efforts, including those within DLA. Specifically, we reported that before 1998, DLA had a software process improvement program; however, DLA eliminated it during a reorganization in 1998. In response to our report, DLA’s Chief Information Officer said that the software process improvement program was to be reestablished during fiscal year 2001 and that DLA’s goal would be for its system developers and acquirers to reach a level 2 on the CMM by fiscal year 2002. To date, DLA has established an integrated product team for software process improvement that is tasked to study DLA’s software processes and, based on this study, to make recommendations on areas in which DLA needs to improve. DLA has also dropped its goal of achieving level 2 by 2002, and it does not intend to specify a CMM level for its contractors. The software process improvement team has produced several draft papers and a draft policy, but it does not have a plan or milestones for achieving software process improvement. According to an agency official associated with DLA’s process improvement effort, funding to develop and implement a software process improvement program has not been approved because of other agency IT funding priorities, such as BSM. DLA does not have the institutional management capabilities necessary for effectively acquiring quality software repeatedly on one project after another. This lack of agencywide consistency in software acquisition management controls means that software project success at DLA currently depends more on the individuals assigned to a given project than on the rules governing how any assigned individuals will function. That has proven to be a risky way to manage software-intensive acquisitions. To DLA’s benefit, it currently has a model software acquisition project (BSM) that, albeit not perfect, is a solid example from which to leverage lessons learned and replicate effective software acquisition practices across the agency. To do so effectively, however, DLA will need to implement a formal software process improvement program and devote adequate resources to correct the weaknesses in the software acquisition processes discussed in this report. It will also have to commit the resources needed to implement a software process improvement program. To reduce the software acquisition risks associated with its two ongoing acquisition projects, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Director of DLA to immediately correct each BSM and FAS software- acquisition–practice weakness identified in this report. To ensure that DLA has in place the necessary process controls to acquire quality software consistently on future acquisition projects, we recommend that the Secretary also direct the DLA Director to issue a policy requiring that (1) DLA software-intensive acquisition projects satisfy all applicable SEI SA-CMM level-2 key process areas and the level-3 risk management key process area and (2) DLA software contractors have comparable software process maturity levels; and direct the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to establish and sustain a software process improvement program, including (1) developing and implementing a software process improvement plan that specifies measurable goals and milestones, (2) providing adequate resources to the program, and (3) reporting to the Director every 6 months on progress against plans. DOD provided what it termed “official oral comments” from the Deputy Under Secretary for Logistics and Materiel Readiness on a draft of this report. In its comments, DOD stated that it generally concurred with the report and concurred with the recommendations. In particular, DOD stated that it will issue policy directives requiring the Director of DLA to (1) correct identified software acquisition practice weaknesses, except in circumstances in which corrections to past events make doing so impractical; (2) implement a plan in all software-intensive projects to satisfy all applicable SEI SA-CMM level-2 and level-3 key process areas, and require all DLA software contractors to have comparable software process maturity levels; and (3) establish and sustain a software process improvement program that includes a plan specifying measurable goals and milestones, provides adequate resources, and reports to the Director of DLA every 6 months on progress against the plan. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense; the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Senate Committee on Armed Services; the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense; and the Subcommittee on Readiness, House Committee on Armed Services. We are also sending copies to the Director, Office of Management and Budget; the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology; the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness; and the Director, Defense Logistics Agency. Copies will be made available to others upon request. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3439 or by e-mail at [email protected]. An additional GAO contact and staff acknowledgements are listed in appendix IV. Our objectives were to determine (1) whether the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has the effective software acquisition processes necessary to modernize and maintain systems and (2) what actions DLA has planned or in place to improve these processes. To determine whether DLA has effective software acquisition processes, we applied the Software Engineering Institute’s (SEI) Software Acquisition Capability Maturity Model using our SEI-trained analysts. We focused on the key process areas necessary to obtain a repeatable level of maturity, the second level of SEI’s five-level model. We also evaluated against one level-3 key process area—acquisition risk management—because of its importance. We met with project managers and project team members to determine whether and to what extent they implemented each key practice, and to obtain relevant documentation. In accordance with the SEI model, for each key process area we reviewed, we evaluated DLA’s institutional policies and practices and compared project-specific guidance and practices against the required key practices. More specifically, for each key practice we reviewed, we compared project-specific documentation and practices against the criteria in the software acquisition model. If the project met the criteria for the key practice reviewed, we rated it as a strength. If the project did not meet the criteria for the key practice reviewed, we rated it as a weakness. If the evidence was mixed or inconclusive and did not support a rating of either a strength or a weakness, we treated it as an observation. If the key practice was not relevant to the project, we did not rate it. We evaluated DLA’s only two software acquisition projects underway at the time of our review: the Business Systems Modernization (BSM) and the Fuels Automated System (FAS). To determine what actions DLA has planned or in place to improve its software processes, we identified the group within DLA that is tasked with performing this function. We interviewed agency officials who are involved in software process improvement, collected data, and analyzed draft policies and draft working papers describing planned work. We performed our work from May through October 2001, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In addition to the individual named above, key contributors to this report were Suzanne Burns, Yvette Banks, Niti Bery, Sophia Harrison, Madhav Panwar, and Teresa Tucker.

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) plays a critical role in supporting America's military forces worldwide. DLA relies on software-intensive systems to support its work. An important determinant of the quality of software-intensive systems, and thus DLA's mission performance, is the quality of the processes used to acquire these systems. DLA lacks mature software acquisition processes across the agency, as seen in the wide disparity in the rigor and discipline of processes between the two systems GAO evaluated. DLA also lacks a software process improvement program to effectively strengthen its corporate software acquisition processes.

University days generally start at fixed times in the morning, often early morning, without regard to optimal functioning times for students with different chronotypes. Research has shown that later starting times are crucial to high school students' sleep, health, and performance. Shifting the focus to university, this study used two new approaches to determine ranges of start times that optimize cognitive functioning for undergraduates. The first is a survey-based, empirical model (SM), and the second a neuroscience-based, theoretical model (NM). The SM focused on students' self-reported chronotype and times they feel at their best. Using this approach, data from 190 mostly first and second year university students were collected and analyzed to determine optimal times when cognitive performance can be expected to be at its peak. The NM synthesized research in sleep, circadian neuroscience, sleep deprivation's impact on cognition, and practical considerations to create a generalized solution to determine the best learning hours. Strikingly the SM and NM results align with each other and confirm other recent research in indicating later start times. They add several important points: (1) They extend our understanding by showing that much later starting times (after 11 a.m. or 12 noon) are optimal; (2) Every single start time disadvantages one or more chronotypes; and (3) The best practical model may involve three alternative starting times with one afternoon shared session. The implications are briefly considered. Introduction Education and work generally start at fixed times, mostly early and with no adjustment for different chronotypes among those who study and work. However, in adolescence and early adulthood optimal wake and sleep times are shifted 2–3 h later in the day, and yet this group are still required to conform to education start times more appropriate to young children and older adults. Traditionally, institutions have tried to tailor the humans to the organization, but research suggests that, at least as far as time is concerned, it is more efficient, productive, and humane to align the organization's schedules to the natural time patterns of the humans who study and work in them. Despite an impressive, cumulating body of medical and educational research evidence consistently indicating that later start times improved educational performance (Borlase et al., 2013; Edwards, 2012; Meltzer et al., 2014; Wahlstrom et al., 2014), there has been little change in educational starting times. Even Korea's Gyeonggi Province and some school districts in the United States such as Seattle that have made big changes generally have starting times no later than 09:00. Perhaps more worrying, there is little research to illuminate what starting times would be optimal in education, particularly for universities. The crux of the matter in the temporal misalignment problem is that biological changes beginning in puberty shift wake and sleep times 2–3 h later in the day. This shift is at its greatest at age 19 (Roenneberg et al., 2004) before reverting to an earlier pattern in the mid-20s. Oblivious to these changes, secondary schools and universities continue to start classes early in the morning. Genetic factors lead to variations in circadian timing of ±4 h from the mean, as well as differences by age and by sex. For instance, the shift in adolescent circadian timings to 2–3 h later begins earlier in females and reaches its peak at 19.5 years, whereas it is 20.9 in males (Roenneberg et al., 2004). In extended family groups the variations of ±4 h from the mean combined with the time shift in adolescence ensures that during 8 h sleep for most of the group there would be family members naturally alert. In evolution humans tended to live in extended family groups of <150—a maximum size for bilateral relationships of obligation and reciprocity (Dunbar, 2014). It is likely that this 24-h protection during sleep may have had many advantages. In modern times this degree of variation suggests that even in relatively small groups a single starting time for education is unlikely to be optimal for all individuals. The temporal misalignment between the sleep timing shift and educational institutions' usual hours causes significant sleep loss. Sleep loss, in turn, impairs academic performance and also elevates risks of obesity, depression, and drug abuse. The biological mechanisms through which early starts increase health risks and lower performance are well-established (Carrell et al., 2011; Kirkby et al., 2011; Kelley et al., 2015). Early education start times for students in the 14–24 age range are linked to chronic, irrecoverable sleep loss of more than 2 h each day (Foster et al., 2013; Kelley et al., 2015). Because these changes in circadian timing conflict with early starts in school and university, sleep deprivation increases rapidly with age (Roenneberg et al., 2007). More generally, prior research shows that sleep deprivation damages physical and emotional well-being and impairs cognition and performance (Lockley et al., 2004; Blakemore and Choudhury, 2006). Sleep loss or mistimed sleep are associated with increased risk of metabolic disorders, obesity, and diabetes (Buxton et al., 2012; Luyster et al., 2012); depression, anxiety, and drug use (Preckel et al., 2013); and poorer attention, performance, and memory consolidation (Goldstein et al., 2007). A possible solution lies in later start times, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2014; Wheaton et al., 2015): middle and high schools should open no earlier than 08:30. This early time reflects the limitations of almost all previous research to starting times no later than 09:00. Nevertheless, the evidence supporting later start times, largely medical and sleep-research based, show that later start times would reduce health risks for adolescents (Hansen et al., 2005; Millman, 2005; Sawyer et al., 2012; El-Sheikh et al., 2013; Basch et al., 2014; de Souza and Hidalgo, 2014). Compared to the growing body of evidence on secondary schools, studies of university start times are relatively rare despite the demonstrated importance of later times for optimal academic performance (Matchock and Mordkoff, 2009; Carrell et al., 2011; Hsu et al., 2012). Findings to date reveal that undergraduates also have working hours that begin too early and so incur the same risks as high school students. The biological mechanisms for these risks can be remarkably rapid. In a single week with <6 h sleep, subjects aged 27.5 ± 4.3 y showed changes in metabolic, immune, inflammatory and stress responses, gene expression, alertness and performance (Möller-Levet et al., 2013). Sleep disruption also can impair specific cognitive functions such as working memory (Lo et al., 2012). A recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study (Muto et al., 2016) demonstrated that cortical responses showed significant circadian rhythmicity, the phase of which varied across brain regions. Moreover, subjects (17 men, 16 women; aged 21.1 ± 1.7 y) showed local modulation of cerebral circadian phase in cognitive functions in responses to task-related requirements such as attention and working memory. One aspect of these experiments suggested increased cortical responses sometimes occurred during the period before onset of melatonin secretions, or the wake maintenance zone (WMZ). In all, their findings suggest local, region-specific, task-dependent circadian influence on cortical functions. In order to identify timing ranges that elicit peak performance in university students, and to create a generalizable method for determining suitable timing ranges in other contexts, we used two new approaches: a survey-based, empirical model (SM), and a neuroscience-based, theoretical model (NM). After data analysis, these different approaches independently identified suitable—and highly similar—timing ranges. Method: Survey-Based Empirical Model The survey-based, empirical model (SM) was created based on previous research models created by the International Survey Center, a non-profit scientific organization specializing in survey design and analysis (International Survey Center, 2017; for examples of prior surveys see Evans and Kelley, 2011, 2014). The subjects analyzed here were 190 mostly first and second year university students from a large North American public university pursuing a range of degree programmes as part of the general quantitative analysis programme of study required by the university. Subjects were asked a series of questions including a self-assessment of their own chronotype, preferred sleeping times, and a variety of other time-related matters. In an important extension to prior research, subjects were also asked to rate their fitness for cognitive activities in each hour of the 24-h day. Prior research on survey design shows that especially during exploratory research very detailed questions about time-related actions and feelings produce much more reliable data than do summary questions (Tourangeau et al., 2000; Schaeffer and Presser, 2003). The survey analysis created a full 24-h circadian profile for each student and also collected information on their self-identified chronotype. The key series of survey questions began: Do you usually FEEL AT YOUR BEST at these times… and continued hour-by-hour through 4 a.m. the next morning. Answers were scored conventionally in equal intervals, for clarity and without loss of generality as points out of 100: Yes!! = 100 points; yes = 75; ?? = 50; no = 25; No!! = 0. The equal interval assumption is potentially problematic but scoring by ordinal probit methods which eschew that assumption leads to virtually identical results (Kelley et al., 2010, Technical Appendix in Supplementary Material). Statistical analysis used a range of standard techniques, for example Table 1 gives the means and the standard deviations, and significance tests for the difference of each standard deviation from the average standard deviation (statistically significant differences are marked with an asterisk). On the basis of chance alone, there should be approximately 1 significant difference out of the 24 (at p = 0.05), but there are, as shown below, 7. TABLE 1 Table 1. Questions “Do you usually feel at your best at these times…” asked for each hour of the day and scored: definitely yes = 100; yes = 75; Mixed, undecided = 50; no = 25; and definitely no = 0. The means and the range (±1 standard deviation) for each hour of the day for the sample as a whole are given in Figure 1. The average rating across the 24 h is 53.6. The mean for each of the 24 h is significantly different from this average (p < 0.05) except for 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. FIGURE 1 Figure 1. Time of day 1 feels at their best: 5 a.m.? 6 a.m.? …etc…(24 separate questions). Mean ± one standard deviation (standard error of the mean is around 2 points). US undergraduates; N approximately 190, varying slightly by question. This seems tap much the same “optimal time of day concept” as an alternative series of questions: “How awake and alert do you feel…Very alert!/Alert/Somewhat alert/In between/Somewhat sleepy/Sleepy/Very sleepy!” Answers to the two questions are highly correlated (r = 0.58 on average) and they show the same time patterns (see Technical Appendix in Supplementary Material: Further details on the survey calculations). Self-described chronotype was ascertained by a single question: Do you consider yourself a morning person or an evening person? ◦ Definitely morning!! ◦ Probably morning ◦ Mixed, unsure ◦ Probably evening ◦ Definitely evening!! About a quarter of the students chose definitely or probably morning, another quarter were mixed or unsure, a quarter probably evening, and another quarter definitely evening. So there was a predominance of later “owl” chronotypes. The statistical methods used to analyze these data include descriptive statistics (frequency distributions, means, and standard deviations for the whole sample and for self-defined chronotype subgroups in Table 1, Figures 1, 2, Appendix Tables A,B in Supplementary Material; Pearson correlations in Technical Appendix Table C of Supplementary Material; alpha scale reliabilities in Technical Appendix, Section 2 of Supplementary Material, text), inferential statistics (significance tests and confidence intervals for inequality of means, inequality of standard deviations in Table 1, Figure 3; regression analysis of optimality at different hours on chronotype in Table 2; factor analysis of hourly optimality in Technical Appendix, Table D of Supplementary Material); simulations combining the results of the foregoing analyses (Table 3, Figure 3). FIGURE 2 Figure 2. Personally optimal time of day by self-assessed chronotype. US university students. N approximately 190 varying slightly from question to question, about equally divided into morning, mixed, evening, and “definitely” evening chronotypes. Means. FIGURE 3 Figure 3. Optimality of various start times in a 6-h work day: Means. N about 190 each. Personal choice of start (right, green) is significantly better (p < 0.001). Dashed line: 1st hour in block is one of respondent's personal optimums (proportion). TABLE 2 Table 2. Personally optimal time of day by self-assessed chronotype: OLS regression analysis. TABLE 3 Table 3. Selected examples of individual responses: Personally optimal times of day and self-assessed chronotype. Method: Neuroscience-Based Theoretical Model The neuroscience-based theoretical model (NM) was created using relevant circadian and sleep deprivation research. Circadian 24-h cellular mechanisms are genetic, evolutionarily conserved, and found across all photosensitive forms of life (Bass and Lazar, 2016). In mammals there is an additional regulatory mechanism. Although, cells have a 24-h rhythm, they are synchronized by the Suprachiasmatic Nuclei (SCN; Young, 2000). The SCN itself is synchronized to the variations in sunlight when blue light of ~480 nm wavelength enters the eye and strikes photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (pRGC) (Foster and Hankins, 2007). Changes in the light levels in twilight (before dawn or after sunset) entrain circadian timing to the 24 h day. These environmental cues regulate the SCN, creating an automatic, unconscious circadian system. Clock timing based on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) can vary from this circadian system by an hour or more because of time zones, daylight savings time (DST), traveling to another time zone and other factors. These UTC time variations from environmental cues must be eliminated when determining optimal timings, for example daylight saving time (Medina et al., 2015). The NM led to creating a novel time scale for this 24-h circadian system: Geophysical Biological Time (GBT). GBT has only two variables: the environmental cues of changing light patterns in each specific geophysical location, and the biological circadian rhythms generated genetically in a species, group, or individuals. Universal Coordinated Time (UCT) is a time scale that deviates from GBT because it is structured on artificial geographic divisions (time zones), creates a single time across these zones that does not reflect changes in light levels, and may have Daylight Savings Time (Medina et al., 2015). In this study the university's geophysical location only required a small adjustment for GBT of −3 min (as used in the calculation of starting times) assuming a −63 min adjustment during daylight savings time. When there is circadian synchrony, as when UTC matches individual GBT, humans function well. When there is desynchrony it leads to pathologies and dysfunction, including poorer cognitive function. The genetic mechanisms for circadian time systems and for circadian disorders are now largely understood (Jones et al., 2013; Bass and Lazar, 2016). There are variations in individual GBT of 4 h or more above or below the mean in large groups (<150). In modern times this degree of variation implies that even in relatively small groups as in the 190 subjects in this study a single starting time for education based on a mean is unlikely to be optimal for all individuals. The circadian time pattern used as a mean GBT was 8 h sleep duration, with spontaneous wake at 08:00 and sleep onset at midnight (derived from Roenneberg et al., 2007). However, those aged 19–20 have much later spontaneous wake times by ~90 min (Roenneberg et al., 2004, 2007; Foster et al., 2013; Kelley et al., 2015), suggesting a mean wake time of 9:30. As well as variation by age, GBT varies by sex: the shift in adolescent circadian timings to 2–3 h later begins earlier in females and reaches its peak at 19.5 years, whereas it peaks at 20.9 in males (Roenneberg et al., 2004). In this theoretical model the working day assumes 2 h were required from wake to prepare and travel to the campus, the university had a 6 h taught day, and 2 h were required to travel and preparation for sleep, a total of 10 h. The meant GBT adjusted for age has 16 waking hours, leaving 6 h of free time. Therefore, there is a wide range of possible starting times within the 16 h of wake. Specific starting times will not suit all student's optimal individual GBT (iGBT) preferences. This theoretical model is summarized in Table F of the Technical Appendix in Supplementary Material that includes details of the start and end time calculations, UTC, and GBT times, and worked individual examples. Results: Start and End Times The neuroscience-based, theoretical model (NM) was used to determine optimal start and end times for students (mean age 19) at the university's geographic location. Assumptions were made that a continuous 6-h duration of work was required, and 2 h of domestic/travel activities after wake and before sleep. There are a range of reasonable options for the working period. The earliest had a start time of 11:27 a.m. and end time of 5:27 p.m. The latest had a start time of 3:27 p.m. and end time of 9:27 p.m. All of these are of course far later in the day than is usual in universities. The NM model has the clear aim of identifying optimal biological times, thus protecting against sleep loss and circadian disruption insofar as is possible. The model's calculations and potential loss of sleep associated with different starting times are similar to those in the SM findings (see Technical Appendix, Table F in Supplementary Material). Interestingly the use of GMT and UTC has allowed us to quantify circadian desynchrony more precisely. This in turn permits a definition of circadian synchrony for an individual as “when iGBT equals UTC,” and for a group “when mean GMT equals UTC.” The WMZ research would strongly suggest the optimal time for extended cognitive performance would be in the late afternoon and early evening (Shekleton et al., 2013; Muto et al., 2016). There appear to be clear specific links between detailed findings from the NM model and SM models. The survey-based, empirical model (SM) allowed us to obtain a full 24-h circadian profile for each student, as well as their self-identified chronotype. In general, students do not feel at their best in the early morning hours. On a scale of 0–100, the average student rated 5 a.m. very low, just under 20 points out of 100 (see Figure 1). This is the nadir of the day. The standard deviation is very wide, but even students whose ratings are a full standard deviation above the group as a whole only rate 5 a.m. in the low 40s. Ratings then rise as the morning wears on, but by the start of many typical working days (8:30 a.m.), the average rating is only about 40 points out of 100, well below more optimal start times with ratings just over 70. As the clock runs forward, students move toward their peak. They reach a neutral point around 9 a.m., and then begin to move into the positive performance zone. At around 11 a.m. students reach the beginning of a long slightly irregular optimal performance plateau which elicits mean ratings between about 70 and about 74. The plateau comes to an end between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. perhaps reflecting the WMZ with a steep decline thereafter. Ratings drop to the neutral point of 50 around 11 p.m. down into the 30s by about midnight, and down into the 20s around 2 a.m. These means reveal several important points about when students feel “at their best”: (1) The peak performance spell starts around 11 a.m. or 12 noon. This is much later than the beginning of the standard workday. This is also much later than many undergraduate classes start. (2) The peak performance spell (the high plateau in the graph) is quite long and extends well into the evening—much later than classes typically run. (3) An irregularity in the long plateau is the slight “two-humped” shape, or bimodal distribution. Such a distribution typically indicates that there are at least two groups with different peaks in the data, an issue to which we return, below, when we look at subjective optimality over the course of the day for subjects with different chronotypes. It does not reflect bi-phasic optima for individuals, although it does not rule them out. (4) A usual 9 to 5 workday (shaded area in the graph) begins far too early to be optimal for students, starting when most of them are feeling far from their best. Starting two, three, or even 4 h later would be much better at the beginning of the work day and still come to an end well within the long peak performance plateau. But time is not a “one size fits all” phenomenon: Students' self-ratings of performance are diverse at all times of day. Yet the degree of dispersion is not uniform. The dispersion of performance ratings is narrowest—25 points out of 100 or less -during the long high plateau of peak performance from about 11 a.m. till about 9:30 p.m. The dispersion is at its widest—28 points out of 100 or more—in the fairly early morning, 7 a.m. till about 10 a.m. and then again late at night, about 11 p.m. till 2 a.m. How Optimal Performance Hours Vary by Chronotype Students were invited to assess their own chronotype, describing themselves as “definitely morning,” persons, “morning” persons, “in between,” “evening” persons, or “definitely evening” persons. In these data for undergraduates, roughly one quarter are larks, seeing themselves either as “definitely morning” or just “morning” people, one quarter see themselves as “in between,” one quarter see themselves as “evening” persons and another quarter see themselves a “definitely evening” persons. Thus, the full spectrum of chronotypes is represented in these late adolescents/young adults, but the owls (combining “evening” and “definitely evening”) outnumber the larks (combining “morning” and “definitely morning”) about 2 to 1. Their self-reported chronotype aligns well with the times of day when they report feeling at their best (Figure 2). Even the morning-loving larks get off to a slow start, rating the potential quality of their performance in the low to middle 30s, on average, for 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. Then their performance begins to rise steeply, reaching half optimal functionality (50%) by 7 a.m., 68% functionality by 8 a.m., and move into their optimal zone with functionality over 80% by a bit before 9 a.m. Their peak functionality (average ratings in the high 80s to low 90s) is in a spell from 9 a.m. through noon. It begins to decline, falling to 81% by 1 p.m. and holds at a fairly high plateau around 70% until beginning to decline again around 8 p.m. Larks are pretty well aligned with a standard workday of 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.: Their entire peak functionality spell is inside the standard day and at no point in the day is their functionality below about 70%. The self-identified “in between” group also finds the early morning hours a struggle, experiencing <50% functionality through 8 a.m. They move into their peak functionality spell a bit after 10 a.m. Their functionality holds in the middle 80s to low 90s for a long time, till a bit after 9 p.m. and declines thereafter. The standard workday captures less of the “in betweens” peak performance period than for the larks: about 50% of the “in betweens” peak performance period vs. 100% for the larks. Students with a mildly evening chronotype have a substantially harder time with the early morning hours. They are less than half way to being at their best at any time before 9:30 a.m. Their functionality appears to be a bit lower than for the other groups, so it never reaches 0.9, but the peak is in the middle to high 80s from about 5 p.m. to about 9 p.m. The standard workday of 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. would capture only about one half hour of their performance peak. The “definitely evening” chronotype students experience a slightly slower start to their day, not reaching 50% functionality till 10 a.m. Their performance reaches about 80% by 5 p.m. and their performance peak reaches from about 6:30 p.m. to about 10:30 p.m. The standard workday of 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. would fail to capture any portion of their peak performance spell. The slight, albeit intriguing, drop between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. is not statistically significant (t = 1.6772, n.s. even without a Bonferroni type correction). All these differences between chronotype are clear and statistically significant for the morning hours (Table 2, Panel 1). During the afternoon there are only a few statistically significant differences (Table 2, Panel 2). The differences are again clear and statistically significant in the night time hours up to midnight (Panel 3). These results make it clear that the optimal timing of the working day would vary greatly according to chronotype. Nonetheless, certain university activities might require a single start time. The working day that would be both fairest and most efficient would have high average performance and the minimum performance gap between the morning chronotypes and the “definitely evening” chronotypes. The gap is at its largest—over 40 percentage points—between about 7:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., so including these hours in a workday for all would be very wasteful of potential functionality. The smallest performance gaps (absolute value of 5% or less) all fall into the time period: 1 p.m. to about 4:30 p.m. Results: Optimal Start Times for a 6-h Working Day The results thus far reflect the ratings that students on average gave to their performance at different hours of the day, but if we are to discover the best possible university start times for students, we need also to know their best times for a block of hours covering the entire working day. We assume a 6-h class day which might start alternatively at 6 a.m., or at 7 a.m., or at 8 a.m., and so on up to a 1 p.m. start. For each hypothetical start time, we calculate how well it suits each student. To clarify the matter, here are some actual examples of students' responses (Table 3). An example may help clarify the procedure. The first case (Table 3, Panel 1, row 1)—let us call her Nancy—who dislikes very early morning hours. She answered the question “At what time of day do you usually feel at your best?” for 7 a.m. with “mixed, undecided.” That gets a score of 50 (the options and scoring were: Definitely yes = 100; Yes = 75; Mixed, undecided = 50; No = 25; and Definitely no = 0). Nancy likes 8 a.m. better (Yes = 75) and is quite happy with later starts throughout the morning, rating each of these times as fully optimal, could not be better (Definitely yes = 100). Thus, Nancy would find the 7 a.m. start to the work day a little below her optimum: 50 + 75 for the first 2 h and 100 + 100 + 100 + 100 for the next four, an average of 88 for all 6 together. That is 0.88 (or 88%) of what would be the best possible work day for her, be a full 100 for each of the 6 h. Nancy's is an unusually favorable rating for a 7 a.m. start (Figure 2, second bar from the left, shows that is only 62% optimal for the average student). Starting at 8 a.m. would take Nancy even closer to her optimum: (an average of 96% of optimal). A 9 a.m. start would be just as good. But later starts are progressively worse, as the end of the work day goes deeper into Nancy's not-so-favorite afternoon hours. For example Nancy would rate a 2 p.m. start only 54% optimal. Evening starts would be dreadful for early-bird Nancy. Other students would of course have different preferences than our Nancy. For example the definite “owl” in Panel 4 line 10 would hate anything in the morning but be delighted with a 4 or 5 p.m. start. The Technical Appendix in Supplementary Material provides details on the calculations. One complication is that, as usual with survey measures, a few students rate no particular time as fully optimal (van Vaerenbergh and Thomas, 2013). See the examples in Table 3 Panel 5, and details on the adjustment procedure for those cases in the table's footnote. Note that it is plausible to think in terms of optimal blocks of time, because ratings of adjacent hours are highly correlated (Technical Appendix, Table C in Supplementary Material) and even to cohere into 3 main blocks of hours roughly corresponding to morning, afternoon and evening (factor analysis in Technical Appendix, Table D of Supplementary Material). All in all, Figure 3 (leftmost bar) gives the rating for a 6 a.m. start averaged over all students in our sample—this is our estimate for a “one size fits all” 6 a.m. university start. The next bar gives our estimate for 7 a.m. university start for everyone, and so forth up to a 1 p.m. start time. Early starts around 6 a.m. are only 53% of the way toward optimality (Figure 3, blue bar). In particular, only 8% of our US students find work specifically at 6 a.m. to be optimal, the proportion rising slightly at 7 a.m. and rather more at 8 a.m. (dashed red line). As the morning passes, the work day draws closer to optimality, reaching 70% at around 8 a.m. and 80% by 10 a.m. The highest approach to optimality for any single start times is around noon or 1 in the afternoon. Both achieve 81% optimality. However, no single start time achieves as near an approach to optimality as would a mixed system in which students could start their 6-h class block at the beginning of their own personal optimum block of time—each student in effect looking through the whole day and choosing a block of 6 h that gives him or her the highest “feeling best” score. Hence, there would not be a single start time for the university, no “one size fits all” start, but rather a diversity of start times for a diversity of students. That system would bring us 88% of the way toward a fully optimal learning day; statistically it is significantly better (at p < 0.001) than any of the “one time fits all” starts. Of course, that is still not all the way to a fully optimal day which would be 100%, but it is far in that direction, and the chronotype-matched start is closer to optimal than any one of the fixed start times. Discussion In line with neuroscience-based sleep research, survey-based data show that these undergraduates have a marked preference for much later working times than is now usual. Students' perceptions of their own optimal working times fit well with GBT waking at 9:27 a.m. (and hence starting the work day at 11:27) and sleeping at 1:27 a.m. Any work day in this range would reduce health risks and improve performance by reducing sleep deprivation and circadian disruption. For a single start time, the data suggests that starting anywhere between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. would be close to optimal for these undergraduate students. Analysis separately by chronotype shows that there is no single morning starting time that could be adopted without significantly disadvantaging some students. Early through mid-morning start times up to 10 or 11 disadvantage students with strong or even moderate evening preferences—about half of all students. These variations in biological timings are most acute for evening chronotypes as early starts are known to have a strong negative impact on health, mental health, and academic performance generally from early puberty onwards (Roenneberg et al., 2007; Preckel et al., 2013). SM data have a more direct focus on academic performance alone that show highly significant disadvantages of early starts for definitely evening types in morning hours (7 a.m. to noon) and excluding evening hours that are more likely to be optimal (7 p.m. to midnight). Start times around noon or a couple of hours later are good for all. Such later start times appear likely to improve performance and to lower health risks, though practical issues and cost/benefit analysis require future research. SM and NM are scalable, flexible, and could be developed further in other contexts, for example matching chronotypes to shift work (Vetter et al., 2015), optimal performance at different ages, and different elements in performance such as working memory (Muto et al., 2016). An individual's iGBT may have applications in drug administration (Bass and Lazar, 2016), mental health (Wulff et al., 2010), and athletic performance. Previous research may need reassessment in light of differences between UTC and GBT. However, no single start time achieves as near an approach to optimality as would a mixed system in which students could start their working day at the beginning of their personally optimal time. For a 6-h work day, this would get to 88 points out of 100. Longer periods of study, such as 8 h, could be accommodated with a working day of 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. This could create a time slot for early chronotypes before noon, and a time slot after 6 p.m. for later chronotypes (see also Beşoluk et al., 2011; Vetter et al., 2015). There are limitations in this study including small sample size, and the focus on academic performance. The possible role of sleep hygiene—such as advice to stop using screen-based technologies in the last hour before sleep—can play a smaller, but significant role in reducing sleep deprivation, just as a healthy life style can impact on better health. The authors' awareness of these issues led to making the study easily replicable in other universities and other working contexts. Indeed, both the neuroscience-based, theoretical model, and the survey-based, empirical model were developed so that they could be applied to any individual, group, or age. The findings here suggest that the Centers for Disease Control's recommendation of starts no earlier than 8:30 a.m. for high school students takes a step in the right direction but does not go far enough: 8:30 a.m. is still far earlier than the times indicated as optimal both here and in the wider sleep literature (see also Matchock and Mordkoff, 2009; Foster et al., 2013; Haraszti et al., 2014; Meltzer et al., 2014; van der Vinne et al., 2015). Later starts in education have long been recommended and yet have not been implemented for a variety of reasons. The strength of evidence for change, and the lack of evidence for retaining current times, are now well-known. This study offers additional evidence for much later starts, and bringing universities into the discussion for later start times. The data suggest that aligning institutional schedules to individual's chronotypes to optimize academic performance and student health is a critical issue in improving higher education. Ethics Statement This study was performed in accordance with relevant institutional and national guidelines. The International Survey Center is a private, not-for-profit scientific charity founded in Australia in the 1980s and exempt from government institutional review. Confidentiality of survey respondents is strictly protected. Its 2014 Developmental Survey was publically available online when the US students filled it out. To provide relevant examples in statistics lectures, the students were invited to participate in the online developmental survey that the International Survey Center was running at the time. Survey-taking enhances student engagement as research has long shown that respondents enjoy well-designed surveys that they find relevant (Krosnick, 1991; Frymier and Shulman, 1995; Schaeffer and Presser, 2003). In alignment with ESRC (2015) Framework for Research Ethics standards (although not required here), in class, the professor provided information about the purpose, topics, methods, and potential uses of the survey; emphasized voluntary, confidential participation; and pointed out that students might enjoy taking the survey and comparing their responses to their peers'. Participation was not required. If students went to the survey and preferred not to continue they were free to decline to start or to opt out at any time; answering or skipping each question was voluntary (no questions required answers in order to proceed). The students were requested to mention their university in a source question, so that their responses could be filtered from others and provided to the faculty member. No identifying information was collected. Author Contributions Study design: ME; Implementation: ME and JK; Writing paper: ME, PK, and JK; Survey and Statistical analysis, JK and ME; Neuroscience analysis, PK. Funding Science + Technology in Learning has funded this research. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Supplementary Material The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00188/full#supplementary-material References American Academy of Pediatrics (2014). Adolescent Sleep Working Group: school start times for adolescents. Pediatrics. 134, 642–649. PubMed Abstract Basch, C. E., Basch, C. H., Ruggles, K. V., and Rajan, S. (2014). Prevalence of sleep duration on an average school night among 4 nationally representative successive samples of American high school students, 2007–2013. Prev. Chronic Dis. 11:140383. doi: 10.5888/pcd11.140383 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Borlase, B. J., Gander, P. H., and Gibson, R. H. (2013). Effects of school start times and technology use on teenagers' sleep: 1999–2008. Sleep Biol. Rhythms 11, 46–54. doi: 10.1111/sbr.12003 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Buxton, O. M., Cain, S. W., O'Connor, S. P., Porter, J. H., Duffy, J. F., Wang, W., et al. (2012). Adverse metabolic consequences in humans of prolonged sleep restriction combined with circadian disruption. Sci. Transl. Med. 11:129ra43. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003200 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Carrell, S. E., Maghakian, T., and West, J. E. (2011). A's from Zzzz's? The causal effect of school start time on academic achievement of adolescents. Am. Econ. J. 3, 62–81. doi: 10.1257/pol.3.3.62 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Dunbar, R. I. M. (2014). The social brain: psychological underpinnings and implications for the structure of organizations. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23, 109–114. doi: 10.1177/0963721413517118 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Edwards, F. (2012). Early to rise? The effect of daily start times on academic performance. Econ. Educ. Rev. 31, 970–983. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.07.006 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar ESRC (2015). Framework for Research Ethics. Available online at: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics/ Evans, M. D. R., and Kelley, J. (2014). Attitudes to organ transplants are mainly influenced by scientific worldviews: survey data from a national sample of the USA. Prog. Transplant. 24, 178–188. doi: 10.7182/pit2014746 CrossRef Full Text Frymier, A. B., and Shulman, G. M. (1995). What's in it for me? Increasing content relevance to enhance students' motivation. Commun. Educ. 44, 40–49. doi: 10.1080/03634529509378996 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Goldstein, D., Hahn, C. S., Hasher, L., Wiprzycka, U. J., and Zelazo, P. D. (2007). Time of day, intellectual performance, and behavioral problems in morning versus evening type adolescents: is there a synchrony effect? Pers. Individ. Dif. 42, 431–440. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.008 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Kelley, C. G. E., Kelley, S. M. C., Evans, M. D. R., and Kelley, J. (2010). Attitudes toward home-based employment for mothers of young children: Australian evidence. Int. J. Soc. Welf. 19, 33–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00633.x CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Kelley, P., Lockley, S. W., Foster, R. G., and Kelley, J. (2015). Synchronizing education to adolescent biology: 'let teens sleep, start school later'. Learn. Media Technol. 40, 210–226. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2014.942666 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Kirkby, M., Maggi, S., and D'Angiulli, A. (2011). School start times and the sleep–wake cycle of adolescents: a review and critical evaluation of available evidence. Educ. Res. 40, 56–61. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11402323 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Krosnick, J. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 5, 213–236. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350050305 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Lo, J. C., Groeger, J. A., Santhi, N., Arbon, E. L., Lazar, A. S., Hasan, S., et al. (2012). Effects of partial and acute total sleep deprivation on performance across cognitive domains, individuals and circadian phase. PLoS ONE 7:e45987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045987 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Meltzer, L. J., Shaheed, K., and Ambler, D. (2014). Start later, sleep later: school start times and adolescent sleep in homeschool versus public/private school students. Behav. Sleep Med. 14:140. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2014.963584 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Möller-Levet, C. S., Archer, S. N., Bucca, G., Laing, E. E., Slak, A., Kabiljo, R., et al. (2013). Effects of insufficient sleep on circadian rhythmicity and expression amplitude of the human blood transcriptome. Proc. Natl. Soc. Sci. U.S.A. 110, E1132–E1141. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217154110 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text International Survey Center (2017). Homepage. Available online at: http://www.internationalsurvey.org Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., and Rasinski, K. (eds.). (2000). “Chapter 5: Factual judgments and numerical estimates,” in The Psychology of Survey Response (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 136–164. van der Vinne, V., Zerbini, G., Siersema, A., Pieper, A., Merrow, M., Hut, R. A., et al. (2015). Timing of examinations affects school performance differently in early and late chronotypes. J. Biol. Rhythms 3, 53–60. doi: 10.1177/0748730414564786 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Vetter, C., Fischer, D., Matera, J. L., and Roenneberg, T. (2015). Aligning work and circadian time in shift workers improves sleep and reduces circadian disruption. Curr. Biol. 30, 907–911. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.01.064 CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar Wahlstrom, K., Dretzke, B., Gordon, M., Peterson, K., Edwards, K., and Gdula, J. (2014). Examining the Impact of Later School Start Times on the Health and Academic Performance of High School Students: A Multi-Site Study. CAREI; St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. Google Scholar ||||| Down With 8 A.M. Classes: Undergrads Learn Better Later In The Day, Study Finds Enlarge this image LA Johnson/NPR LA Johnson/NPR Mariah Evans, a sociology professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, began to notice a trend in her morning classes: Her students were falling asleep. While this would make most feel discouraged in their teaching abilities or agitated over their students' idleness, Evans instead was curious. Was there more to this than just laziness? A recent study by Evans; a colleague at Reno, Jonathan Kelley; and Paul Kelley of the The Open University in the U.K. sought to answer this question. The results were published in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience last month. The study took two approaches. The researchers surveyed 190 first- and second-year college students. They also analyzed the relationship between sleep and cognitive functioning from a neuroscience perspective. Both approaches agreed: College classes start too early in the morning for students' brains. While most colleges have start times of around 8 a.m., Jonathan Kelley advises NPR Ed that the ideal start time would be more like 10 or 11 a.m. The reason: People fall into different "chronotypes," which people know as "early birds" and "night owls." In this sample, night owls outnumbered early birds by far. The reasons for this are biological, says Evans. "There has been evidence over time from specific studies indicating that teenagers' body clocks are set at a different time than older folks," she says. "Medical research suggests that this goes on well into your 20s, so we decided to look at college students." While there is no ideal start time for everyone, up to 83 percent of students could be at their best performance if colleges allowed them to choose their own ideal starting time for a regular six-hour day, according to Kelley. The idea of students not working to their highest potential because of too-early timing is not a new phenomenon. Middle schools and high schools across the country have long been advised by researchers to start at later times for the sake of the students' education, and sometimes, even for the sake of their health. Kyla Wahlstrom at the University of Minnesota is one of those researchers campaigning for schools to start later. Wahlstrom did similar research on the effects of early start times on the health and academic performance of high school students. She also found that waking up at the crack of dawn prevents students from working to their best ability. It makes sense for college students in their first years to have the same sleep patterns as high school students, says Wahlstrom, agreeing with Evans' point that the sleep cycle of adolescents is biological in nature. So what should colleges and their students do to combat this issue? The researchers say that being conscious of the problem and adapting to it is the way to go. "We want the students to learn," says Evans. "We go to great lengths to increase academic performance with methods that are less effective than the free solution of just changing the timings." Students themselves would benefit from being aware and educated about their own sleep cycles, says Wahlstrom. She advises college students, except for the rare early birds, to refrain from signing up for classes that make them wake up before 8 a.m., so they can be at full functioning capacity throughout the day. Kelley emphasizes that institutions should be considerate of their students. "It has nothing to do with laziness. It's not in their control. It's to do with their bodies," says Kelley. "It's like making an adult wake up at 5 a.m. every single day. It is just not a good idea." ||||| If universities want to encourage better learning, a new study indicates they could do well to restructure their classroom timetables. Using a sample of first- and second-year college students at the University of Nevada-Reno in the US and Britain’s Open University, a group of researchers analyzed students’ cognitive performance throughout the day and found that the best learning happened in classes that began later in the morning. Since every person’s chronotype, or sleep pattern, is slightly different, there isn’t one universal start time to benefit everyone—but according to students’ survey responses as well as theoretical data on circadian rhythms parsed by the researchers, starting classes at 11am or later benefits the greatest number of students. The study, published in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience this week, bolsters prior research indicating that teenagers learn better with late starts; it also extends the studied age group from high school students to college sophomores and freshmen. High school and college classes in the US can start as early as 7am. “The basic thrust is that the best times of day for learning for college-age students are later than standard class hours begin,” says University of Nevada-Reno sociology professor Mariah Evans, who co-authored the study. “Neuroscientists have documented the time shift using biological data—on average, teens’ biologically ‘natural’ day begins about two hours later than is optimal for prime-age adults.” Some schools have already begun heeding the growing body of research promoting later start times. In 2013, the UCL Academy in London became Britain’s first school to push back its day, letting pupils to arrive at 10am so they can “fully wake up” beforehand. Preferring late start times doesn’t necessarily mean students are lazy: Evans’s study shows twice as many students consider themselves consider themselves “evening people” as “morning people,” meaning they’re often studying well into the night. ||||| A new cognitive research study used two new approaches to determine ranges of start times that optimize functioning for undergraduate students. Based on a sample of first and second year university students, the University of Nevada, Reno and The Open University in the United Kingdom used a survey-based, empirical model and a neuroscience-based, theoretical model to analyse the learning patterns of each student to determine optimum times when cognitive performance can be expected to be at its peak. "The basic thrust is that the best times of day for learning for college-age students are later than standard class hours begin," Mariah Evans, associate professor of sociology at the University of Nevada, Reno and co-author of the study, said. "Especially for freshmen and sophomores, we should be running more afternoon and evening classes as part of the standard curriculum." Prior research has demonstrated that late starts are optimal for most high school students, and this study extends that analysis to freshmen and sophomores in college. The analysis by Evans, Jonathan Kelley, fellow University sociology professor, and Paul Kelley, honorary associate of sleep, circadian and memory neuroscience at The Open University, assessed the preferred sleeping times of the participants and asked them to rate their fitness for cognitive activities in each hour of the 24-hour day. "Neuroscientists have documented the time shift using biological data -- on average, teens' biologically 'natural' day begins about two hours later than is optimal for prime age adults," Evans said. "The survey we present here support that for college students, but they also show that when it comes to optimal performance, no one time fits all." The study showed that much later starting times of after 11 a.m. or noon, result in the best learning. It also revealed that those who saw themselves as "evening" people outnumbered the "morning" people by 2:1, and it concluded that every start time disadvantages one or more of the chronotypes (propensity for the individual to be alert and cognitively active at a particular time during a 24-hour period). "Thus, the science supports recent moves by the University to encourage evening classes as part of the standard undergraduate curriculum," Evans said. "It also supports increasing the availability of asynchronous online classes to enable students to align their academic work times with their optimal learning times." The results, Identifying the best times for cognitive functioning using new methods: Matching university times to undergraduate chronotypes, were published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience March 31, 2017. "This raises the question as to why conventional universities start their lectures at 9 a.m. or even earlier when our research reveals that this limits the performance of their students," Kelley said. "This work is very helpful for asynchronous online learning as it allows for the student to target their study time to align with their personal rhythm and at the time of day when they know they are most effective."

The world is making its college students wake up too darn early, according to a study recently published in Frontiers in Neuroscience. NPR reports researchers sampled dozens of college freshmen and sophomores to figure out what time of day was best for their brain performance. While most colleges have classes that start at 8am, the study found classes shouldn't start until after 11am to foster the best learning in students, according to a press release. While it's not the same for everyone, people in their teens and early 20s typically have a different biological clock than their elders. "It's like making an adult wake up at 5am every single day," researcher Jonathan Kelley tells NPR. "It is just not a good idea." The study shows colleges need to offer more afternoon and evening classes, but it's not so simple as pushing everything later due to students' different "chronotypes," Quartz reports. The study found a two-to-one ratio of "night owls" to "early birds." But that's still a lot of morning people. One solution is offering more online classes that allow students to start whenever they're best ready to learn. Researcher Mariah Evans says changing schedules is free for colleges and could be more effective than other performance-improving methods schools are spending a lot of money on. (A camping trip can get the body's sleep cycle back on track.)

CNN has multiple crews in Gaza, Israel and neighboring countries to bring you the latest accurate information on the conflict, the impact on people and the recent cease-fire. Are you affected by the conflict? Share photos and video, but stay safe. Near the Israel-Gaza border (CNN) -- Hours after a cease-fire was declared Wednesday in Israel's conflict with Gaza, it appeared to be holding, an Israeli official said. "We assumed it would take a while for the cease-fire to take hold," Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, told CNN. "I understand now that it has taken hold. There hasn't been fire for a while and, of course, we are not firing, so there is a cease-fire." His remarks came after an Israeli military spokeswoman, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich, told CNN that five rockets had been fired from Gaza in violation of the cease-fire. Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, in an interview with CNN, put the number of rockets at 12. Wednesday's cease-fire followed eight days of violence along Israel's border with Gaza and nearly 150 deaths -- the vast majority of them Palestinian. Egypt's Morsy praised for his key role in talks The cease-fire, announced in a joint news conference in Cairo with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr, took effect at 9 p.m. (2 p.m. ET). Gazans took to the streets, firing guns into the air in celebration of what they considered to be a victory over Israel's military. The agreement calls for Israel to halt all acts of aggression on Gaza, including incursions and the targeting of people, according to Egypt's state news agency EGYNews. It also calls for the Palestinian factions to cease all hostilities from Gaza against Israel, including the firing of rockets and attacks on the border. Border crossings were to be opened Thursday night, and the movement of people and goods across them was to be eased, it said. On the ground: Follow updates from CNN's reporters The agreement came after a day of negotiations that included Clinton, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy and Palestinian officials. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said the agreement calls for "complete and total cessation of all hostile activity initiated in the Gaza Strip." "For us, that's victory. That's what we wanted," he said. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned of possible additional military action if the cease-fire fails to lead to long-term security. "But at this time, the right thing for the state of Israel is to exhaust this opportunity to obtain a long-term cease fire," he said. Netanyahu thanked U.S. President Barack Obama for his "unreserved support" of Israel's actions. It was the November 14 assassination by Israeli forces of Ahmed al-Ja'abari, the head of Hamas' military wing, that ignited the fighting. Opinion: Will real change come from this cease-fire? Israel launched its offensive with a stated goal of ending the rocket attacks on southern Israel from inside Gaza by degrading the ability of Palestinians to launch such attacks. "Their attempts backfired against them," said Khaled Meshaal, a Hamas political leader. "They wanted to destroy the infrastructure of the resistance of Hamas. They claim they have done so, and they have not. They are bankrupt." He cited Israel's destruction of buildings and killings that included civilians. "This is their accomplishment," he said. "They have nothing else to show. And our rockets continued to strike them until the last minute." Israel will hold Hamas responsible for any attacks from Gaza, whether conducted by that organization or any others, Regev said. He said the agreement reflects that understanding. iReport: Share your stories from the region As he was preparing to return to New York from Tel Aviv, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said late Wednesday his biggest concern was for the safety of civilians, "no matter where they are. Innocent people, including children, have been killed or injured on both sides. Families on both sides were forced to cower in fear as the violence raged around them." He said that more than 139 Palestinians had been killed, more than 70 of them civilians, and more than 900 were injured. In addition, some 10,000 Palestinians had lost their homes, he said, adding there was a critical need for humanitarian aid in the territory. IDF's Leibovich dismissed such concerns. "There is no crisis in Gaza," she told CNN, adding that she had seen pictures Wednesday morning of markets filled with fresh produce. "I understand that some things are not convenient," she said. During the conflict, rocket fire killed four Israeli civilians and wounded 219 other people, most of them civilians, three of them seriously, Ban said. In addition, an Israeli soldier was killed and 16 were wounded, one critically, he said. Smuggling weapons to Gaza -- the long way In all, 1,456 rockets were estimated to have been fired from Gaza into Israel, with three long-range missiles hitting the outskirts of Jerusalem, a move he called "unprecedented." Israeli forces reported strikes on more than 1,450 targets in Gaza, Ban said. They targeted, but were not limited to, attacks on rocket-launching sites, military bases, police stations and tunnels along the border with Egypt, he said. Hundreds of other buildings were hit, Ban said, adding that he condemned "indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza into Israel," but also believed that the "excessive and disproportionate use of force that endangers civilian lives is intolerable." Long-term solutions for Gaza and the Palestinians in general must be found, he said. "Once calm is fully restored and the violence ends, a broader cease-fire will have to address all the underlying causes of conflict, including the full opening of crossings, Palestinian reconciliation and an end to weapons smuggling." How Middle East has changed since last Gaza conflict Regev said the deal calls for talks to begin Thursday on easing economic restrictions on Gaza. "If the border is quiet, that enables us to be more forthcoming," he said. Clinton, who shuttled among Israel, the West Bank and Egypt to help negotiate the deal, said the United States will continue to work with regional partners to implement and expand the agreement. Obama spoke Wednesday morning with Morsy, thanking the Egyptian leader for his leadership in negotiating the proposal. As recently as Wednesday afternoon, Hamas officials had been calling for more strikes against Israel, while that country's military continued to press its campaign against what it said were suspected rocket-launching sites and "terrorist hideouts." Arab-Americans watch conflict with mix of worry, relief The cease-fire talks, held in the West Bank, Israel and Cairo, continued despite a lunchtime bus attack near the Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv. At least two bombs were planted on the bus, Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. One of the bombs exploded, blowing out the windows of the bus, he said. Rosenfeld said 24 people were wounded, three of them seriously. Aviva Shemer with Ichilov Hospital said pedestrians were among the injured. Belief blog: How U.S. Jews view the situation Police said they were seeking at least one and possibly two suspects. Hamas put its own spin on the attack in a banner on al-Aqsa, calling it "a natural response to the massacre of the al-Dalou family and targeting of innocent Palestinian civilians." Nine members of the al-Dalou family died Sunday in an Israeli airstrike, provoking outrage among Palestinians. "We told you #IDF that our blessed hands will reach your leaders and soldiers wherever they are," the al Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, said on Twitter. "You opened the Gates of Hell on Yourselves." Diplomats said they were hoping to avoid a repeat of 2008 and 2009, when at least 1,400 people died as Israeli troops invaded Gaza after similar rocket attacks. Analysis: Conflict shifts balance of power in the Middle East CNN's Tom Watkins, Ben Brumfield, Dana Ford, Arwa Damon, Ben Wedeman, Christiane Amanpour, Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, Saad Abedine, Sara Sidner, Frederik Pleitgen, Kareem Khadder, Saad Abedine, Ingrid Formanek, Nicki Goulding, Neda Farshbaf, Marilia Brocchetto and Reza Sayah contributed to this report. ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "The goal must be a durable outcome that promotes regional stability" International efforts to finalise a ceasefire are being stepped up after a night of renewed Israeli air strikes in Gaza and sporadic Hamas rocket attacks. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is visiting the West Bank and, later, Cairo after talks with Israeli leaders. Palestinian sources had suggested a truce would be announced on Tuesday, but Israel said no deal was struck. Some 136 Palestinians and five Israelis have been killed since the flare-up began eight days ago, officials say. On Tuesday alone, the conflict claimed the lives of at least 20 Palestinians and two Israelis. Mrs Clinton has arrived in Ramallah on the West Bank for talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is also visiting leaders in the region to try to cement a ceasefire. In Cairo, officials from Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that has governed Gaza since 2007, had suggested a truce would come into effect at midnight on Tuesday, but Israel later said it had not agreed to a text. Israel's demands include no hostile fire of any kind from Gaza and international efforts to prevent Hamas from re-arming, while Hamas is demanding an end to the blockade on Gaza and targeted killings by Israel. Before me two men are salvaging burnt & damaged copies of the Quran from the rubble of the compound Paul Danahar (@pdanahar) on Twitter An Israeli official told Israel Radio the ceasefire had not been agreed because of "a last-minute delay in the understandings between Hamas and Israel". Offices struck In the early hours of Wednesday, BBC correspondents in Gaza reported hearing loud explosions that were followed by a widespread power cut. Israeli missiles struck the main complex of the Hamas-run government in the centre of Gaza City. The BBC's Paul Danahar in Gaza said the huge compound had been laid to waste and was little more than dust and rubble. The Israeli military later tweeted it had "surgically targeted a Hamas intelligence operations centre" on the seventh floor of a media building. Israel's military, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), said it had attacked more than 100 "terror sites" in Gaza overnight "of which approximately 50 were underground rocket launchers". The health ministry in Gaza said 15 more people had been injured overnight. The BBC's Jon Donnison in Gaza says the streets were again empty on Wednesday morning, as people tried to protect themselves at home while waiting for something positive to come from talks in Cairo. Israel says more than 800 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel over the past week, 162 in the past day alone. Many of the rockets have been intercepted by Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system. Overnight, two rockets were knocked down by Iron Dome and others landed on open ground, Israel Radio said. By morning, air raid sirens sounded in many parts of southern Israel, local media reported. 'Sustainable outcome' Hamas officials in Cairo accused Israel of failing to respond to ceasefire proposals. Israeli spokesman Mark Regev told the BBC: "I have no doubt that Hamas would be more than happy to have a temporary respite - a time out... so they could rest and re-arm and we would have missiles on Israel next week or next month. We are not interested in that." Image caption Smuggling tunnels between Egypt and Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip have been targeted by Israel US state department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Mrs Clinton - who flew into Jerusalem late on Tuesday - had held two hours of talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials. "They discussed efforts to de-escalate the situation and bring about a sustainable outcome that protects Israel's security and improves the lives of civilians in Gaza," Ms Nuland said. Speaking just before the talks, Mr Netanyahu said Israel wanted a diplomatic solution but that he was ready to take "whatever action" was necessary. "If there is a possibility of achieving a long-term solution to this problem by diplomatic means, we prefer that. But if not, then I am sure you will understand that Israel will have to take whatever actions are necessary to defend its people," he said. Israel's Haaretz newspaper said there were divided views in the government over the truce proposals, with Defence Minister Ehud Barak in favour of accepting an Egyptian draft, while Mr Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman were opposed. The BBC's Jon Leyne in Cairo says both sides want more out of this than just a ceasefire. The Palestinians want a lifting of the blockade of Gaza, permanently reopening the borders. He says the hope would be that this will defuse tension and reduce pressure on Hamas. The Israelis want an end to attacks, our correspondent says, but specifically want to prevent Hamas restocking its missiles. He says the key to that is how the Egyptians can seal the border; but this is politically sensitive among the Egyptian people and also physically difficult, as the military has a lot of trouble controlling militants in Sinai. Israel launched its current offensive a week ago with the killing of Hamas military leader Ahmed Jabari. The Israeli government says his assassination, and the subsequent offensive, aims to end rocket fire from Gaza. Israel has troops massed along the Gaza border but says it is holding off on a possible ground invasion as talks continue. ||||| The deal demonstrated the pragmatism of Egypt’s new Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi , who balanced public support for Hamas with a determination to preserve the peace with Israel. But it was unclear whether the agreement would be a turning point or merely a lull in the conflict. The cease-fire deal was reached only through a final American diplomatic push: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton conferred for hours with Mr. Morsi and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon , at the presidential palace here. Hanging over the talks was the Israeli shock at a Tel Aviv bus bombing — praised by Hamas — that recalled past Palestinian uprisings and raised fears of heavy Israeli retaliation. After false hopes the day before, Western and Egyptian diplomats said they had all but given up hope for a quick end to the violence. Tellingly, neither Israel nor Hamas was represented in the final talks or the announcement, leaving it in the hands of a singular partnership between their proxies, the United States and Egypt. Photo There were immediate questions about the durability of the deal. Hamas, which controls Gaza, has in the past not fulfilled less formal cease-fires by failing to halt all missile fire into Israel by breakaway Palestinian militants. Neither side retreated from threats to resume the conflict if the deal fell through, and both said they had only reluctantly agreed under international pressure. In a televised news conference, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel declared that some Israelis still expected “a much harsher military operation, and it is very possible we will be compelled to embark on one.” But he said that in a telephone conversation with Mr. Obama earlier in the evening, “I agreed with him that it is worth giving the cease-fire a chance.” He added that he had reached an undisclosed agreement with Mr. Obama to “work together against the smuggling of weapons” to Palestinian militants, for which Mr. Netanyahu blamed Iran . Khaled Meshal , Hamas’s top leader, thanked Iran for its military support in a triumphal news conference in Cairo. “This is a point on the way to a great defeat for Israel,” he said. “Israel failed in all its objectives.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story He suggested that the West had come to Hamas and its Islamist allies in Egypt pleading for peace. “The Americans and the Europeans asked the Egyptians, ‘You have the ear of the resistance,’ ” he said, using the term Hamas prefers to describe itself and other Palestinian militants fighting the Israeli occupation. “Egypt did not sell out the resistance as some people have claimed. Egypt understood the demands of the resistance and the Palestinian people.” The agreement postponed the resolution of the most contentious issue: Israel’s tight restrictions on the border crossings into Gaza under a seven-year-old embargo imposed to thwart Hamas from arming itself. The one-page “understanding” regarding the cease-fire called for “opening the crossing and facilitating the movement of people and transfer of goods,” but it also said that “procedures of implementation will be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the cease-fire.” Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. But however fragile the cease-fire may be, the deal itself may be a turning point for Egypt’s Islamist leaders, in both their relations with the West and their role in the region. Since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak — a reliable ally of Washington and Israel — many in the West have been worried about how Egypt’s leaders might respond to the next confrontation that pits their allies in Hamas against Israel. As a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood ’s parliamentary bloc, Mr. Morsi often railed against Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and praised Hamas for rejecting the Western-backed peace process in favor of armed resistance. Advisers to Mr. Morsi acknowledged that the latest Gaza battle had put them in a bind, caught between the electorate’s anger at Israel and Mr. Morsi’s own vows — to Egyptians and the West — to encourage peace in the region. “If he responds fully to public opinion, he risks what we have been trying to do for peace and stability in the region,” said a senior official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the talks. When the test came, several American diplomats said, Mr. Morsi chose pragmatism over ideology, working closely with Washington to bring the antagonists to the table. Video American officials and Mr. Morsi’s advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity, said both the Egyptian president and Mr. Obama had given the other room to manage the demands of their domestic constituencies. They spoke by telephone at least six times during the week of fighting, officials said. Mr. Morsi had looked past Mr. Obama’s repeated statements of support for Israel’s right to self-defense, while Mr. Obama did not object as Mr. Morsi publicly blamed the Israelis for both instigating the conflict and then using excessive force. But behind the scenes, the Americans pushed the Israelis toward a truce and Mr. Morsi pressured Hamas, as the parties all acknowledged on Wednesday. Essam el-Haddad, Mr. Morsi’s top foreign policy adviser, said, “I think that the United States from the first moments was trying to find an end to the bloodshed.” “Yes, they were carrying the point of view of the Israeli side, but they were understanding also the other side, the Palestinian side,” he said of President Obama ’s role. “The sincerity and understanding was really very helpful.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story Nabil Shaath, the Palestinian Authority ’s commissioner for international relations, who was in Cairo during the early stages of the talks and met with key players, said the published agreement was intentionally kept “as vague and as general and as concise as possible to avoid problems and misunderstandings.” Egypt’s role in the cease-fire remains unclear, Mr. Shaath said. “How much Egypt can really take the responsibility of a total sealing of the borders not to allow a bullet to come through, above or below?” he said. Although the memorandum of understanding did not clarify how Gaza’s borders might be opened, Egyptians, Israelis and Americans briefed on the talks said that Egypt had broached the possibility of expanding the traffic of people and goods at Rafah. Egypt has historically resisted a broader opening of the crossing, and Israel enforces its embargo on the other sides of Gaza, fearing that it would face an influx of refugees or end up with responsibility for the impoverished enclave. Israel also fears that an open border crossing would become a conduit for weapons. But the people briefed on the talks said the Egyptians were considering restoring something like a previous arrangement, under which the Palestinian Authority and the European Union would operate the border crossing to provide Israel and Egypt some measure of security. The arrangement might also force Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to work together. Mr. Morsi’s advisers say they are intent on reconciling the rival factions. After the agreement was announced, the White House said, Mr. Obama called Mr. Morsi and each thanked the other. ||||| GAZA | GAZA (Reuters) - Two cameramen working for al-Aqsa TV and an educational programming director for the al-Quds channel, both affiliated with Gaza's Hamas government, were killed by Israeli air strikes on their cars on Tuesday. The cameramen were killed in their car not far from the main Shifa hospital in Gaza city. The al-Quds program director was killed in his car in the central Gaza Strip. Their deaths have sparked outrage among Gaza's press corps and also from Hamas, which accused Israel of trying to suppress coverage of Israeli attacks in the coastal enclave. "The Israeli aggressors want to cut the picture and silence the voice of the brave people of Gaza. Journalism in Gaza plays a major, effective role in exposing the enemy's crimes to the world," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum told a news conference. For its part, Israel says it takes pains only to strike combatants and warns civilians away from its strikes, which have killed over 125 Palestinians in six days of fighting, around half of them civilians, including around 30 children. "The terrorists use schools, mosques, the media and even their own kids as human shields," Israel army spokesman Arye Shalicar told Reuters. "Every time we target a site, and we have hit more than 1400 targets, we try to have nearly 100 percent certainty about where and what the target is, so that we only strike the terrorists," he said. Four Israelis have been killed by hundreds of rocket salvos fired into Israel by Gaza-based militants. A tower block housing many of Gaza's local and international media offices has twice been bombed by Israeli planes in recent days, in attacks Israel said targeted the communications infrastructure and personnel of militant groups. Travelling down a laser-straight path toward the building on Monday, three Israeli missiles burst into earth-shaking fireballs, killing a cyber warfare operative from the militant Islamic Jihad group and wounding six others. Tenants of the building, which include Britain's Sky News and Saudi-owned Al Arabiya, said they did not realize militants also occupied the non-descript office targeted. The building's roof was bombed on Sunday, in a strike Israel said targeted military communications infrastructure. A similar attack on the same morning attacked another building, also crowded with media offices, housing Hamas-affiliated al-Quds TV. It wounded eight journalists. International media watchdogs have criticized Israel. "Israel should respect its obligations under international law and immediately halt its attacks against news media offices," Sherif Mansour of the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement on Monday. "Authorities know these buildings are home to numerous news organizations whose employees are civilians protected by international law," he said. (Reporting By Noah Browning; Editing by Douglas Hamilton and Jon Hemming)

Talk of a Gaza ceasefire beginning at midnight proved to be just talk as Israel pounded Gaza with more than a hundred airstrikes overnight and Palestinian rockets were fired toward Israel. Diplomats will resume talks today in an effort to bring an end to hostilities that have killed at least 139 people in Gaza, including many civilians, and five Israelis, including a soldier killed by a rocket strike yesterday, the New York Times reports. Hillary Clinton, who called for a "durable peace" after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday, will meet Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas today, but she is not expected to travel to Gaza itself, CNN reports. Israel hit the Hamas government's main complex in Gaza overnight, reducing the huge compound to rubble, the BBC reports. Israel says it struck scores of "terror sites," including 50 that harbored rocket launchers. A truce was close last night but was thwarted by last-minute delays, according to the Telegraph. Sources say both sides expect an Egypt-brokered ceasefire deal to emerge sometime today. Three journalists were among those killed by Israeli strikes in Gaza yesterday, Reuters reports. Two cameramen and an educational programming director for the Hamas-affiliated al-Quds channel were killed in their cars, sparking outrage among international media groups.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, the federal government has established requirements setting limits on emissions and discharges from municipal and private industrial facilities that might pollute the land, air, or water. EPA shares responsibility for administering and enforcing these requirements with the states that have been authorized to administer the permit programs. EPA’s implementing regulations cover activities such as setting levels and standards for air emissions, establishing effluent limitation guidelines for water discharges, evaluating the environmental impacts of air emissions, monitoring compliance with discharge limits for water permits, ensuring adequate public participation, and issuing permits or ensuring that state processes meet federal requirements for the issuance of permits. While EPA has retained oversight responsibility for these activities, it has authorized state, tribal, and local authorities to perform most activities related to issuing permits to industrial facilities. These authorities— referred to as permitting authorities—receive federal funding from EPA to carry out these activities and must adopt standards that are equivalent to or more stringent than the federal standards. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and EPA’s Title VI implementing regulations prohibit permitting authorities from taking actions that are intentionally discriminatory or that have a discriminatory effect based on race, color, or national origin. EPA’s Title VI regulations allow citizens to file administrative complaints with EPA that allege discrimination by programs or activities receiving EPA funding [40 C.F.R.§§7.120(1998)]. Title VI complaints must be filed in response to a specific action, such as the issuance of a permit. Because they must be linked to the actions of the recipients of federal funds, complaints alleging discrimination in the permitting process are filed against the permitting authority, rather than the facility receiving the permit. Complaints may be based on one permitting action or may relate to several actions or facilities that together have allegedly had an adverse disparate impact. Neither the filing of a Title VI complaint nor the acceptance of one for investigation by EPA stays the permit at issue. As of February 7, 2002, EPA’s complaint system showed 44 pending complaints alleging that state agencies had taken actions resulting in adverse environmental impacts that disproportionately affected protected groups. Of these complaints, 30 involved complaints that were accepted by EPA and were related to permits allowing proposed facilities to operate at a specified level of emissions. Other complaints involved issues such as cleanup enforcement and compliance. The 15 facilities covered in our study included waste treatment plants, recycling operations, landfills, chemical plants, and packaging facilities. These facilities were in nine locations, and some were in rural areas, while others were in urban areas. (See app. II for additional information on the location and description of the facilities). All of the facilities that we studied reported that they had provided jobs as a result of the creation or expansion of their facility. As shown in table 1, the number of full-time jobs ranged from 4 to 103 per facility, with 9 of the facilities having 25 jobs or less. Most of the facilities involved waste-related operations, which generally employ small numbers of employees. For four of the facilities, information was available from documents prepared before the facilities began operating on the number of jobs the facilities had estimated they would provide. In each of these cases, the number of jobs estimated was greater than the number of jobs provided. Specifically, Genesee Power Station estimated it would provide 30 jobs and provided 25; ExxonMobil estimated it would provide 50 jobs and provided 40; Natural Resources Recovery estimated it would provide between 15 and 40 jobs and provided 6; and Safety-Kleen, Inc., estimated it would provide 50 jobs in Westmoreland and provided 22. Officials from a few facilities told us that their facilities, in addition to providing jobs directly, generated additional jobs outside of the facility. For example, a document from ExxonMobil indicated that for every job provided at the plant, 4.6 jobs resulted elsewhere in the East Baton Rouge Parish economy. Also, Chemical Waste Management officials told us that their landfill increased business in the area and that this enhanced business could result in more jobs. We did not verify the facilities’ estimates of jobs generated outside of the facility. In some cases, the number of jobs at these facilities decreased over time. For example, jobs at the chemical waste facility in Kettleman City, California, decreased from 200 in 1990 to 103 in 2002; and jobs at a similar facility in Buttonwillow, California, decreased from 110 in 1987 to 23 in 2002. In addition, jobs at a fertilizer plant in New York decreased from 80 in 1993 to 39 in 2002. Officials from the two facilities in California told us that the changes resulted from a decreased demand for the facilities due to a reduction in the amount of waste generated by a more environmentally conscious public. We obtained information on the salary ranges and types of jobs provided for 14 of the 15 facilities. According to officials at these facilities, the salaries for the jobs provided varied from about $15,000 to $80,000 per year, depending on factors such as the type of work and the location of the facility. However, the information that the facilities provided was not detailed enough to allow us to determine the numbers for each job type, the salaries for individual jobs, or the number of jobs filled by people from the surrounding communities. The information indicates a wide range of salaries; however, community organizations in some locations told us that, in their view, the majority of the jobs filled by community residents were low paying. The facilities provided the following information: The ExxonMobil Corporation told us that their facility in Louisiana had both hourly and salaried jobs. According to ExxonMobil, its hourly jobs included mechanics, electricians, and laboratory technicians; and its average wage was about $23 an hour, which is equivalent to $47,840 per year. Salaried jobs included engineers, a chemist, accountants, and administrative assistants, and the average salary was just under $70,000 annually. The Texas Industries Package Plant, located in Texas, told us that its jobs included plant manager, sales representative, dispatcher, packaging coordinator, maintenance mechanic, plant operator, crew operators, crew members, and administrative positions. The salaries ranged from about $10 to $15 per hour, which is equivalent to $20,800 and $31,200 per year, respectively. The three hazardous waste treatment facilities in California reported that the jobs at their facilities—facility manager, manager, heavy equipment operators, plant operators, truck receiving operators, customer service representatives, and waste acceptance specialists— had salaries ranging from $28,000 to $82,000 annually. The nine nonhazardous waste-related facilities located in Connecticut, Louisiana, Michigan, and New York reported having jobs that included facility site managers, site supervisors, scale and machine operators, technical assistants, mechanics, and laborers. Salaries for these jobs ranged from $7.50 to $33.50 per hour, which is equivalent to $15,600 and $69,680 per year, respectively. About half of the facilities provided some information on whether their jobs were filled by people from the communities. Specifically, according to information provided by the Hunts Point, South Bronx, New York facilities, a large number of employees in the waste-related facilities resided in the Bronx. The Hunts Point Water Pollution Control Plant had 67 employees from the Bronx, with 1 living in the immediate Hunts Point neighborhood. Safety-Kleen, Inc., told us that the majority of the employees in its two facilities lived in the county where the facilities were located. Over the years of the Genesee Power Station’s operation, about half of the 68 employees resided in Flint or Genesee County, Michigan; however, the facility did not indicate how many employees, if any, lived in Genesee Township—the home of the power station—or the Flint community that is close to the plant. Similarly, information provided by the Texas Industries Package Plant in Austin, Texas, indicated that its 10 employees all resided in a nearby community, town, or city but did not identify the number from the community immediately surrounding the plant. And in a 1998 document submitted to EPA, Natural Resources Recovery, Inc., indicated that four of its five employees lived in the town where the plant was located. However, community representatives told us that few, if any, town residents worked at the landfill at the time of our visit. As shown in table 2, officials from 10 of the 15 facilities said they had contributed to the communities in which they were located. Specifically, they performed volunteer work that included offering firefighting assistance and organizing cleanups in the area. They also made infrastructure improvements, such as installing a new water drainage system. In addition, some of the facilities made or were planning to make financial contributions in the communities where they were located. These financial contributions would assist schools and universities as well as community groups and other organizations. For example, the Genesee Power Station awarded eight $1,000 scholarships to high school students. In three communities, the facilities established foundations or funds to manage and disburse the financial contributions. One foundation was set up following legal action taken by community groups. In another case, the foundation was not linked to legal action. The fund resulted from collaboration among the state environmental agency, the facility, and the community that ultimately resulted in the community dropping its complaint with EPA. The facilities and community groups in these three locations provided the following information: The Kettleman City Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, was set up after legal action was taken by the community against Chemical Waste Management. The foundation was organized to improve the quality of life of the residents of Kettleman City and nearby areas of Kings County, California, by developing capacity, leveraging additional resources, and protecting the environment and residents’ health and welfare. The board of this foundation consisted of the legal representative for the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment; three community residents; and the manager of the Chemical Waste Management facility. Chemical Waste Management provided $115,000 to the foundation. In addition, Chemical Waste Management agreed to make further contributions annually, based on tons of municipal waste disposed at its landfill. Since 1998, Chemical Waste Management has contributed almost $300,000 to the foundation. Some of these funds are to be used to help build the Kettleman City Community Center, which plans to provide a variety of social services. The Buttonwillow Community Foundation was established in June 1994. The directors of the foundation included representatives from local government offices, the Chamber of Commerce, and a senior citizens’ group. This foundation’s primary function was to provide grants to facilitate projects promoting the health, education, recreation, safety and welfare of the Buttonwillow residents. Safety-Kleen, Inc., provided an initial $50,000 donation to the foundation. Its annual contribution to the foundation is linked to the tons of waste received at the facility, and in calendar years 2000 and 2001, these contributions exceeded $100,000. The North Meadow Municipal Landfill worked with the community to address the community’s concerns. Consequently, a fund called the Economic Development Account was established for economic development for minority business enterprises, social welfare projects, relief of the poor and underprivileged, environmental education, community revitalization, amelioration of public health concerns, and for other charitable purposes within Hartford. A board consisting of community group and city representatives would determine how to distribute funds from the account. At the time of our review, the facility had agreed to provide $9.7 million for the account over 10 years. In exchange for these contributions, the community group agreed to accept the landfill’s expansion and withdraw the complaint to EPA. Despite these efforts, community residents often felt these contributions were inadequate. Property values in a community are affected by many factors, including the condition of the land and houses; the proximity of the property to natural or manmade structures—such as the facilities covered by this study—that might be viewed as desirable or undesirable; and economic conditions in the surrounding or adjacent communities. Information on property values was not available for most of the communities where the facilities were located. For example, in some rural and unincorporated areas, information on property values was kept for a limited number of properties or was based on property sales, which were infrequent and had not occurred since the facilities had begun operating. Some information was available for two locations—Genesee Township, Michigan, and South Bronx, New York. Even in these two locations, the information available was not specific enough to isolate the effect of the facility on property values because of the other factors that can affect property values, such as the location of other manufacturing or waste- related facilities in the area or economic activity in adjacent areas. The Genesee Township tax assessor provided information showing that property values in the area had not changed. In the South Bronx, property assessment data indicated that property values had increased in the Hunts Point neighborhood—the neighborhood where multiple waste management facilities were located. For this case, local officials stated that the increase occurred because of factors such as expanding economic development and the rising cost of housing in Manhattan. In locations where property values were not available, community groups voiced concerns that the facilities would cause property values to decline. For example, residents of Alsen, Louisiana, believed that the location of nearby industrial facilities, including the facilities studied for this report, affected property values and reduced homeowners’ ability to sell their homes for a reasonable price. Similar concerns were included in the complaints regarding the hazardous waste landfills in California. The Alum Crest Acres Association, Inc., a community group in Columbus, Ohio, and the Garden Valley Neighborhood Association located near the Texas Industries Austin Package Plant also expressed concern about the effect of the industrial facilities on their property values. Six of the 15 facilities we studied said they used incentives or subsidies that were available in a particular area. Officials from these facilities also said that they chose their location because of low land costs, favorable zoning, or other factors. The incentives varied, depending on the type of facility and its location, but included tax exemptions, a local bond initiative, reductions in regulatory fees, and reduced utility rates. In Louisiana, the state granted ExxonMobil an industrial tax exemption from state, parish, and local taxes on property such as buildings, machinery, and equipment that were used as part of the manufacturing process. This exemption, which is available to any manufacturing company that builds or expands a facility within the state, is initially available for 5 years but may be renewed for an additional 5 years. According to the Louisiana Department of Economic Development, ExxonMobil’s polyolefin plant had received tax exemptions worth approximately $193 million between 1990 and June 2000. Also, in 2001, approximately $139 million was filed for the ad valorem tax exemption related to the Polypropylene project. The Buttonwillow and Westmoreland, California, hazardous waste facilities received a low-interest bond issued by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority in the amount of $19.5 million, and the facility in Kettleman City experienced a 40-percent reduction in regulatory fees as a result of provisions granted by the state in January 1998. In the latter case, facility representatives said the provisions were intended to help keep the facility from laying off employees. In the Hunts Point community in the South Bronx, the New York Organic Fertilizer Company was eligible for discount rates from the utility company—Consolidated Edison—because of its location. The utility company offered this incentive to any facility that located in a certain community and hired a percentage of employees from that community. Also, Tri Boro Fibers, a recycling company located in Hunts Point, received a local tax exemption that was available to all recycling facilities for trucking fees and certain purchases. Certain EPA units provided technical comments on a draft of this report. EPA’s Office of Civil Rights commented that the report needed (1) more detailed information on the number and types of jobs and on those jobs provided to the communities nearest the facilities and (2) a comparison of property values in the communities closest to the facilities to similar communities. As stated in the report, the facilities covered in this study were not required to provide information, however most of them voluntarily provided some job-related information. Facilities were not required to provide a specified number of jobs to receive permits to locate in a given area. A property value comparison would not have been possible considering the data limitation and accessibility issues that we identified. EPA generally agreed with the information about the agency and provided clarifications which we incorporated into this report where appropriate. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of the report. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. We will also make copies available to others on request. If you have any questions about this report, please contact Nancy Simmons, Assistant Director, or me at (202) 512-8678. Key contributors to this assignment are listed in appendix III. The objectives of this engagement were to (1) determine the number and types of jobs provided, (2) identify contributions made by the facilities to their communities, (3) determine the facilities’ effect, if any, on property values in their communities, and (4) determine the amount and type of government subsidies or incentive packages the facilities received. We did not examine the environmental impact of the facilities or the associated impact, if any, on the health of the communities in which they were located. We selected facilities for this engagement from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) complaint system. These complaints involved facilities that received environmental permits and were located in communities that felt the facilities’ operations were having a disproportionate impact on them. As of February 7, 2002, the system contained 44 complaints, of which EPA had accepted 36 for further review. As agreed with the requesters, we considered only facilities covered by complaints involving issues related to the permitting process (30 of the 36 accepted complaints). We initially selected three of the complaints, which involved three locations and eight of the facilities covered in our study. We found that 1 of these complaints involved 26 waste-related facilities. As agreed with our requestors’ staffs, we included 6 of the 26 facilities in the scope of this engagement. Subsequently, using geographic location, type of facility, and population density (urban versus rural), we selected seven additional complaints involving diverse facilities and locations. We found that two of these complaints involved facilities that were no longer in business; consequently, we excluded them from our analysis. The remaining five complaints involved six additional locations and seven facilities. Table 3 outlines the 9 locations and 15 facilities included in our study. To determine the number of jobs provided, the contributions the facilities made to the communities, and the impact on property values, we used a structured data collection instrument to interview officials from each facility and from state or local economic development and planning organizations. We asked for information such as the number of jobs provided over time, the number of jobs filled by people in the communities nearest the facilities, the types of jobs offered, and the salaries for each job. However, we did not examine whether the jobs represented a net increase in jobs within the community. Where available, we obtained property assessment information from local tax assessment offices. We also interviewed representatives from community and environmental action groups, some of which were involved in filing complaints with EPA. We analyzed documents pertaining to jobs at the facilities, property values before and after the facilities began operating or expanding, contributions to the community, and program planning; reviewed public hearings related to the issuance of environmental permits; and reviewed economic and demographic data. In general, we did not independently verify the information provided. To determine the subsidies or tax incentives that the facilities used, we interviewed officials from the facilities and from state or local economic development and planning organizations. We also reviewed documents obtained from these officials. We conducted our work between May 2001 and May 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We obtained comments on a draft of this report from EPA officials. We also asked the representatives of some facilities with whom we consulted to review portions of the draft of this report for accuracy and clarity. Their comments are incorporated into this report as appropriate. Alsen is located along the Mississippi River near Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in an industrial corridor. Located along this corridor are facilities such as petrochemical plants that produce one-fifth of all U.S. petrochemicals, a lead smelter, a commercial hazardous waste incinerator, and landfills. Alsen is located in a rural area where the population is predominantly low income and African-American. Two of the facilities included in this report are located in Alsen—ExxonMobil and Natural Resources Recovery, Inc. The ExxonMobil facility produces both polyethylene and polypropylene (plastic) for textile, film, and automotive markets and is located in a cluster of petrochemical companies. The Louisiana Environmental Action Network and the North Baton Rouge Environmental Association filed a complaint with EPA against the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality for issuing a permit for ExxonMobil’s expansion of an existing plant. According to officials at the facility, a $150-million expansion was initiated in 1998 and, with a capacity of 600 million pounds, will increase production to meet the growing demand for polypropylene. Natural Resources Recovery, Inc., is a construction and demolition debris landfill. The facility also recycles wood and construction material. As with ExxonMobil, Louisiana Environmental Action Network and North Baton Rouge Environmental Association filed a complaint with EPA against the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality concerning Natural Resources Recovery, Inc. The residential population within the Hunts Point community consisted of about 12,000 people in 2000, many of whom were renters. Community residents are largely Hispanic and African-American, and many residents are low income. The community is home to many industrial facilities, including numerous waste treatment facilities. Six of the waste treatment facilities are included in this report—Waste Management (Truxton), Waste Management (Barretto), Tri Boro Fibers, Hunts Point Water Pollution Control Plant, New York Organic Fertilizer Company, and Tristate Transfer Associates Inc. Respectively, these facilities handle carting and demolition, transfer clean fill material, recycle nonhazardous waste, treat sewage, conduct thermal drying of biosolid waste, and collect garbage. Most of these facilities have operated since the 1980s and 1990s. These and other facilities are the subject of a complaint filed with EPA by U. S. Congressman Serrano and various Hunts Point community groups against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York City Department of Sanitation concerning the issuance of permits to operate existing and proposed facilities. These three communities are located in sparsely populated portions of Kern County, Imperial County, and Kings County, respectively. Residents of all three communities are predominantly Hispanic and low income. In addition, each of the communities is home to one of the three hazardous waste treatment facilities included in our study. Safety-Kleen, Inc.—the world’s largest recycler of automotive and industrial fluid wastes—operates the facilities located in Buttonwillow and Westmoreland. These facilities collect, process, recycle, and dispose of a range of hazardous wastes. The Buttonwillow facility, which accepts a wide range of EPA regulated hazardous and nonhazardous waste, has been operating since 1982. The area immediately surrounding the facility is irrigated agricultural and undeveloped land. Irrigated agriculture, oil production, and waste disposal are the predominant land uses for several miles around the facility, and the closest residence is about 3 miles away. The Westmoreland facility began operating in 1980 and also accepts a wide range of EPA regulated hazardous and nonhazardous waste. Like the Buttonwillow facility, the Westmoreland facility processes and disposes of both hazardous and nonhazardous waste. Chemical Waste Management operates the third facility, which is located about 4 miles from Kettleman City in Kings County, California. This facility provides hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal services to a variety of customers—including universities, government agencies, and private industry—throughout California and the western United States. In addition, the facility has a separate landfill that handles municipal solid waste generated from two counties. The Parents for Better Living of Buttonwillow, People for Clean Air and Water of Kettleman City, and Concerned Citizens of Westmoreland filed a complaint with EPA against the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, regarding these three hazardous waste landfills. Genesee Township is a suburban area located in Genesee County and is adjacent to the city of Flint, which is the fourth-largest city in Michigan. Residents near the facility are largely low income and minority. The Genesee Power Station is a wood-burning power plant located in an industrial park within the township. Using waste wood, the plant produces electricity for a power company that services about 35,000 homes in Flint and Genesee Township. The area surrounding the plant includes a cement- making plant, an asphalt plant, a fuel storage facility, and a residential community. The Saint Francis Prayer Center filed a complaint with EPA against the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality regarding the issuance of a permit for the Genesee Power Station. Hartford is an urban area in central Connecticut. The North Meadow Municipal Landfill—one of the facilities covered in our study—has existed for over 75 years and is located in north Hartford in a community of about 35,000 people. The city of Hartford owns the landfill, which is run by the Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority. The facility is located in an area that abuts an industrial zone containing auto dealerships, the city’s public works garage, a junkyard, vacant buildings, and other industrial businesses. The neighborhood near the facility is largely minority and suffers from poorly maintained and abandoned buildings. The Organized North Easterner and Clay Hill and North End, Inc., filed a complaint with EPA against the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection regarding this landfill. However, after subsequent discussions among representatives of the community, the state environmental agency, and the facility, an agreement was reached and the complaint was withdrawn. While Austin is considered the home of the Texas Industries Austin Package Plant, which was included in our study, the plant is located outside of the city. The plant produces packaged products that include various types of concrete, mortar, sand, cement and asphalt mixes. It primarily sells its products to construction companies in the southwestern United States. The Garden Valley Neighborhood Association—which represents a largely minority, residential community close to the plant—filed a complaint with EPA against the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission regarding the concrete plant. The Georgia Pacific facility has operated in an urban area on the south side of Columbus, Ohio, in Franklin County since 1971. The facility annually produces 110 million pounds of resin as well as 235 million pounds of formaldehyde, which is used in making plywood, particleboard, ceiling tiles, laminates, and other products. On behalf of a community near this facility that is approximately 80 percent minority, Alum Crest Acres Association, Inc., and South Side Community Action Association filed a complaint with EPA concerning the permit issued for this facility by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the City of Columbus. Staff members who made key contributions to this report were Gwenetta Blackwell-Greer, Emily Chalmers, M. Grace Haskins, Tina Kinney, Tina Morgan, and Paul Thompson. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.

Industrial facilities that operate under permits regulating some emissions and discharges have been the subject of complaints from community groups and environmental activists who charge that the facilities expose the surrounding communities to greater environmental risk than the general population. In response, the facilities point out that they contribute to the economic growth of the surrounding communities by employing residents and supporting other community needs, such as schools and infrastructure. In a survey of selected facilities, GAO found that the number of jobs in some decreased over time. According to facility officials, these jobs included unskilled, trade, technical, administrative, and professional positions with salaries ranging from $15,000 to $80,000 per year. Most of the facilities identified other contributions that they had made or planned to make in the local communities. These included volunteer work such as organizing cleanups; infrastructure improvements such as installing a new water drainage system; and financial assistance to schools, universities, community groups, and other organizations. Property values in a community are affected by many factors, including the condition of the land and houses, the proximity of the property to natural or man-made structures--such as the facilities covered by this study--that might be viewed as desirable or undesirable, and economic conditions in the surrounding or adjacent communities. Information on property values was unavailable for most of the communities and facilities studied. In these locations, community groups voiced concerns that the facilities would cause property values to decline. Officials at 6 of the 15 facilities GAO studied said they had used available incentives or subsidies. The incentives varied, depending on the type of facility and its location, but included tax exemptions, a local bond initiative, reductions in regulatory fees, and reduced utility rates.

In 1972, the Congress established the Construction Grants Program to provide grants to help local governments construct wastewater treatment facilities. These federal grants provided most of the funding for these projects, with the remainder provided by the local government constructing the project. In 1987, the Congress began to phase out that program and authorized the creation of SRFs, which provide loans to local governments and others. The states are required to match SRF capitalization grants at a rate of at least one state dollar for every five federal dollars. The states have the option of increasing the amount of SRF funds available to lend by issuing bonds guaranteed by the money in the SRFs. According to a national survey, as of June 30, 1995 (the latest data available), the states collectively had $18.9 billion in their SRF accounts; over one-half of this amount (approximately $11 billion) was provided by federal capitalization grants. (The appendix provides additional information on the nine states’ sources and uses of funds.) For the most part, the Congress gave the states flexibility to develop SRF loan assistance programs that meet their particular needs. However, the states must ensure that the projects funded with loans issued up to the amount of the federal capitalization grants meet two types of federal requirements. The first type includes those contained in the various statutes that apply generally to federal grant programs. These requirements—also called “cross-cutting” authorities—promote national policy goals, such as equal employment opportunity and participation by minority-owned businesses. The second type applies various provisions applicable to the Construction Grants Program (known as title II requirements because that program was authorized by title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972). These include compliance with the federal prevailing-wage requirement. The title II requirements apply only to those projects wholly or partially built before fiscal year 1995 with funds made directly available by federal capitalization grants. The transfer of federal funds to SRFs begins when the Congress appropriates funds annually to EPA. EPA then allots capitalization grants to the individual states, generally according to percentages specified in the Clean Water Act. To receive its allotment, a state has up to 2 years to apply for its capitalization grant. In order to apply, a state must, among other things, propose a list of potential projects to solve water quality problems and receive public comments on that list. After completing the list and receiving its capitalization grant, a state generally has 2 years to receive payments of the grant amount (via increases in its letter of credit). After each such increase, a state has up to 1 year to enter into binding commitments to fund specific projects. Next, a binding commitment is typically converted into a loan agreement. We collected detailed information on the use of revolving funds by nine states with SRF programs—Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. We selected these states because they provide diversity in terms of the size and complexity of their SRF programs and other factors, such as geographic location. However, the conditions in these states are not necessarily representative of the conditions in all 51 SRFs. We used a questionnaire and follow-up discussions to collect information on SRF activities and finances from program officials from the nine states. We also interviewed EPA headquarters and regional officials who are responsible for the SRF program. We did not attempt to independently verify the information collected from EPA or the states. The data cited in this statement are as of the end of the applicable state’s fiscal year or the federal fiscal year, as appropriate. In seven of the nine states, the state fiscal year ends on June 30; in Texas, it ends on August 31; and in Florida, it ends on September 30, which is also the end of the federal fiscal year. The overall amount of funds lent by the nine states increased between 1995 and 1996, from $3.3 billion to $4.0 billion. The amount lent by each state also increased. During the same time period, seven states increased their percentage of funds lent, and two states maintained or decreased their percentage of funds lent. All nine states increased the amount of funds they lent between 1995 and 1996. Six states increased their amount by 15 to 29 percent. For example, Pennsylvania increased the amount lent by 17 percent, from $267 million to $311 million. The other three states increased their amount of funds lent by 30 percent or more. The largest change—95 percent—was in Arizona, which increased from $50 million to $99 million. Seven of the nine states increased their percentage of funds lent between 1995 and 1996. Three states increased their percentage by 17 percentage points or more. Four other states increased theirs by 2 to 9 percentage points. Finally, one state’s percentage stayed the same, and another state’s declined by 2 percentage points. Among the nine states, the percentage of funds lent at the end of 1996 ranged from 60 to 99 percent. Specifically, five states lent 80 percent or more of their available funds, another three states lent 70 to 79 percent, and the final state lent 60 percent. Officials in eight of the nine states cited one or more factors at the federal level as affecting the amount and percentage of funds they lent. In seven states, officials said that uncertainty about the reauthorization of the SRF program discouraged some potential borrowers. Also, in seven states, officials cited a concern about compliance with federal requirements, including possible increases in project costs because of a federal prevailing-wage requirement. Finally, in three states, officials identified other reasons, such as federal restrictions on the use of SRF funds. Officials in seven of the nine states said that the lack of reauthorization of the Clean Water Act limited their success in lending funds. Among other things, the lack of reauthorization made it difficult to assure the communities applying for loans that SRF funds would be available to finance their projects and created uncertainty among communities about the terms of their loans. Officials from the seven states generally agreed that the amount and timing of federal funding became more uncertain after the SRF program’s authorization expired at the end of September 1994. These officials said that, prior to 1994, they used the amounts in the authorizing legislation to help determine how much money they would have to lend each year. According to these officials, these amounts also helped reassure the communities that federal funding would be available for projects. These officials said that the uncertainty created by the lack of reauthorization made it difficult for states to schedule projects and assure the communities applying for loans that construction money would be available when needed. In addition, Pennsylvania officials said that the lack of reauthorization caused some communities to delay accepting SRF loans because they hoped for more favorable loan terms after the act was reauthorized. Specifically, the Congress has considered a proposal to extend the maximum term for an SRF loan, in certain cases, from 20 years to as much as 40 years and to provide lower interest rates. The state officials said that the communities were interested in both longer repayment periods and lower interest rates. According to a Pennsylvania official, several communities in the state had a loan approved by the state but had not formally accepted the loan. In three cases, local officials told us that they were delaying further action pending the act’s reauthorization; the total dollar value of the loans was about $15 million. The Pennsylvania official told us that small, low-income communities in particular would benefit from the proposal to lengthen the repayment period. For example, in March 1995 Pennsylvania approved a $3 million loan for Burrell Township, which has approximately 3,000 people. However, as of October 1996, the community had not accepted the loan on the chance that a reauthorized act would provide for a longer loan term and thus lower annual repayments. Officials in seven of the nine states said that compliance with the federal requirements made financing projects with SRF funds less attractive and, in some cases, caused communities to turn down SRF loans. In particular, five states raised concerns that a federal prevailing-wage requirement could make SRF-financed projects more expensive to construct than projects constructed with other funds. While the title II requirements—which include the federal prevailing-wage requirement—ceased to apply to new projects after October 1, 1994, state officials said they were concerned that these requirements would be reinstated in the reauthorization act. For example, an Arizona official said that the prevailing-wage requirement could inflate a project’s costs from 5 to 25 percent. A Louisiana official said that the community of East Baton Rouge Parish withdrew its 1990 SRF loan application for a project to serve about 120,000 people when it discovered that the prevailing-wage requirement would increase the labor cost of the project by more than $1.1 million—31 percent. Louisiana officials said that before the prevailing-wage requirement expired, the state had experienced difficulties in making loans largely because local officials perceived the requirement as increasing project costs. The officials said that Louisiana’s lending rate increased in part because the wage requirement expired. The state’s lending rate was 44 percent at the end of 1994, before the requirement expired; 62 percent at the end of 1995; and 79 percent at the end of 1996. EPA officials said they were aware that many states had a concern about the prevailing-wage requirement. They noted, however, that the requirement expired at the end of September 1994 and that the continued application of the requirement would be a state’s management decision. They also noted that, even before the requirement expired, it applied only to projects funded with federal capitalization grants (as opposed to projects funded solely with state matching or borrowed funds, for example). Also, they noted that some states have chosen to continue requiring projects to comply with the requirement, even though they are no longer required to do so; however, they said, both Arizona and Louisiana no longer apply the requirement to projects they fund. Officials from three states identified other factors at the federal level that constrained lending. These included the awarding of federal funds directly for selected communities and federal restrictions on the use of SRF funds. Maryland and Pennsylvania officials said that the earmarking of federal funds—not from the SRF program—for specific communities raised the expectation in other communities that if they waited long enough, they might also receive funds directly. This expectation reduced these communities’ incentive to apply for an SRF loan. For example, a Maryland official said that state SRF lending was limited by a congressional decision to provide federal funds directly for a project in Baltimore, which SRF officials had expected to finance. He said that the City of Baltimore turned down the SRF loan because it received $80 million in federal grant funds for the project in 1993 and 1994. The state official said that it took time to find other communities to borrow the money that was originally set aside for the Baltimore project. The state increased its percentage of funds lent from 61 percent at the end of 1995 to 70 percent at the end of 1996. Officials from Missouri said that certain federal restrictions on the use of SRF funds limit the amount of loans they can make. For example, a state official cited restrictions on financing the costs of acquiring land. Under the Clean Water Act, SRF loans cannot be made to purchase land unless the land itself is an integral part of the waste treatment processes. Thus, wetlands used to filter wastewater as part of the treatment process are an eligible expense under the act. However, other lands, such as the land upon which a treatment plant would be built, are not eligible. According to the official, because purchasing land for a wastewater treatment facility represents a large portion of the facility’s cost but is ineligible for SRF financing, some communities are discouraged from seeking SRF loans. In Pennsylvania and Arizona, the amount of funds lent was limited by decisions on how to manage the loan fund. These decisions related to how to use SRF funds in Pennsylvania and how to publicize the program in Arizona. Pennsylvania established a state-funded program, independent of the SRF, in March 1988 to help communities finance wastewater and other projects. In the early years of the SRF program, Pennsylvania officials decided to finance about $248 million in wastewater projects with these state funds rather than wait for SRF funding to become available, according to state officials. According to these officials, the state decided to fund these projects as soon as possible with state funds to reduce public health risks. For example, about $30 million was awarded to the City of Johnstown to upgrade an existing treatment plant and thereby prevent raw sewage overflows and inadequately treated wastewater from being discharged into surface waters. According to a state official, Pennsylvania’s percentage of funds lent would have been higher if the state had chosen to fund the $248 million in projects with SRF funds. In that case, he said, Pennsylvania’s total amount of funds lent through the end of 1996 would have been $558 million, instead of $310 million, and the state would have lent all available funds, instead of 60 percent of those funds. Likewise, in Arizona, state decisions limited the amount of funds lent. According to a state official, efforts to inform local government officials about the SRF program and interest them in participating were not effective in the program’s early years. This difficulty was compounded by restrictive provisions of state law that further limited the amount of SRF funds lent.The state official said that the outreach effort was refocused in 1995. He also noted that the approval of changes in state laws in 1995 and 1996 helped create a more positive atmosphere for outreach, even before the changes took effect. Arizona’s percentage of funds lent was 55 percent at the end of 1995 and 81 percent at the end of 1996. Under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program, the states use funds from six primary sources to make loans for wastewater treatment and related projects. These are: state matching funds, borrowed funds, unused funds from the Construction Grants Program, repayments of loans, and earnings on invested funds. All nine states received federal grants and provided state matching funds. These two sources generally accounted for most of the money in the nine states’ revolving funds. Four of the nine states borrowed money for their revolving funds. Five states transferred unused funds from the old Construction Grants Program. All nine states received some loan repayments. Finally, eight states had investment earnings on loan repayments. Table I.1 shows the amount and sources of funding for the nine states we reviewed through each state’s fiscal year 1996. To determine the percentage of funds lent by each state as of the end of 1995 and 1996, we divided the total amount of funds lent by the total funds available to lend, as defined above, both as of the end of the year. This method was based on the approach used by the Ohio Water Development Authority in conducting annual SRF surveys during 1992 through 1995. Table I.2 shows the amount and percentage of funds lent for the nine states for each state’s fiscal year 1995 and 1996. Amount of funds lent (thousands of dollars) The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

GAO discussed selected states' experience with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, focusing on: (1) the amount of funds lent and the percentage of available funds lent, as of the end of each state's fiscal year 1996; and (2) information on factors at the federal and state levels that constrained the amount and percentage of funds lent. GAO noted that: (1) the nine states increased the total amount of funds they lent from $3.3 billion in 1995 to $4.0 billion in 1996; (2) all nine states increased the amount they lent by 15 percent or more, and three states achieved increases of 30 percent or more; (3) in addition, seven of the nine states increased the percentage of available funds they lent; (4) of these seven, three states increased this proportion by 17 percentage points or more; (5) nevertheless, the percentage of funds lent as of the end of 1996 varied substantially among the nine states; (6) specifically, five states had lent 80 percent or more of their available funds, three states had lent between 70 and 79 percent, and one state had lent 60 percent; (7) in eight of the nine states, officials identified the expiration of the authorizing legislation, as well as federal requirements, as affecting the amount and percentage of funds lent; (8) for example, officials in seven states said the legislation's expiration created uncertainty about the loan conditions that might apply in the future and caused some communities to postpone seeking or accepting loans; (9) also, officials in seven states said that other federal requirements, such as a prevailing-wage provision, discouraged some communities from seeking loans; and (10) finally, in two states, officials said that state program decisions constrained lending.

Abstract Importance There is no universally accepted quantitative metric that defines the ideal nasal tip rotation and projection. Objective To identify the ideal nasal tip projection (NTP) and rotation by using 3 classic NTP methods (Crumley 1, Crumley 2, and Goode). Design, Setting, and Participants Lateral facial portraits of normal-appearing white women aged 18 to 25 years were selected from a previously validated and attractiveness-scored database of images. Each image was digitally modified to fit the NTP ideals outlined by the Crumley 1, Crumley 2, and Goode methods with columellar facial angles (rotation metric) of 96°, 101°, 106°, 111°, and 116° (15 modified images per portrait). These variants were incorporated into electronic surveys that were distributed to traditional focus-group and online social-network participants. Analysis was performed using paired comparison analysis, a consumer preference research analytic. The traditional focus-group participants were undergraduate students at the University of California, Irvine, whose online social-network contacts were also used. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean ranks. Results There were no significant differences in preference between the traditional focus-group (n = 106) and online participants (n = 3872) (P > .05). The most preferred rotation variant for all 3 NTP methods was 106° (Crumley 1: mean rank, 2.11 [95% CI, 2.07-2.16]; Crumley 2: mean rank, 2.07 [95% CI, 2.02-2.12]; and Goode: mean rank, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.99-2.11]; P < .001). Crumley 1 was considered to be the most attractive NTP method (mean rank, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.82-1.85]; P < .001) overall and was the most preferred NTP method for faces of above-average attractiveness (mean rank, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.76-1.80]; P < .001). No significantly preferred NTP method was found for faces of average attractiveness (P > .05). The most aesthetic combination of tip rotation and projection was a columellar facial angle of 106° with the Crumley 1 tip projection. Conclusions and Relevance To our knowledge, this is the first population-based study to attempt to simultaneously determine the ideal NTP and rotation. Each classic NTP method uses measurements dependent on both projection and rotation; thus, ideal rotation for each NTP method must be determined before comparison of the ideals. A rotation of 106° (columellar facial angle) was found to be the most aesthetic. The Crumley 1 method was determined to be the most attractive nasal tip variant overall. Level of Evidence NA. Introduction Rhinoplasty is among the most technically challenging of aesthetic surgical procedures, requiring meticulous preoperative planning and facial analysis. Nasal attractiveness is evaluated in terms of geometry and architecture but is also dependent to some degree on cultural context and generational standards for beauty. Attempts to objectively capture ideal nasal tip projection (NTP) have been elusive and ongoing for decades without any clear aesthetic standard identified. Quantifying aesthetic factors for NTP started with Baum’s1 method of assessment, which entails a vertical line made from the nasion intersecting a perpendicular horizontal line emanating from the tip-defining point. These 2 lines join at the alar crease, creating a 2:1 ratio of the vertical line to the horizontal line. In 1984, Powell and Humphreys2 described a method using Baum’s landmarks of the nasion and nasal tip, but they extended the vertical line from the nasion to the vertex of the nasolabial angle to create a 2.8:1 ratio of the vertical line to the horizontal line. The simplest method was developed by Simons3 in 1982, who proposed that the nose’s basal length should be equal to the length of the upper lip. Unfortunately, this method has received criticism because the proposed 1:1 ideal seems to underestimate the length from the subnasale to the nasal tip. Goode4 developed what is currently the most commonly applied and known method, which uses a triangle with the nasion and tip-defining point as landmarks that join at a 90° angle at the alar crease.2,5 In 1988, Crumley and Lanser5 proposed 2 additional methods (Crumley 1 and Crumley 2) to account for shortcomings that they perceived in the previously established techniques. The methods of Crumley and Lanser were unique because they incorporated the upper lip and chin, structures that affect the appearance of the nasal profile, thereby not limiting assessment to nasal substructures. Peer-reviewed, evidenced-based literature on the subject of nasal aesthetics is sparse. As such, although the use of ratios may not always translate into a clinically useful guideline for every patient, they may serve as a valuable clinical heuristic and starting point for analysis and currently represent the objective approach to gauge nasal attractiveness. In the present study, we chose to examine the Crumley 1, Crumley 2, and Goode methods as they are rigorously defined, reproducible, and widely cited. In a previous study,6 facial attractiveness was shown to decrease as ratios deviated from the ideals proposed by these methods, whereas the inverse was true for the ideals proposed by Baum,1 Powell and Humphreys,2 and Simons.3 Furthermore, the most attractive faces had average NTP ratios similar to the ideal ratios proposed by Goode4 and Crumley and Lanser,5 and the most unattractive faces had NTP ratios closer to the Baum and Powell and Humphreys ideal ratios. Many studies have examined the major proposed methods (Baum,1 Powell and Humphreys,2 Goode,4 Simons,3 and Crumley and Lanser5) for assessing NTP; however, none has explicitly recognized that rotation and projection are mathematically dependent on one another. This makes comparing NTP ideals challenging, because a particular nose could be modified to fit many different combinations of rotation and projection while adhering to the same numerical NTP ratio. Thus, it is important to first identify either the most aesthetic rotation for a given NTP ideal or the most aesthetic NTP for a given rotation variant before attempting to compare NTP ideals or rotation variants, respectively. In addition, some studies7,8 that have attempted to identify ideal rotation have used the traditional nasolabial angle metric, a method prone to the highly variable anatomy of the upper lip (ie, premaxillary fullness or deficiency, protuberant incisors, tension nose). To our knowledge, the present study is the first to identify both an ideal NTP and nasal tip rotation using a population-based method that involves online social-network volunteers, a method validated in previous work.9,10 In the present study we also used a novel method for assessing facial attractiveness that is an established business and marketing analytic (paired comparison analysis).11 This method allows the researcher to convert subjective pairwise comparisons into relative quality scores or preference ranks. The objectives of this study were 2-fold: (1) determine the ideal rotation for each of 3 NTP methods (Crumley 1, Crumley 2, and Goode) and (2) use this information to make optimized comparisons of the 3 NTP ideals to determine which is the most aesthetic. Because the perception of beauty is multifactorial, being affected by culture, sex, and age,12-15 our objectives were carried out using digital portraits of young (aged 18-25 years) white women, with raters drawn from a similar age cohort. This population is the most heavily studied in the rhinoplasty literature. Methods Image Database and Selection The facial images used in this study were synthetic derivations of actual digital photographs from a database of 300 white female volunteers aged 18 to 25 years without any overt craniofacial abnormalities. The women were recruited at our institution, and the photographs were used with the approval of the institutional review board at the University of California, Irvine. Informed consent was not obtained because actual images were not used and there was no financial compensation. This database of images has been used in previous studies.6,9,10,16,17 The synthetic images are 50:50 composites, each derived from 2 actual lateral facial photographs. Using actual patient photographs would have required extensive written informed consent, likely deterring accrual of the sample. To standardize features of the facial profile other than NTP and rotation, we used the following literature-proposed18 aesthetic norms as inclusion criteria: nasomental angle between 120° and 132°, nasion position between the supratarsal fold and upper eyelash line, distance from the long axis of the nostril to the alar and columellar rims between 1 and 2 mm, and an approximately 1:2 ratio of the upper lip to the lower lip and chin. From the database of 300 synthetic images, 6 images were selected. Three were previously rated as being above average in terms of attractiveness (mean score, >1 SD from the mean attractiveness score of the entire database), and 3 that were designated as average in terms of attractiveness (mean score, ±1 SD from the mean attractiveness score of the entire database). Images were dichotomized by attractiveness to investigate the effect of attractiveness on NTP and rotation preference. Survey Design Two main survey instruments were developed, with the second survey’s design contingent on the results of the first. Surveys were designed (Qualtrics, version 37,892; Qualtrics Laboratories Inc) incorporating the principles of paired comparison analysis.11 This method of analysis allows for conversion of the results of subjective pairwise comparisons into relative quality scores or preference ranks for each option. The conversion is accomplished by using a series of side-by-side comparisons of all unique pairing combinations for a set of choices and then calculating a quality score for each item based on the comparison results. The number of unique pairs is found using the formula k(k − 1)/2, with k indicating the number of objects to be compared.19 Rankings are assigned to items based on tabulating the number of times a particular item or variant is selected over other items within a comparison set. In the present study, variants were ranked 1 to 5, with 1 representing the variant selected most often over the others. In the event of ties, the mean of the ranks among the options was determined. Each of the 6 facial portraits used in the present study was morphed to fit the 3 NTP methods examined here across 5 rotation (columellar facial angle [CFA]) variants, resulting in a total of 15 unique images per face. Using paired comparison analysis, the 5 rotation variants for each NTP method for each face provided a total of 10 unique pairing combinations (Figure 1A) resulting in a total of 30 unique side-by-side comparisons for each face and a total of 180 side-by-side comparisons for all 6 faces. This is an impractically large data set for any single participant to evaluate given attention span limitations and practical time constraints; hence, a statistical sampling method was used, as described below. The first survey (phase 1) aimed to identify the most preferred rotation variant for each NTP method. This survey was composed of 14 unique, randomly assigned subsurveys. Each subsurvey included 20 or 30 side-by-side comparisons (2 or 3 sets of 10 side-by-side comparisons) rather than the daunting 180 side-by-side comparisons that would otherwise be required to acquire data for all 6 faces. Subsurveys were created to reduce the number of image pairs that each participant would have to evaluate, shorten the survey time, and thus improve the quality of the data and accrual of the participants. With the exception of 2 subsurveys, each contained 2 sets of 10 side-by-side comparisons, with each set consisting only of rotation variants for the same NTP method and for the same face. Of the 14 subsurveys, 3 had 10 side-by-side comparisons shared by other subsurvey versions to assess interrater reliability, and 2 subsurveys had 30 side-by-side comparisons using sets from all 3 NTP methods for the same face. The remaining 9 surveys had 20 side-by-side comparisons, with each set of 10 comparisons belonging to different faces. The different subsurvey versions are depicted in Figure 2A. The second survey (phase 2) compared only the most attractive rotation variants identified in the phase 1 survey for each NTP method with other NTP methods for a given face (Figure 2B). With 3 unique pairing combinations for each face, only 18 side-by-side comparisons were needed to acquire data for all 6 faces. As such, only 1 survey version was necessary. For all surveys, side-by-side comparisons were presented to the participant (Figure 1B). For all surveys, both traditional focus-group and online participants were used. We requested that any participants taking the survey be between the ages of 18 and 25 years. Traditional focus-group participants were undergraduate students recruited at our institution and were given credit toward classes for their participation. Surveys were administered in a supervised untimed setting. After completion of the survey, participants were instructed to invite their contacts on the social-network website Facebook (Facebook Inc) to also complete the survey using a standardized invitation. Duplicate survey responses that were sent from the same internet protocol address and incomplete surveys were eliminated by the survey program. For each survey, the following demographic data were collected: age, sex, race/ethnicity (African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Arabic/Middle Eastern, white, Hispanic, or Native American), and participant type (traditional focus group or online social network). Nasal Tip Morphing Nasal tip morphing was performed using the free transform feature in Adobe Photoshop CS5 (Adobe Systems Inc), and facial measurements were made using VistaMetrix, version 1.38 (Skillcrest LLC). Tip rotation was assessed with CFA, a proposed rotation metric that uses an objective vertical reference line rather than the highly variable slope of the upper lip used by the traditional nasolabial angle metric.7 Tip projection was manipulated to fit the 3 NTP methods examined according to their individual specifications (Figure 3). To ensure that nasal features other than rotation and projection remained static between morphs with use of an objective system, the following features were maintained between morphs: supratip angle (±2°), distance from the long axis of the nostril to the alar and columellar rims, and location of the nasion and subnasale. Statistical Analysis Data analysis was performed using PASW Statistics, release version 20.0 (SPSS Inc). Rank data collected from both surveys required use of the nonparametric Friedman test to examine for significant differences. Confidence intervals for mean rank data were also calculated. The χ2 and Mann-Whitney tests were used to examine demographic data. Data from 1 of 6 faces were excluded because they differed greatly from those of the other faces. This was likely the result of ethnic-appearing features of the face that were not typical of white women, whereas all other faces used in the study lacked such features. Results Phase 1 Survey: Determining Ideal Rotation for Each NTP Method Surveys were completed fully by 2156 study participants. Table 1 describes the sex, race/ethnicity, and age of the participants. Rank data for all faces were consolidated to determine which rotation variant was most aesthetic for each NTP method (Table 2). For all 3 NTP methods, the CFA 106 variant was the most preferred, with a mean rank of 2.11 (95% CI, 2.07-2.16) for the Crumley 1 method, 2.07 (2.02-2.12) for the Crumley 2 method, and 2.05 (1.99-2.11) for the Goode method. Facial attractiveness significantly affected the degree to which the CFA 106 variant was preferred; however, it had no effect on which rotation variant was the most preferred (Table 2). Across all 3 NTP methods, the CFA 106 variant was significantly more preferred in faces of above-average attractiveness. Differences in participant demographics (age, race, and sex) had no significant effect on which rotation variant was most preferred; however, one significant effect was noted on the degree of preference of the CFA 106 variant. This was found in the Crumley 1 method, for which the CFA 106 variant was significantly more preferred by participants aged 18 to 25 years compared with those older than 25 years (P = .001). Analysis by racial profile across all 3 NTP methods yielded some instances in which overlapping CIs with the most-preferred CFA 106 variant and the next most-preferred variant were present. In 2 instances the CFA 101 variant was more preferred than the CFA 106 variant; however, the CIs were overlapping (Table 2). Phase 2 Survey: Optimized Comparison of NTP Methods Surveys were completed fully by 1822 study participants. Similar to the sample in the first survey, most participants were female (66.0%), the largest race represented was Asian/Pacific Islander (49.3%), and the median age was 20 years. The only significant difference in demographics between the participants in the 2 surveys was race distribution (P < .001); sex, age, and participant type were similar (Table 1). Rank data for all faces were consolidated to determine which rotation-optimized NTP ideal was considered the most aesthetic (Table 3). A comparison of only the most aesthetic rotation variants for each NTP method demonstrated that the Crumley 1 ideal was significantly most preferred (P < .001), with a mean of 1.84 (95% CI, 1.82-1.85). The Goode ideal had the second lowest mean rank at 1.99 (1.97-2.01), and the Crumley 2 ideal had the highest mean rank at 2.17 (2.16-2.19). Analysis of any effect of participant demographics and facial attractiveness on NTP preference or degree of preference for each NTP ideal revealed that facial attractiveness had a significant effect on the degree of preference for each NTP ideal and the NTP ideal most preferred (Table 3). In faces of above-average attractiveness, Crumley 1 was significantly most preferred with a mean rank of 1.78 (95% CI, 1.76-1.80). In faces of average attractiveness, no single NTP ideal was preferred; the Crumley 1 and Goode ideals had closely overlapping CIs. Furthermore, within each NTP ideal, the degree of preference was significantly different based on attractiveness (P < .001). Sex had an insignificant effect on the NTP ideal identified to be most aesthetic but an effect approaching significance on the degree of preference for each NTP ideal. Race/ethnicity had no significant effect on NTP identified to be most aesthetic; however, in terms of degree of preference, race/ethnicity significantly affected the Crumley 1 method (P = .02), with Native American participants more strongly preferring the Crumley 1 method compared with other racial groups. Age had no significant effect on NTP identified to be the most aesthetic; however, in terms of degree of preference, age had a significant effect on the Crumley 2 and Goode ideals (P = .001 and P = .03, respectively). Participants aged 18 to 25 years less strongly preferred the Crumley 2 method and more strongly preferred the Goode method. Analysis of Study Validity Measures Preference data from subsurveys that shared comparison sets with other subsurveys showed no appreciable difference (P > .05). Preference data for one face obtained from the same rater did not differ significantly from data for the same face aggregated from different raters (P > .05). Furthermore, traditional focus-group participants and online social-network participants yielded similar data across phase 1 and phase 2, with the most preferred rotation variant for each NTP method and the most preferred rotation-optimized NTP variant demonstrating no significant difference (P > .05). Discussion Throughout history, artists and scholars have been engrossed in the pursuit of capturing what constitutes beauty. Dating back to ancient Egypt, artists idealized facial proportions in their works. The Greeks formalized aesthetics into a discipline of study, embodied by artists such as sculptor Polycleitus who defined beauty as the harmony found when the parts of the body relative to one another are in perfect proportion and balance.18 Renaissance artists such as Leonardo da Vinci furthered the study of aesthetics by proposing the classical canons, such as dividing the lateral facial profile into equal thirds.18 Although neoclassical canons that address nasal projection and rotation were not proposed, the past few decades have given way to 6 major proposed ideals that outline rotation and projection (Goode, Crumley 1, Crumley 2, Baum, Powell, and Simons). In the present study, we chose to compare the ideals outlined by Goode and Crumley by applying a population-based method using traditional focus-group and online social-network participants. Considering that the ratio calculation of each NTP method examined here is mathematically affected by both rotation and projection, we first sought to identify the most aesthetic rotation for each method to make optimized comparisons of these methods’ ideals. For each of the 3 methods, we identified 106° degrees as the ideal rotation (using the CFA metric). This suggests that ideal rotation may be aesthetically independent of projection, even though mathematically the 2 measurements are linked. The rotation of 106° is consistent with the study of Biller and Kim7 that identified 104° and 108° as being the most favored CFA angles for women. Rotation-optimized comparison of the NTP ideals demonstrated that the Crumley 1 was most aesthetic, followed by Goode and then Crumley 2. In addition, in faces of above-average attractiveness, rotation-optimized comparison demonstrated that Crumley 1 was the most strongly preferred NTP ideal; however, in faces of average attractiveness, no single ideal was most preferred. This may suggest that, in faces of average attractiveness, aesthetic changes made to the nasal tip may be undermined by other less-than-ideal aesthetic features of the face and nose. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare NTP ideals from a population-based perspective, with data derived from nearly 4000 completed surveys. This level of statistical power is possible from the use of social-network groups (or virtual focus groups), a sampling method validated by Popenko et al.10 To our knowledge, this is also the first study to acknowledge rotation as having a mathematical effect on NTP ratio calculations. Although the study by Devcic et al6 used population-based methods to indirectly ascertain relationships between the methods examined here, it did not control for features other than the nasal profile when comparing attractiveness between faces. In addition, Devcic et al did not take into account rotation and used lateral facial portraits that likely did not contain the most aesthetic combination of rotation and projection for a given ideal. To truly compare NTP ideals to determine which is most aesthetic, one must first optimize each ideal’s rotation and projection for a given face before comparison. Our study used paired comparison analysis, which is a novel method of assessing facial attractiveness. This method was particularly appropriate for the present study because it addresses the problem of asking participants to examine subtle differences between nasal variants. When faced with the task of selecting a most preferred nasal variant among many similar-appearing options, chance judgments are probable. However, if a participant is simply asked to select one variant over one other, in a series-wise fashion, relationships between all options can be deduced and chance judgments are reduced. As with all studies, ours was not without limitations. Many of the canons used to define aesthetics for white faces are not necessarily applicable to faces of other races or ethnicities.20-25 In addition, it is well known that the aesthetic nasal tip is different between males and females. As such, we limited our analysis to white female faces of a similar age cohort; thus, the conclusions derived from the results of this study may not apply to individuals whose origins are outside of Europe or those who are males. Our study was also limited by the fact that the surveyed population, predominantly Asian/Pacific Islander participants aged 18 to 25 years, is not reflective of the general population. However, this is not an immigrant population and reflects the ethnic makeup of the entire University of California system. Although the use of literature-proposed aesthetic norms as exclusion criteria for the images used in this study may limit the applicability of the findings in this study, they were crucial to the study design to control for aberrant features other than the nasal profile between faces. This objective system allowed us to attribute differences in the aesthetic ratings between faces solely to changes in the nasal profile. Finally, it should be noted that the Crumley 1 method was found to be most aesthetic regardless of attractiveness (although when dichotomized, the finding was significant only for attractive faces) and rotation (as rotation appears to be aesthetically independent of projection). Because rotation and projection are aesthetically independent, the following findings do not necessarily have to exist in combination to be significant: the ideal rotation is 106° (CFA) and the ideal projection follows the method outlined by Crumley 1. Conclusions In the present study, the Crumley 1 method was determined to be the most attractive nasal tip variant overall. Nasal tip rotation of 106° using the CFA metric was the preferred rotation for all the NTP methods examined. The ideal rotation and projection identified here do not have to exist in combination to have significant effects. The data support the hypothesis that these facets are aesthetically independent and, as such, are separate significant findings. When considering only faces of above-average attractiveness, the nasal tip adhering to the Crumley 1 ratio with a rotation of 106° is the most aesthetic. In faces of average attractiveness, no single NTP ratio is preferred; however, a rotation of 106° is significantly preferred. In determining these findings, the present study demonstrated the powerful usefulness of virtual focus groups. Further research is needed to determine whether a more ideal projection exists beyond the standards defined by current NTP methods. Back to top Article Information Accepted for Publication: February 27, 2014. Corresponding Author: Brian J. Wong, MD, PhD, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Irvine, 101 The City Dr S, Bldg 56, Ste 500, Orange, CA 92868 ([email protected]). Published Online: June 26, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2014.228. Author Contributions: Drs Ahmed and Wong had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Ahmed, Popenko, Crumley, Wong. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Ahmed, Dhinsa, Osann, Wong. Drafting of the manuscript: Ahmed, Popenko, Wong. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: Ahmed, Osann. Administrative, technical, or material support: Ahmed, Wong. Study supervision: Ahmed, Crumley, Wong. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported. Previous Presentation: This study was presented as an oral presentation at the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Spring Scientific Meeting in conjunction with Combined Otolaryngological Spring Meetings; April 13, 2013; Orlando, Florida. ||||| Tweet with a location You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| The world’s “most desirable face” ― which is apparently just a mashup of features of all your favorite celebrities ― was revealed on Thursday. And, at least to the black anchors of Fox 5’s “Good Day DC,” it’s not all that impressive. On Thursday’s segment, the two anchors, Maureen Umeh and Wisdom Martin, hilariously reacted to the “news” with eye rolls and sarcastic smirks, as captured in this tweet: that moment when black people share that "fuck you talkm bout" face #GoodDayDC pic.twitter.com/Xj9sCnvMSm — xii.Sol (@twelveDOTsol) September 1, 2016 For those curious, the findings come from Dr. Julian De Silva, a cosmetic surgeon at the Centre for Advanced Facial Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery in London, who for 10 years has reportedly kept track of the female celebrities nearly 1,000 clients have said they most want to emulate. As a result, Silva and his team say they have discovered the nine most desired facial features, which include Kate Middleton’s “mathematically perfect” nose, Miley Cyrus’ forehead, Angelina Jolie’s cheeks and Reese Witherspoon’s skin. And surprise! None of the features represented reflect those of black stars. Good Day DC Behold: The world's "most desirable" (read: whitest) face. During the segment on “Good Day DC,” the two anchors couldn’t seem to care less about what Silva, and his science, claim to show. Umeh even responded with a hint of shade in her reaction to the reveal, saying: “It looks like she has a condition or something.” yall gotta listen to the shade tho...."she looks like she has a condition or something" lmfaooooo 💀 pic.twitter.com/udRjT717In — xii.Sol (@twelveDOTsol) September 1, 2016 This, by far, goes down as one of the most hilariously candid moments in morning news. ||||| They include details of which celebrities women wanted to look like, down to their eyelids. Apparently, Keira Knightley's are the most desirable. Women wanted the same forehead as Miley Cyrus, Angelina Jolie's cheeks, Reese Witherspoon's skin, Selena Gomez's chin, the jawline of Cher, the lips of Penelope Cruz and J-Lo's eyebrows. The surgeon, from the Centre for Advanced Facial Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery in Hammersmith, west London, said: "You will often have a consultation with a patient who will present you with a picture of a well-known person and will say: 'I want to look like that.' ||||| Wisdom Martin and Maureen Umeh are anchors on the morning show Good Day DC , and they're about to give you so much life. Wisdom Martin and Maureen Umeh are anchors on the morning show Good Day DC , and they're about to give you so much life. that moment when black people share that "fuck you talkm bout" face #GoodDayDC Their co-anchors were discussing "studies" that show that Kate Middleton has the desirable nasal tip rotation when Martin and Umeh exchanged a silent glance that said so much. And while we don't know ~for sure~ what was going through their minds, the bit about Kate Middleton is some pretty iffy stuff. By "studies," the anchors were probably referencing a 2014 article in JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery that had people assess the attractiveness of different noses. A nasal tip rotation of 106° was deemed to be the most attractive. So, basically the duchess's nose.

Combine Keira Knightley's eyes with Kate Middleton's nose and Penelope Cruz's lips and you have a beauty overload—and also the world's most desirable face, at least according to one plastic surgeon. Julian De Silva from London's Centre for Advanced Facial Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery came up with the "perfect face"—also including Miley Cyrus' forehead, Jennifer Lopez's eyebrows, Reese Witherspoon's skin, Angelina Jolie's cheeks, Cher's jawline, and Selena Gomez's chin—after polling 1,000 female patients over the last decade, per the New Zealand Herald. "You will often have a consultation with a patient who will present you with a picture of a well-known person and will say: 'I want to look like that,'" De Silva says. Apparently patients know their stuff when requesting the Duchess of Cambridge's nose. It's "mathematically perfect" with a 106-degree tip rotation, De Silva says, per the Telegraph. One study suggests a 106-degree nose is "the most aesthetic," but most patients "know that a new nose is not going to make them look like Kate Middleton," says De Silva. Don't think this "perfect face" is all that perfect? Neither does Good Day DC anchor Maureen Umeh. "It looks like she has a condition or something," Umeh said in a segment Thursday, per the Huffington Post. (She gave this face.) BuzzFeed notes that De Silva's creation is taking flak because it includes features of mainly young, white women. (This study suggests beauty is in the eye of the beholder.)

Watch CNN live on TV, online and on your iPhone to get all the news and results from the hotly contested 2010 midterm elections. And share your election experiences with CNN iReport. Washington (CNN) -- Republicans took voters' distress over the stubborn jobless rate and stalled economy and turned it into a sweeping takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives in Tuesday's midterm elections, while Democrats were able to hang onto their majority in the Senate, though in smaller numbers. With results still coming in, the extent of the Republican takeover of the 435-member House was still to be determined. But CNN projected that Republicans would win at least 60 more House seats than they currently hold to wipe out the Democratic majority of the past four years. President Barack Obama called House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio to congratulate him. They had a brief but pleasant conversation, according to Boehner's aides. The two discussed working together to focus on the top priorities of the American people, which Boehner has identified as creating jobs and cutting spending. Boehner thanked the president for the call. Republican candidates also were running strong in governors' races, while Democrats were guaranteed of holding at least 50 of the 100 Senate seats with a handful of close races still outstanding, according to the projections based on CNN's analysis of exit poll data. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, retained his Senate seat by defeating Republican Sharron Angle, a Tea Party favorite. An energized conservative electorate, fueled by the anti-establishment Tea Party movement that emerged in 2009, helped Republicans to what could be their biggest gain in congressional elections in decades. "It's clear tonight who the real winners are, and it's the American people," said Boehner, who is expected to become House Speaker in January when the new GOP majority takes over. "With their voices, the American people are demanding a new way forward in Washington," Boehner said, calling for conservative policies favored by the Tea Party such as cutting spending and reducing the size of government. Tea Party-backed Republicans Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida won their Senate races, while another GOP candidate, John Boozman, will defeat incumbent Democrat Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, according to the projections. In Indiana, conservative Republican Dan Coats was the projected winner to take over the Senate seat held by retiring Democrat Evan Bayh, while the GOP's Ron Johnson toppled Democratic incumbent Sen. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. The projected victories by Coats, Boozman, Johnson and John Hoeven in North Dakota gave Republicans four pick-ups in the Senate. However, Democrat Chris Coons was the projected winner over Republican Christine O'Donnell, another Tea Party-supported candidate, in Delaware's Senate race for the seat formerly held for decades by Vice President Joe Biden. In Connecticut, Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will defeat Republican Linda McMahon, the former professional wrestling executive, for the Senate seat held by retiring Democrat Chris Dodd. Another big Democratic victory came in West Virginia, where Gov. Joe Manchin was projected to win the Senate seat formerly held by the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, who died earlier this year. The projected victories by Coons, Manchin and Blumenthal were vital for the Democrats' chances to retain their majority in the Senate. But Obama's former Senate seat in Illinois went to Republican Mark Kirk, who defeated Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. Whatever the final make-up of the Senate, it will include no African-American members. The only current African-American senator, Roland Burris of Illinois, is retiring, and none of the three African-American candidates won on Tuesday. Both Paul, the son of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, and O'Donnell rode Tea Party support to defeat mainstream Republican candidates in their GOP primaries. Paul's projected victory to claim the seat held by retiring Republican Sen. Jim Bunning showed the influence of the movement that emerged in 2009 in opposition to expanded government and the growing federal deficit. At the same time, the loss by O'Donnell could badly hurt Republican chances to win majority control of the Senate. Many Republicans believed the veteran congressman whom O'Donnell beat in the primary, former Gov. Mike Castle, would have defeated Coons. Another Tea Party backed candidate, Republican Carl Paladino, will be handily defeated by Democrat Andrew Cuomo in the New York governor's race, the projections show. CNN projects Democrat Jerry Brown will defeat Republican Meg Whitman in California for the governorship now held by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is stepping down under term limits. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who gained national attention for her support of Arizona's controversial new immigration law, defeated Democrat Terry Goddard to retain office. In other gubernatorial contests, Republicans Bill Haslam in Tennessee, Sam Brownback in Kansas, Rick Perry in Texas, Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Susana Martinez in New Mexico, Mary Fallin in Oklahoma, Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania, Matt Mead in Wyoming and Rick Snyder in Michigan will be victorious, according to the projections. Democratic winners for governor included incumbents Martin O'Malley in Maryland and Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, the projections showed. Republicans needed a net gain of only three governorships Tuesday for a majority nationally. Often overshadowed during midterm campaigns, governorships can impact national politics by their influence in the redistricting of state electorates. Exit poll data analyzed by CNN showed the economy was the dominant issue on the minds of voters and indicated that key constituencies shifted from supporting Democrats in 2008 to voting for Republicans this time. For example, senior citizens who comprised 24 percent of the total electorate supported Republicans much more strongly on Tuesday than they did two years ago, the exit polling showed. According to the data, 39 percent of senior citizens voted for Democrats, compared with 49 percent in 2008, while 58 percent supported Republicans, compared with 49 percent two years ago. One reason is likely opposition to the health care reform bill pushed through Congress over Republican opposition by President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders. While Obama pledged the reforms would improve Medicare, Republican opponents warned of service cuts and higher costs. The long and bitter campaign season drew more than $3.5 billion in spending, making it the most expensive nonpresidential vote ever, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group. The rise of the Tea Party movement added a new element to the election cycle, roiling Republican races by boosting little-known and inexperienced candidates to victory over mainstream figures in GOP primaries across the country. No matter how many of the so-called Tea Party candidates win against Democratic opponents Tuesday, the influence of the movement has shifted the Republican agenda to the right. "They tell me they want people who can work together in Washington," DeMint, one of the leading backers of Tea Party candidates, said in his victory speech. "I tell you this: I'm ready. I'm ready. Anyone whose guide is the constitution and whose goal is limited government, I'm ready to work with them today. But I'm not going to compromise with anyone who doesn't believe in that." Exit polling showed voter dissatisfaction with both parties, as each received a 53 percent unfavorable rating. The economy was rated the most important issue by 62 percent of voters, far eclipsing health care reform (19 percent), immigration (8 percent) and the war in Afghanistan (7 percent), according to the exit polling. Most voters, 88 percent, rated economic conditions as not good or poor, and 86 percent said they were very worried or somewhat worried about the economy, the exit polling showed. Voters across the country offered a variety of reasons for their choices Tuesday. In Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, restaurant manager and internet entrepreneur Stephen Smith, 40, went to the polls hoping "that the entrenched incumbents get booted out of office," he said. Melissa Bacon, 24, of Sacramento, California, cast her ballot partly for the thrill of the experience, she said. "You don't get to vote every day. It's sort of its own holiday. You research the issues, vote and then wait to see if your position was the majority. It's as exciting to me as the World Series last night," she said on the heels of the San Francisco Giants' victory. Nadya Alvarez of Parrish, Florida, went to the polls with her son to teach him about the importance of voting. "My youngest is almost 2 years old, and I showed him the ballot, and he wanted to help fill in the circles," said Parrish, 28. "It is good to teach them from an early age to be involved in the welfare of our country and that we all have rights and duties to preserve." Unemployment, at a rate of 9.6 percent amid a slow recovery from economic recession, has been the dominant issue, with Republicans accusing Obama and the Democrats of pushing through expensive policies that have expanded government without solving the problem. Obama has led Democrats in defending his record, saying that steps such as the economic stimulus bill and auto industry bailout were necessary to prevent a depression, while health care reform and Wall Street reform will lay the foundation for sustainable future growth. Observers warned that the expected Republican gains offer little chance of compromise or bipartisan approaches on major issues. Boehner already has signaled little appetite to negotiate with the White House or congressional Democrats, saying last week that "this is not a time for compromise." In the Senate, legislative gridlock is likely as Republicans strengthen their current minority of 41 seats. Obama and Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of using obstruction tactics as a political tool, showing the distrust and animosity that already exists. Democrats are also wary of a recent comment by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who told the National Journal, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." The first test of a new relationship will come in mid-November, when Congress convenes a post-election lame-duck session to try to clear unfinished legislation before the newly elected Congress gathers in January. Among other issues, lawmakers must decide whether and how to extend Bush-era tax cuts. CNN's Tom Cohen, Michael Pearson, Dana Bash, Ted Barrett, Deirdre Walsh, Paul Steinhauser, Rebecca Sinderbrand and Jessica Yellin contributed to this report. ||||| NRCC ELECTIONS HQ — The next Speaker of the House is one emotional dude. As he celebrated the end of Democratic rule in the lower house of Congress with several hundred friends here in downtown Washington, John Boehner broke down and cried while the crowd chanted “USA! USA!” “I’ve spent my life trying to chase the American dream,” Boehner said, his voice cracking. He went on to espouse the virtues of capitalism and small business ownership in the way that you’d expect from the man who just led the Republican Party back from the political wilderness. Except with more tears. The rest of Boehner’s speech looked forward to a world where Republicans run the House and the Democrats kowtow to tea party demands. “We are witnessing a repudiation,” Boehner said, claiming that with each GOP vote rolling in, “America is putting Washington on notice.” In a theme that ran throughout the night, Boehner promised his Republican Congressional majority would not be the same one lost to the Democrats four years ago. Speaker after speaker got up tonight and promised a more austere and respectful GOP, one that took to heart the so-called Pledge To America that Bohener touted as his party’s political agenda on the campaign trail this fall. “This new majority is prepared to do things differently,” Boehner said. He didn’t get into policy specifics but did offer these three tenets for how things will go in the House staring in January when Boehner and his compatriots are sworn in. Boehner said the Republicans will govern by “cutting spending instead of increasing it, reducing the size of government instead of increasing it” and “reforming the way Congress works” and “giving the government back to the people.” He said the party will start off by “ending uncertainty in our economy and putting our citizens back to work.” For all the talk of a kinder, gentler more attentive GOP, however, Bohener made it clear who he thought the vote tonight was really aimed at. “The people have sent a message to President Obama,” he said. “Change course.” Evan McMorris-Santoro Evan McMorris-Santoro has covered politics for TPM since 2009. Before that, he was a reporter at National Journal’s Hotline covering election 2008. He started his career covering local politics at newspapers in TN and his native NC. Share This Article Tweet From Around the Web ||||| WILLIAMS: Good evening. BRIAN WILLIAMS, anchor: And about last night , what were the voters across this country trying to say? Well, they split up the government, they made it very clear they don't like the way things are being run. That means the president, that means the Democrats , the government as a whole and the US economy , most of all. Some veteran office holders are packing up and going home , and some newcomers are coming to Washington . About a third of them, 32 percent of the candidates who were elected last night across this country, are affiliated with the tea party movement. It was a tough message from the voters, a clear message . The president was asked today whether he got it. And for a lot of incumbents, there was no mistaking it. Our team is here, reassembled on no sleep. And we begin our reporting this new night with our political director, Chuck Todd . What a night it was, Chuck . CHUCK TODD reporting: That's for sure. Look, the day after an election is all about defining what the meaning is out of the elections. Well, it was done at dueling press conferences today from President Obama to Republican Speaker-to-be John Boehner . Triumphant Republicans made it clear they intend to reset the agenda. Representative JOHN BOEHNER (Republican, Minority Leader): Well, the American people spoke, and I think it's pretty clear that the Obama - Pelosi agenda is being rejected by the American people . They want -- as I said last night , they want the president to change course, and I think it's change course we will. TODD: While a chastened president tried to put the best face he could on the results. President BARACK OBAMA: Every election, regardless of who wins and who loses, is a reminder that, in our democracy, power rests not with those of us in elected office, but with the people we have the privilege to serve. TODD: Asked repeatedly what went wrong for Democrats , Mr. Obama accepted some responsibility. Pres. OBAMA: I think the overwhelming message that I hear from the voters is that we want everybody to act responsibly in Washington , we want you to work harder to arrive at consensus, we want you to focus completely on jobs and the economy and growing it. TODD: And he admitted his campaign promise to change Washington fell short. Pres. OBAMA: We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn't change how things got done, and I think that frustrated people. TODD: But Republican John Boehner , poised to become speaker of the House , said the anti- Washington message goes much deeper. Rep. BOEHNER: I think it's a mandate for Washington to reduce the size of government and continue our fight for a smaller, less costly and more accountable government. TODD: Boehner is a 20-year veteran of Congress from suburban Cincinnati known to wear his emotions on his sleeve, like last night . Rep. BOEHNER: I've spent my whole life chasing the American dream . TODD: His first challenge as speaker will be to bridge the perceived divide between the so-called establishment wing of the GOP and the newly elected tea party representatives. He is no stranger to insurgency. Here's first-term Representative Boehner , one of the gang of seven, a cadre of young Republican conservatives from 1991 who used paper bags over their heads to demonstrate their embarrassment at Washington . As for President Obama today, he showed new willingness to compromise on several issues, including extending all of the so-called Bush tax cuts . Pres. OBAMA: How that negotiation works itself out, I think it's too earlier to say. We're not going to play brinksmanship, but instead we're going to act responsibly. TODD: And the president became uncharacteristically self-reflective, with Bill Clinton 's portrait appearing over his shoulder. The president even invoked Clinton and Ronald Reagan by name and their tough midterm defeats for their political parties in 1982 and 1994 . And he was very blunt about yesterday's losses. Pres. OBAMA: Now, I'm not recommending for every future president that they take a shellacking like they -- like I did last night , you know, they -- I'm sure there're easier ways to learn these lessons. TODD: Now, the president did a similar conference call today with supporters and donors and he said, 'Look, I'm not going to sugarcoat it. We had a tough night .' President Friday leaves for Asia for a 10- day trip . He's got to do a few things, a G-20 meeting, the Asian economic meeting. But before he goes, he's going to tape another national television interview, " 60 Minutes " on Sunday, where we'll hear more about his reflections on this election, Brian . WILLIAMS: Remarkable day after a remarkable ||||| A look at the winners of seats in the U.S. House that changed hands from one party to another in Tuesday's elections. List is by state, congressional district and last name of candidate:

Nancy Pelosi's reign as House speaker will soon be over. Republicans will easily take control of the House of Representatives by night's end, say both CNN and NBC. The GOP entered the evening needing to gain 39 seats, and they'll likely end up with about 60, a development that will make John Boehner the next speaker. An emotional Boehner (see here) called the outcome a "repudiation of Washington" and later took a congratulatory phone call from President Obama. Among the early biggies (AP has a comprehensive list here): In Virginia, Republicans defeated incumbent Democrats Tom Perriello (a closely watched race) and Rick Boucher. In Florida, they beat Democratic incumbents Alan Grayson (widely expected) and Suzanne Kosmas. In Indiana, Democratic incumbent Baron P. Hill went down. In one bit of good news for Democrats, John Carney flipped a GOP seat in Delaware.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson: 'What is Aleppo?' 'I'm incredibly frustrated with myself,' Johnson says as his campaign tries to minimize the fallout. Asked what he would do about the Syrian city of Aleppo, the region at the center of that nation’s civil war and refugee crisis, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson responded by asking, “what is Aleppo?” “What would you do if you were elected about Aleppo?” MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” panelist Mike Barnicle asked the former New Mexico governor during an in-studio interview Thursday morning. Story Continued Below “And what is Aleppo?” Johnson responded. “You’re kidding,” a stunned Barnicle replied, to which Johnson answered that he was not. Barnicle explained to the Libertarian candidate that Aleppo is “the epicenter of the refugee crisis” in Syria, giving Johnson enough information to finally answer the question. “Okay, Got it. Well, with regard to Syria, I do think that it’s a mess,” he said. “I think the only way that we deal with Syria is to join hands with Russia to diplomatically bring that at an end but when we’ve aligned ourselves with — when we have supported the opposition, the Free Syrian Army, the Free Syrian Army is also coupled with the Islamists, and then the fact that we're also supporting the Kurds and this is, it's just a mess. And this is the result of regime change that we end up supporting and, inevitably, these regime changes have led to a less safe world.” Co-host Joe Scarborough followed up with Johnson, asking him if he really thinks “that foreign policy is so insignificant that somebody running for president of the United States shouldn’t even know what Aleppo is, where Aleppo is, why Aleppo is so important?” “I do understand Aleppo and I understand the crisis that is going on. But when we involve ourselves militarily, when we involve ourselves in these humanitarian issues, issues, we end up with a situation that in most cases is not better, and in many cases ends up being worse,” Johnson replied. “And we find ourselves always, politicians are up against the wall, and ask what to do about these things, and this is why we end up committing military force in areas that, like I say, at the end of the day have an unintended consequence of making things worse.” In an interview with Mark Halperin after his Morning Joe appearance, a flustered Johnson said, "I'm incredibly frustrated with myself,” as he went on to explain how he realizes he needs to get “smarter” on certain issues. As many expressed dismay at Twitter at the gaffe, Johnson’s campaign tried to minimize the fallout. Asked about the comment, Joe Hunter, a spokesman for Johnson's campaign, said in an email that "it was a hiccup." Johnson's campaign released a formal statement later Thursday morning where the Libertarian nominee said he "blanked." "Yes, I understand the dynamics of the Syrian conflict — I talk about them every day. But hit with “What about Aleppo?”, I immediately was thinking about an acronym, not the Syrian conflict. I blanked. It happens, and it will happen again during the course of this campaign," Johnson said in the statement. "Can I name every city in Syria? No. Should I have identified Aleppo? Yes. Do I understand its significance? Yes." House Speaker Paul Ryan, meanwhile, chalked the comment up to Johnson’s isolationist views on foreign policy. “Well he is an isolationist, Hugh," Ryan said an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Thursday morning. "Let’s give him the credit of the doubt on that.” Johnson has ramped up his campaigning efforts in recent weeks, working to build enough national support to earn a spot on the general election debate stage alongside Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. To do so, he must average 15 percent support among five national polls selected as criteria by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Despite newly deployed advertising and multiple TV appearances, Johnson appears to be short of the 15 percent threshold, polling at 8.6 percent according to the Real Clear Politics polling average. He got a boost on Wednesday from Mitt Romney, a strident opponent of Donald Trump, who tweeted that Johnson should be included on the debate stage. Ryan, in his interview with Hewitt, didn't go quite as far. “Oh, that’s a polling question. If he polls well enough, he should, but I don’t think he’s anywhere close to that polling threshold. What is the threshold? 15 percent or something like that?” ||||| Cornell University LibraryArchive-It Partner Since: Mar, 2011Organization Type: Colleges & UniversitiesOrganization URL: http://www.library.cornell.edu Based on the number of volumes in its collections, Cornell University Library (CUL) is one of the ten largest academic research libraries in the United States. Within its 20 unit libraries, holdings number more than 7 million volumes and 7 million microforms. CUL subscribes to nearly 65,000 journals and serial publications, and provides access to more than 100,000 networked databases and other electronic resources. CUL collects web sites produced by affiliates of Cornell University, web sites from organizations or individuals whose records or papers are held in Cornell's archives, and web sites in subject areas corresponding to existing collection strengths. ||||| MSNBC screen shot It would be easy to describe Gary Johnson's appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Thursday as having doomed his third-party candidacy for president were it not for the fact that his candidacy was already doomed. The English language lacks a good way to describe something that was already in very bad shape and then, somehow, becomes far worse rather dramatically. Like if the Titanic had begun sinking but then blew up. Johnson was talking politics with the "Morning Joe" crew when regular guest Mike Barnicle shifted gears. "What would you do, if you were elected, about Aleppo?" Barnicle asked. "About?" Johnson replied. "Aleppo," Barnicle said. "And what is Aleppo?" Johnson asked. A beat. "You're kidding," Barnicle replied. "No!" Johnson said, prompting Barnicle to explain that Aleppo is a city in Syria that epitomizes the country's refugee crisis and has seen some of the worst horrors of its civil war. But ... you probably knew that. [Hey, Gary Johnson, people in Aleppo don’t know who you are] !!! Barnicle: "What would you do...about Aleppo?" Gary Johnson: "What is Aleppo?" Barnicle: "Aleppo is in Syria." https://t.co/bUjzLtkI2F — Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) September 8, 2016 [Johnson isn't the only one confused about Aleppo] 1 of 21 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Who is Gary Johnson? View Photos A look at the career of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson. Caption A look at the career of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson. Aug. 27, 2016 Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson listens as his running mate, Bill Weld, speaks at a campaign rally in Boston. Brian Snyder/Reuters Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. Johnson is running for president on the Libertarian Party line. He's a noninterventionist. Once he got his bearings (perkily replying "Got it!" to Barnicle's explanation), he suggested that the Syria problem was a function of American "regime change" efforts (presumably because of the instability in Iraq) and that the best way forward was to partner with Russia. Host Joe Scarborough pressed Johnson on his whiff. "So Aleppo is the center of a lot of people's concerns across the planet about the terrible humanitarian crisis that is unfolding not only in Syria, but especially in Aleppo," Scarborough said. "You asked, 'What is Aleppo?' Do you really think that foreign policy is so insignificant that somebody running for president of the United States shouldn't even know what Aleppo is, where Aleppo is, why Aleppo is so important?" "No," Johnson replied, fumbling a bit. "I do understand Aleppo and I ... understand the crisis that is going on. But when we involve ourselves militarily, when we involve ourselves in these humanitarian issues, we end up — we end up with a situation that in most cases is not better, and in many cases ends up being worse." The most generous way to view Johnson's performance is that, in the moment, he blanked on the word. They'd been talking about whether he was going to be 2016's Ralph Nader (that is, a spoiler), then Barnicle comes out with the Aleppo thing. Maybe he simply didn't change tracks fast enough. (A writer for Fusion points out that he has done this before, at one point asking an interviewer, "Who's Harriet Tubman?") [Mitt Romney wants Gary Johnson on debate stage, but isn’t endorsing him] That's a very generous way to look at it, and hardly one that smooths this over for the candidate. Aleppo is a critical component of the current debate over foreign policy and something with which most Americans, and certainly a presidential candidate, should be familiar. Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson was asked what he would do about Aleppo if he were elected president. Johnson replied, "What is Aleppo?" Here's what he needs to know. (Jason Aldag/The Washington Post) Bombing on "Morning Joe" (so to speak) is not — and should not — be fatal to a serious presidential candidacy. But Johnson doesn't get many opportunities on the national stage, thanks to his outsider status — and this opportunity, it seems safe to say, was a missed one. Update: The campaign responds. ||||| Not long ago, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s 2016 Presidential candidate, put a halt to his considerable consumption of marijuana. “The last time I indulged is about two months ago, with some edibles,” Johnson told me in late June, in the lobby of a midtown hotel. Johnson, who was the Republican governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, also ran for President in 2012, as a Libertarian, and received just under one per cent of the vote, but he believes this year could be different. At the end of May, William F. Weld, the former moderate Republican governor of Massachusetts, became the Libertarian Party’s Vice-Presidential nominee, giving the Party its most mainstream ticket since its founding, in 1971. “It is beyond my wildest dreams that Bill Weld is my running mate,” Johnson said. Johnson and Weld were set to appear that evening in a CNN town-hall special, which, it was later estimated, was seen by almost a million people. The stakes for Johnson were high. When pollsters include Johnson with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in their surveys, he has been the choice of roughly ten per cent of respondents, and in a Times/CBS News poll released last week he hit twelve per cent. If his standing in the polls rises to fifteen per cent, he will likely qualify to participate in the Presidential debates. “If you’re not in the debates, there’s no way to win,” Johnson said. “It’s the Super Bowl of politics.” Johnson has many flaws as a candidate, but being unlikable is not one of them. If he is allowed to debate Trump and Clinton, the two most unpopular presumed nominees in decades, then the most unpredictable election in modern times could get even weirder. Johnson told me that the last time he got high was when he ate some Cheeba Chews, a Colorado brand that High Times has called “America’s favorite edible.” The occasion was an evening out with his fiancée, Kate Prusack, in Santa Fe, where they live. Johnson said he understood that the American people would expect him to be a substance-free Commander-in-Chief. “As President, I will not indulge in anything,” Johnson vowed, as if he were J.F.K. promising not to take directions from the Pope. “I don’t think you want somebody answering the phone at two o’clock in the morning—that red phone—drunk, either. Better on the stoned side, but I don’t want to make that judgment.” Johnson, who is sixty-three, tan, and fit, with spiky gray hair, has long been unrepentant about his use of marijuana. During his first campaign for governor, in 1994, he was asked to quantify his earlier use. “I came up with two and a half times a week,” he told me. Still, as governor, he earned plaudits from the right for being one of the more conservative governors. National Review praised him as the “New Mexico maverick” and as a “Reaganite antitax crusader,” who cut income-tax rates, slowed the growth of government, and eliminated the jobs of hundreds of state employees. During his two terms as governor, Johnson vetoed more than seven hundred bills passed by a Democratic legislature. In 1999, after winning a second term, Johnson became the highest-ranking elected official in America to call for the full legalization of marijuana. His approval rating dropped into the twenties, and he returned to his agenda of lower taxes and less spending. He left office with an approval rating in the high fifties. Today, he is willing to make other concessions to the political mainstream. When we met, Johnson wore Nikes with a suit, his signature style since 2012. But, after a lively debate with his campaign advisers, he showed up for his CNN appearance wearing dress shoes. There hasn’t been a serious challenge from a third-party Presidential candidate since 1992, when Ross Perot, the eccentric Texas billionaire, ran as an independent and bought hours of TV time to educate voters about the large federal budget deficit. Perot won entry into the Presidential debates and received nineteen per cent of the vote against Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. Bush blamed Perot for his loss, though the best analyses of the race concluded that Perot had drawn equal numbers of voters from Bush and Clinton. This year, the unpopularity of Clinton and Trump has created an opportunity for Johnson to at least match Perot’s impressive showing. Last week, Republican delegates in the Never Trump movement attempted to change the rules for the Republican National Convention, in a failed effort to deny Trump the nomination. For anti-Trump conservatives still searching for an alternative, Johnson may be the only option. On the left, anti-Clinton Democrats, including some determined supporters of Bernie Sanders, would prefer a candidate who is more socially liberal and noninterventionist than Clinton. “We have arguably the two most polarizing candidates,” Johnson told me. “Hillary has to go out and she has to appeal to this ‘everything’s free, government can accomplish anything, what can you give us’ constituency. She’s doling it out as fast as she can. Trump is appealing to this anti-abortion, anti-immigration, ‘bomb the hell out of them, lock them up, throw away the key’ constituency.” Johnson is charming and more transparent than most politicians—sometimes to a fault—and has a knack for putting a happy face on the rougher edges of libertarianism. Weld has a shabby-genteel bearing and a boarding-school sarcasm that comes across as both appealing and arrogant. Together, Johnson and Weld represent the first Presidential ticket with two governors since 1948, when the Republicans nominated Thomas Dewey, of New York, and Earl Warren, of California. One of the Johnson-Weld campaign slogans is “A Credible Alternative to ClinTrump.” Johnson was born in Minot, North Dakota. His father was an Allstate insurance salesman, and his mother worked in accounting for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. His father, who had fallen in love with New Mexico during a trip there as a Boy Scout, moved the family to Albuquerque when Johnson was thirteen and worked as a public-school teacher. When Johnson was eighteen, he read a book—he has forgotten the title—about what it means to be a libertarian, and it changed his life. “It was a thirty-minute read,” he told me. “I have identified myself as a libertarian ever since.” Johnson, who as a teen-ager earned money by doing odd jobs, founded a construction company, Big J Enterprises, in 1975, when he was a senior at the University of New Mexico. He married his college girlfriend, Dee Simms, and they had two children. In 1986, Big J became the facilities contractor for Intel in New Mexico, where the company had a major manufacturing plant. A few years earlier, Intel had introduced its 286 microchip, which became the dominant processor for personal computers. “They couldn’t make them fast enough, and I was in at the very start,” Johnson said. He became wealthy enough that he would be able to self-finance his first gubernatorial campaign. By 1987, Johnson was overwhelmed by the success of his business. “I wrote down the ten worst times of my life and the ten best times in my life,” he told me. The best times “had to do with fitness.” The worst times “had to do with drinking or substance—I don’t want to say substance abuse, but just not getting enough rest, not being as healthy as I could be. So the epiphany was ‘Man, I’m going to be in the best shape of my life every day. Why not?’ ” Johnson does not think he was an alcoholic, but he decided to give up drinking. He is now a triathlete and a competitive bike racer, and has scaled the tallest mountain on every continent. “I could go climb Mt. Everest tomorrow,” he boasted. After leaving office, Johnson got divorced and became involved in marijuana-legalization efforts. When he decided to enter this year’s Presidential race, he stepped down as C.E.O. of Cannabis Sativa, Inc., a marijuana-branding company that hopes to benefit as legalization spreads. “Gary is not at all involved with Cannabis Sativa, Inc., now,” James P. Gray, the company’s chairman, said, adding that Johnson still owns some stock. “But he does mention it occasionally in his interviews, and he believes in it.” Gray, a former superior-court judge in Orange County, California, was Johnson’s running mate in 2012. At the company, Johnson told me, he hired the person who developed the branding for a product line called hi. “Small ‘H,’ small ‘I’—really cool logo,” he said. He also contributed to the development of a strain-specific edible lozenge that he said “is as good a marijuana high that exists on the planet.” How did he know? “As C.E.O., I did some testing,” he said. “Nothing was better.” “So, if someone wanted to try that strain, how would they acquire it?” I asked. “Legally, they couldn’t,” Johnson said. “What about illegally?” “Well, I’d probably be able to connect you up illegally.” “Third parties are like bees,” the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote, in 1955. “Once they have stung, they die.” Third parties come buzzing to life when they seize upon an issue that the two major parties have ignored. If they gain enough popular support—the sting—one or both parties will adapt to the electorate’s demands, and co-opt the third party’s ideas. In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt broke away from the Republican Party to form the Progressive Party, which championed political reforms, women’s suffrage, and workers’ rights. Roosevelt won twenty-seven per cent of the vote, the best result of any third-party candidate in American history. The Democrats and the Republicans included most of the Progressives’ issues in their platforms, and the Party was largely defunct by the next Presidential election. In 1948, Strom Thurmond, then the governor of South Carolina, left the Democratic Party to found the segregationist Dixiecrats. The voters, mostly Southern Democrats, who flocked to the Dixiecrats that year, giving it thirty-nine electoral votes, eventually joined the Republicans. The sting of Ross Perot’s candidacy was felt even before the 1992 election was over, when both Clinton and Bush adopted his views on deficit reduction. In 1996, a year after Perot founded the Reform Party, he ran as its candidate, but he didn’t even qualify for the Presidential debates. By 2000, the Reform Party had no clear ideology, and had become an outlet for the aspirations of Donald Trump, Jesse Ventura, and Pat Buchanan, who won its nomination that year. Unlike other parties that have come and gone, the Libertarians have had enough consistent support to maintain a national infrastructure. In 1992 and 1996, the Libertarian Party was on the ballot in all fifty states, and in each Presidential election since then its candidate has been on the ballot in more than forty states. Libertarians, who want less government interference in all aspects of life, have never been single-issue activists, but they serve as an ideological release valve for voters on the left and the right when the government becomes too interventionist at home or abroad. In the nineteen-eighties and nineties, many leading Libertarians moved to the Republican Party as a way to advance their agenda. The brothers David and Charles Koch, who had previously tried to influence politics under the auspices of the Libertarian Party—David was the Party’s Vice-Presidential candidate in 1980—became the most important donors to Republican causes and candidates. Ron Paul, who was the Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate in 1988, ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 and 2012; his son Rand Paul left this year’s race in February. Johnson endorsed Ron Paul in 2008, but in 2011, dismayed by the war on drugs, the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Barack Obama’s liberal fiscal record, he decided to run for President as a Republican. He encountered formidable resistance when he tried to attract the right-wing Republican electorate in early-primary states, especially when it came to social issues and immigration. “Thirty per cent of Republican voters out there right now believe the scourge of the earth is Mexican immigration,” he told me. “You go to these Party events in New Hampshire and in Iowa, and they set the criteria for the entire nation. It’s profound. You can’t get beyond those two states, because you have to go out and appeal to anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-drugs, anti-immigration—and I’m crossways on all of those. I’d argue I’m the pragmatist in the room, but you can’t get past those groups, especially in those two states.” In December, 2011, Johnson left the Republican Party and found a home among the Libertarians, who awarded him the Party’s nomination. In the 2012 Presidential election, he won 1,275,971 votes, the Party’s largest total ever. But it was in 2015 that Johnson saw, with the rise of Trump, an unprecedented opening for the Libertarian Party. “I think Trump alienates more than half of the Republicans, and he alienates them because there’s no sense of smaller government,” Johnson said. “Immigration, the wall, killing the families of Muslim terrorists. He said, ‘I’m going to bring back waterboarding or worse.’ ” Trump’s agenda, he said, “is fascism.” “I came here to chop you down. Falling in love wasn’t part of the plan.” Clinton’s troubles with Sanders also emboldened Johnson. He tells Sanders supporters to take an ideological quiz at the Web site ISideWith.com. “You get paired up with a Presidential candidate most in line with your views,” he said. “I side with myself the most, and then, amazingly, I side with Bernie next closest.” Polls so far show that Johnson actually takes more voters from Clinton than from Trump. “It’s about everything but economics,” Johnson said, ticking off the issues on which he and Sanders agree: “on legalizing marijuana, on ‘Let’s stop dropping bombs,’ crony capitalism.” But to seriously exploit Trump’s and Clinton’s vulnerabilities Johnson needed a running mate with mainstream credibility. Johnson and Weld got to know each other in the nineties, when both were governors—two fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republicans governing blue states and sparring with Democratic legislatures. Weld, who once dove into the Charles River, wearing a T-shirt and khakis, to demonstrate how clean it had become, liked Johnson’s eccentric side. “I thought he was just so cool that he would do these giant slaloms after doing an Iron Man triathlon and ski five hundred feet in the air and then land in a pail of water,” Weld told me. “I mean, he is a serious daredevil.” Weld won a second term in 1994, with seventy-one per cent of the vote. In 1996, he challenged John Kerry for his Senate seat. Weld lost, but the race became famous for a series of eight tough but high-minded debates that the two men staged across Massachusetts. That summer, during the campaign, Weld made a show of demanding that he be allowed to speak in favor of abortion rights at the Republican National Convention, a stunt that was popular in Massachusetts but which isolated him from the national Party. Like Johnson, Weld found himself out of step with Republicans on numerous social issues. “I was in favor of needle exchanges, all the gay and lesbian stuff, medicinal marijuana,” Weld told me. “They were not typical positions.” In 1997, Bill Clinton nominated Weld to be the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, and Weld resigned as governor to take the job. But Jesse Helms, a Republican senator from North Carolina, who chaired the Foreign Relations Committee, blocked the nomination. As Weld recalled it, Helms claimed that Weld was “soft on drugs and we couldn’t afford to have me in Mexico.” In 2006, Weld launched a long-shot campaign for governor of New York, where he was born. He was endorsed by the state’s Libertarian Party but failed to secure the Republican nomination, and he returned to practicing law. Weld was living a comfortable but dull life in Boston when one of Johnson’s aides sent him an e-mail asking if he would consider being Johnson’s running mate. “Hell, yeah, I like Gary,” Weld replied. “I admired his run as a Libertarian last time. I was all in for Romney, but I always said to people, ‘Hey, if you feel like it, vote Libertarian—Johnson’s a good guy.’ ” At the Libertarian Party convention, in Orlando, in May, convincing some of the more eccentric delegates that Weld should be on the ticket was almost as difficult as winning over Helms. In a video that became popular online, one heavyset attendee with a bushy beard and a tattoo danced across the stage and stripped down to a thong. “He was running for chairman of the Party, and so he was supposed to give a five-minute speech,” Weld said, “but instead he did a five-minute striptease, and he didn’t really have the figure for it.” Johnson added, “Didn’t hurt anybody, except maybe your sensibilities.” Weld spent several years running the Criminal Division in the Justice Department during the Reagan Administration, and delegates asked him a series of hostile questions about his prosecutorial record. As Weld told me, much of what he did at Justice was not “calculated to warm the cockles of the Libertarian heart.” Other delegates objected to the fact that Weld’s wife’s great-uncle, Kermit Roosevelt, was the C.I.A. agent who led the American-backed coup in Iran, in 1953. “Kind of before my time,” Weld said, laughing. On the first ballot, Weld received forty-nine per cent of the vote, and Johnson’s aides feared that he would lose. He won on the second, with just over fifty per cent. Johnson thinks that, without Weld on the ticket, the media wouldn’t be interested in his campaign. He told me, “My opinion, having done this now for two cycles, is: I think the national media really likes me and likes what I have to say. But, at the end of the day, ‘He’s a Libertarian,’ and that denotes some loose screws, maybe. But Bill Weld? No. I mean, what’s Bill Weld doing hitching his train to the Libertarian Party and to me? I think it gives us amazing credibility.” For Weld, the decision was at least as much about Trump as it was about Johnson. Weld compared the Republican Party, in its crisis over Trump’s nomination, to the Whig Party in its final years. The Whig Party splintered in the mid-eighteen-fifties, Weld noted, and some former members drifted into the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party. Like Trump’s rallies, Weld said, Know-Nothing rallies “had a lot of violence, they fomented a lot of conspiracy theories about people trying to overthrow the United States. They were nativists, they were—they called it racialist then, not racist. But they were everything that Mr. Trump’s overtones are today. And they became very powerful for a few short years, and then they disappeared.” Weld hopes that, by creating a split among conservatives, the Libertarian ticket can make it more likely that the same thing will happen to Trump.

The city of Aleppo has long been at the center of Syria's civil war—most recently in claims that the Syrian regime dropped chlorine gas bombs on its own people—so one might think presidential candidates would be pretty familiar with it. Not Gary Johnson. "What would you do, if you were elected, about Aleppo?" the Libertarian candidate was asked on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Thursday, per Politico. His response: "And what is Aleppo?" Once his stunned interviewer explained that it's "the epicenter of the refugee crisis" in Syria, Johnson suggested the US work with Russia to solve the "mess." But it was his question, not his answer, that began trending on Twitter. In an interview later Thursday, Johnson admitted he should be "smarter" on certain issues. "I'm incredibly frustrated with myself," he said—though Philip Bump at the Washington Post believes he should cut himself some slack. "It would be easy to describe [the interview] … as having doomed his third-party candidacy for president were it not for the fact that his candidacy was already doomed," he quips, comparing Johnson to the Titanic had it "begun sinking but then blew up." Meanwhile, Fusion's Katie McDonough points out that while at a convention in June, Johnson asked, "Who's Harriet Tubman?" per the New Yorker.

A source familiar with the investigation confirms that skeletal remains were found at a dig site in southeast Houston. (Photo: Air 11) HOUSTON – Authorities have dug up human skeletal remains in a field where they’ve been searching for a teenage girl who went missing for nearly 20 years. The medical examiner’s office is investigating whether the remains belong to Jessica Cain, who went missing from Texas City in 1997. “If it’s not Jessica Cain, then we have to find out who it is,” said Houston Homicide Detective Richard Martinez. “There’s enough there to know that it’s a body, so they still have to keep digging and meticulously get every bone they can. The remains were found around 2:30 Friday afternoon when a backhoe operator found what he thought were skeletal remains, according to detectives. Those suspicions were confirmed after an anthropologist conducted an investigation. Martinez said the remains were found about four feet in the ground to find the remains. “We don’t know what the conditions of the field were back in 1997,” he said. Crews have been digging in the field for more than three weeks after convict William Reece tipped them off that Cain’s remains could be found in the field. Reece, who’s serving time for aggravated kidnapping, has been linked to at least five murders or kidnappings—all from 1997. The Houston Police Department is the lead agency in the investigation. Investigators said they’ll work in conjunction with other departments, such as the Friendswood Police Department, if, in fact, they are Cain's remains. Read or Share this story: http://on.khou.com/1ptHdOg ||||| EMBED More News Videos Authorities have demolished a barn where volunteers are searching for the body of Jessica Cain There could be a big break in the search for missing teen Jessica Cain. Crews have discovered bones in a field where a search is underway."There's enough there to know that it's a body," said HPD Detective Richard Martinez. "So, they still have to keep digging and meticulously get every bone that we can to reconstruct the body."The discovery was made at about 2:30pm Friday at the site on East Orem. At this point, it's not clear if the bones found are that of the missing teen. Search teams have collected the bones and placed them into evidence bags.The medical examiner was on scene."If it's not Jessica Cain, then we have to find out who it is," said Detective Martinez.The search for Cain has gone on for 25 days now.Investigators were initially led to the site on East Orem after William Reece, the primary suspect in Jessica Cain's 1997 disappearance, gave information to detectives that led them there.Reece is already serving a 60-year sentence for the kidnapping of another woman.Reece has been taken to the site several times. He lived just a few miles from where searchers were looking for the missing teen's body.According to law enforcement sources, police will begin digging at another site in the Houston area next week. They think another victim of Reece could be buried there.Stay with Eyewitness News for the very latest on this breaking story. We'll have updates on air, online and on our mobile news app. ||||| Police discover remains at dig site for girl missing since '97 Photo: handout Image 1 of / 25 Caption Close Image 1 of 25 Jessica Cain Jessica Cain Photo: handout Image 2 of 25 Authorities search for body of Jessica Cain in the 6100 of East Orem Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Authorities search for body of Jessica Cain in the 6100 of East Orem Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: James Nielsen, Houston Chronicle Image 3 of 25 Authorities search for body of Jessica Cain in the 6100 of East Orem Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Authorities search for body of Jessica Cain in the 6100 of East Orem Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: James Nielsen, Houston Chronicle Image 4 of 25 Authorities search for body of Jessica Cain in the 6100 of East Orem Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Authorities search for body of Jessica Cain in the 6100 of East Orem Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: James Nielsen, Houston Chronicle Image 5 of 25 Authorities search for body of Jessica Cain in the 6100 of East Orem Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Authorities search for body of Jessica Cain in the 6100 of East Orem Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: James Nielsen, Houston Chronicle Image 6 of 25 Richard Martinez with the Houston Police Department Homicide Division speaks with reporters during the search for body of Jessica Cain in the 6100 of East Orem Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Richard Martinez with the Houston Police Department Homicide Division speaks with reporters during the search for body of Jessica Cain in the 6100 of East Orem Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: James Nielsen, Houston Chronicle Image 7 of 25 Searchers dig in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Searchers dig in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: James Nielsen, James Nielsen/Houston Chronicle Image 8 of 25 Searchers dig in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Searchers dig in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: James Nielsen, James Nielsen/Houston Chronicle Image 9 of 25 Searchers dig in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Searchers dig in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Friday, March 18, 2016, in Houston. Image 10 of 25 Searchers dig for the remains of Jessica Cain in the 6100 block of East Orem Drive on Friday. Cain disappeared in 1997, and her accused kidnapper, William Reece, has been at the site with authorities. Searchers dig for the remains of Jessica Cain in the 6100 block of East Orem Drive on Friday. Cain disappeared in 1997, and her accused kidnapper, William Reece, has been at the site with authorities. Photo: Jon Shapley, Staff Image 11 of 25 A searcher digs in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. A searcher digs in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Jon Shapley, Houston Chronicle Image 12 of 25 Searchers dig in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. Searchers dig in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Jon Shapley, Houston Chronicle Image 13 of 25 Searchers talk as an excavator digs for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in a field in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. Searchers talk as an excavator digs for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in a field in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Jon Shapley, Houston Chronicle Image 14 of 25 Stephanie Hardy James, a childhood friend of Jessica Cain, puts flowers along a fence where authorities are looking for Cain's remains, Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. Cain disappeared in 1997. "When I found out they had a lead, there's nothing stopping me from coming every day," James said. "[She was] the sweetest person I ever knew." less Stephanie Hardy James, a childhood friend of Jessica Cain, puts flowers along a fence where authorities are looking for Cain's remains, Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. Cain disappeared in 1997. "When I ... more Photo: Jon Shapley, Houston Chronicle Image 15 of 25 A member of Texas Equusearch searches a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. A member of Texas Equusearch searches a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Jon Shapley, Houston Chronicle Image 16 of 25 C.H. Cain and his wife, Suzy Cain, release a dove in memory of their daughter, Jessica Cain, during a tribute site dedication at Highland Bayou Park in 2012, in La Marque. C.H. Cain and his wife, Suzy Cain, release a dove in memory of their daughter, Jessica Cain, during a tribute site dedication at Highland Bayou Park in 2012, in La Marque. Photo: Cody Duty, Staff Image 17 of 25 Searchers dig in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. Searchers dig in a field for the remains of Jessica Cain, a teenager missing since 1997, in the 6100 block of E. Orem Dr., Wednesday, March 2, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Jon Shapley, Houston Chronicle Image 18 of 25 Marley Lindsey, 4, stands with her mother, Alyssa Vassallo, during a candle light vigil in honor of Jessica Cain at Highland Bayou Park Saturday, Aug. 18, 2012, in La Marque. Seventeen- year-old Jessica Cain disappeared August 17, 1997 after leaving a dinner with friends at a restaurant near Baybrook Mall. less Marley Lindsey, 4, stands with her mother, Alyssa Vassallo, during a candle light vigil in honor of Jessica Cain at Highland Bayou Park Saturday, Aug. 18, 2012, in La Marque. Seventeen- year-old Jessica Cain ... more Photo: Cody Duty, Houston Chronicle Image 19 of 25 A mourner holds a pamphlet in honor of Jessica Cain during a vigil at Highland Bayou Park Saturday, Aug. 18, 2012, in La Marque. Seventeen- year-old Jessica Cain disappeared August 17, 1997 after leaving a dinner with friends at a restaurant near Baybrook Mall. less A mourner holds a pamphlet in honor of Jessica Cain during a vigil at Highland Bayou Park Saturday, Aug. 18, 2012, in La Marque. Seventeen- year-old Jessica Cain disappeared August 17, 1997 after leaving a ... more Photo: Cody Duty, Houston Chronicle Image 20 of 25 C.H. Cain, releases a dove in memory of his daughter, Jessica Cain, during a tribute site dedication at Highland Bayou Park Saturday, in La Marque. Seventeen- year-old Jessica Cain disappeared August 17, 1997 after leaving a dinner with friends at a restaurant near Baybrook Mall. less C.H. Cain, releases a dove in memory of his daughter, Jessica Cain, during a tribute site dedication at Highland Bayou Park Saturday, in La Marque. Seventeen- year-old Jessica Cain disappeared August 17, 1997 ... more Photo: Cody Duty, Houston Chronicle Image 21 of 25 C.H. Cain, left, and his wife, Suzy Cain, right, release a dove in memory of their daughter, Jessica Cain, during a tribute site dedication at Highland Bayou Park Saturday, Aug. 18, 2012, in La Marque. Seventeen- year-old Jessica Cain disappeared August 17, 1997 after leaving a dinner with friends at a restaurant near Baybrook Mall. less C.H. Cain, left, and his wife, Suzy Cain, right, release a dove in memory of their daughter, Jessica Cain, during a tribute site dedication at Highland Bayou Park Saturday, Aug. 18, 2012, in La Marque. ... more Photo: Cody Duty, Houston Chronicle Image 22 of 25 Marley Lindsey, 4, stands with her mother, Alyssa Vassallo, during a candle light vigil in honor of Jessica Cain at Highland Bayou Park Saturday, Aug. 18, 2012, in La Marque. Seventeen- year-old Jessica Cain disappeared August 17, 1997 after leaving a dinner with friends at a restaurant near Baybrook Mall. less Marley Lindsey, 4, stands with her mother, Alyssa Vassallo, during a candle light vigil in honor of Jessica Cain at Highland Bayou Park Saturday, Aug. 18, 2012, in La Marque. Seventeen- year-old Jessica Cain ... more Photo: Cody Duty, Houston Chronicle Image 23 of 25 Jim Di Carlo, president/director of the Missing Hearts Foundation, sits beside a photograph of Jessica Cain, 17, his niece, who went missing in August 1997 in Tiki Island. The foundation has created a children's thumbprint identification program. less Jim Di Carlo, president/director of the Missing Hearts Foundation, sits beside a photograph of Jessica Cain, 17, his niece, who went missing in August 1997 in Tiki Island. The foundation has created a ... more Photo: Suzanne Rehak Image 24 of 25 Alicia O'Neill and Michelle Profitt both pray for the return of their good friend Jessica Cain at a vigil honoring Cain who went missing 10 years ago in Webster after her truck was found abandon on the side of the road. Crime stoppers asks anyone with information about the case to please call 713-222-TIPS. less Alicia O'Neill and Michelle Profitt both pray for the return of their good friend Jessica Cain at a vigil honoring Cain who went missing 10 years ago in Webster after her truck was found abandon on the side of ... more Photo: Kim Christensen, For The Chronicle Image 25 of 25 Police discover remains at dig site for girl missing since '97 1 / 25 Back to Gallery The discovery of skeletal remains in a field in south Houston could mean investigators discovered the final resting place of a Galveston teenager who disappeared almost two decades ago, or it could signal the start of an entirely new homicide investigation. It all depends on the forensics, Houston police said Friday as searchers continued carefully excavating a scrubby horse pasture along East Orem near Hobby Airport. "Right now, we have no clue who this person is," said Richard Martinez, a detective with the Houston Police Department's homicide division. Harris County medical examiners will analyze the remains, police said, and should be able to say if they are that of Jessica Cain, 17, who vanished without a trace on Aug. 17, 1997, while driving home after a high school musical cast party at a restaurant in Clear Lake. Only her truck, with her purse locked inside, was ever found, on the shoulder of Interstate 45 on the route to her Tiki Island home. But, Martinez said, the spot where the remains were discovered is "basically the same area" where convicted kidnapper William Lewis Reece, 54, was recently seen in the company of law enforcement officers. After weeks of searching the field, about 2:30 p.m. Friday a backhoe operator at the site signaled the discovery of the apparent remains. An anthropologist and other analysts with the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences were called to the scene. "Right now, they're in the process of recovering those remains," Martinez said. "There is enough there to know that it's a body." He said the remains were found at least four feet below the surface. Heavy thunderstorms blew through the area while investigators continued the excavation. "If it rains too hard and fills up with water, you have to let it subside and then start over," Martinez said. The cause of death and the identity won't be known until after a forensics examination. Martinez said there appeared to be enough to make a DNA confirmation. "If it is not Jessica Cain, we have to find out who it is," he said. The investigation will become a Houston police case regardless of the identity because the remains were discovered within their jurisdiction. But Martinez said the department will work with other law enforcement agencies if it does turn out to be Jessica Cain. Police said Reece was not at the site on Friday. He was serving a 60-year prison sentence for a 1998 aggravated kidnapping when police in mid-February brought him in shackles to Galveston County for interviews. Since then, Reece had been seen pacing the pasture, seeming to point out the spots where the searchers should focus. He also is identified by police as the prime suspect in the August 1997 kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Laura Smither, who vanished from her Friendswood neighborhood while jogging. Houston police could not estimate how long it would take for medical examiners to determine the identity of the skeletal remains. Chronicle reporter St. John Barned-Smith contributed to this report.

Houston police—with the help of a convicted kidnapper—may have found the remains of a Texas teenager missing for nearly 20 years, the Houston Chronicle reports. Jessica Cain was 17 when she disappeared after a high school musical cast party in 1997. On Friday, police found what they believe could be Cain's skeletal remains in a horse pasture. According to KTRK, police had been searching the field for 25 days after receiving a tip from William Reece. Reece is serving a 60-year sentence for kidnapping a woman, but he's been linked to at least five murders and kidnappings—all taking place in 1997, KHOU reports. Teams are still working to uncover the remains, which were found at least four feet underground. They need to get every bone they can in order to reconstruct the body. "Right now, we have no clue who this person is," Det. Richard Martinez tells the Chronicle. "If it is not Jessica Cain, we have to find out who it is." Authorities are unsure how long it will take to ID the remains. Next week, police plan to start digging at a second site were they believe Reece may have buried another body.

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, gives DOT responsibility for promoting new airlines’ operations, while at the same time determining whether applicants proposing to provide air transportation services for compensation or hire meet federal economic and safety standards before commencing operations. Within DOT, this responsibility is shared by OST and FAA. All applicants must obtain separate authorization from both offices before starting their operations. OST’s Certification Process When OST receives an application, it administers a three-part test to determine whether the applicant is “fit, willing, and able” to properly perform the proposed services. First, OST assesses whether the applicant’s key personnel and management team as a whole possess the background and experience necessary to perform the proposed operations. Second, it reviews the applicant’s operating and financial plans to determine whether the applicant has access to or a plausible plan for raising sufficient funds to pay all of its start-up expenses and maintain a working capital reserve equal to 3 months’ normal operating costs. Finally, it reviews the applicant’s compliance record to determine whether the applicant or its key personnel have a history of safety violations or consumer fraud and may thus pose a risk to the traveling public, or whether other factors indicate that the applicant would not be likely to comply with federal rules, laws, and directives. If OST finds that the applicant meets these criteria, it issues a “show cause” order tentatively finding the applicant fit to operate. Interested parties, including competitor airlines and members of the public, are given an opportunity to raise concerns or objections about the applicant’s fitness to conduct the proposed operation. If no objections are filed that convince OST that its tentative findings were incorrect, it will issue a “final” order finding the applicant fit. Even so, the authority to begin the proposed operation will not be granted until the applicant submits the required (1) Air Carrier Certificate and Operations Specifications from FAA; (2) evidence that it has liability insurance coverage for each of its aircraft; (3) information on any changes in financing, ownership, key personnel, or management since the initial determination of fitness; and (4) verification that it has sufficient funds to meet OST’s financial criteria. FAA uses a five-phase process to determine whether an applicant’s manuals, aircraft, facilities, and personnel meet federal safety standards. First, in the preapplication phase, FAA gives the applicant basic information about the agency’s certification process and assigns a team of inspectors to meet with the applicant to discuss the proposed operation. Second, in the formal application phase, the applicant must submit all required documents, including a letter of application, operations and maintenance manuals, training curriculums, and personnel résumés documenting key personnel’s managerial and technical skills. Third, in the document compliance phase, FAA inspectors review the documents to determine whether they comply with applicable safety regulations and operating practices. Fourth, in the demonstration and inspection phase, the inspectors conduct on-site inspections of the applicant’s aircraft and maintenance facilities; observe proposed training programs; review maintenance, operations, and record-keeping procedures; and review actual in-flight operations. Finally, in the certification phase, FAA issues an Air Carrier Certificate and approves the applicant’s operations specifications. We found that many applicants do not successfully complete OST’s and FAA’s certification processes and, therefore, cannot begin flight operations. From January 1990 through July 1995, 180 applicants filed with OST to begin new airline operations. Ninety of the 180 applicants successfully completed OST’s and FAA’s processes and began operations. Of these 90, 57 were operating as of July 1995, while 33 began flying but ultimately ceased operations for a variety of reasons, such as insufficient revenues and competition from other airlines. As shown in figure 1, 33 of the remaining 90 applicants were tentatively found fit by OST but either never began operations, primarily because they lacked the financial resources necessary to carry out the proposed operations, or are still attempting to complete their financing or finish FAA’s certification process before they can begin operations. Another 47 applicants had withdrawn their applications or had them dismissed or denied by OST because the applicants were unable to meet its fitness standards. Ten applications were pending OST’s approval. Authorized and Operating (57) Authorized but Ceased Operations (33) Tentatively Found Fit but Never Began Operations (33) OST analysts and FAA headquarters officials told us that several factors determine whether an applicant successfully completes both offices’ processes. These factors include the completeness of the initial application, the applicant’s managerial skills and technical knowledge about operating an airline, and the applicant’s ability to obtain sufficient funds to meet OST’s financial criteria. Furthermore, the analysts told us that the majority of the applicants that do not complete the processes or never begin operations do not acquire the financial resources necessary to cover the start-up costs for their proposed operations. While OST’s and FAA’s certification processes are designed to ensure that new airlines meet federal economic and safety requirements, we found that the processes contained some inefficiencies that resulted in spending federal resources on applicants that had little probability of successfully completing the processes and beginning operations. Specifically, OST determined some applicants to be financially fit before they had sufficient funds to complete both certification processes. Because a significant amount of resources is spent on applicants that never complete the certification processes, FAA recently revised its process to require applicants to complete certain tasks before it will expend resources on other certification activities. Additionally, OST tightened its financial standards by requiring applicants to submit third-party verification of their financial plans with their applications. And together, OST and FAA have established an electronic communications link to better share information about applicants. To determine financial fitness, OST requires applicants to submit financial plans that show they have a plausible plan for raising the capital needed to conduct the proposed services. Only after the applicants receive FAA’s certification—but before OST gives them the authority to operate—are they required to verify that they actually have sufficient funds to meet OST’s financial criteria for beginning and sustaining their proposed operations. OST officials indicated that they require only a financial plan and not actual funds on hand because some applicants are unable to obtain funds from financial institutions or other investors unless they can show that OST has found them fit. As a result, applications can proceed far into FAA’s certification process before they are terminated or suspended because of the applicants’ inability to raise the needed capital. Consequently, hundreds of hours of FAA inspectors’ time can be expended on certification efforts before it is known that the applicants are unable to obtain the needed funds. According to OST analysts, the primary reason that 33 applicants tentatively found fit had never begun or had not yet begun operations was that they were unable or are still trying to obtain the funds necessary to meet OST’s financial criteria and complete FAA’s process. Although the analysts routinely give applicants additional time to raise money, many still do not acquire the needed funds because their funding plans fall through or the market conditions change. For example, OST found an applicant fit on the basis of its proposal to raise about 98 percent of its capital through state economic development funds. However, the funds from that prospective source never became available, and the applicant had to seek alternative financing. OST granted the applicant four extensions to allow time to raise the needed capital, but the applicant never obtained the funds necessary to commence operations. FAA expended about 650 staff hours, or about $52,000, on certification activities for this applicant. We could not determine the staff hours, or dollars, that OST analysts spent on certification activities for this applicant because, according to the analysts, they do not maintain records of the staff time spent on individual applicants. In another case, we found that FAA had to suspend its certification efforts during the demonstration phase (phase four)—in which FAA reviews each applicant’s aircraft operations—because an applicant had not acquired its aircraft. Four months after these efforts were suspended, the applicant withdrew from the process because it was unable to obtain the funds to purchase or lease any aircraft. In this case, FAA had spent about 800 staff hours, or about $64,000, on certification activities. Even though OST still requires applicants to present only a plan for raising the necessary capital, OST recently tightened its standards on what is acceptable as evidence of a funding plan and when such evidence must be submitted. According to the Chief of the Air Carrier Fitness Division, all applicants are now required to submit, with their applications, third-party verification that they are working with an established brokerage firm, financial institution, or qualified individuals to raise the necessary capital. Copies of private placement agreements, debt instruments, or other stock offerings must be submitted as part of the application before OST will process it further and issue a show cause order finding the applicant fit. OST officials said that these changes are an attempt to reduce the amount of OST’s and FAA’s resources expended on applicants that do not have their basic financing plans in place when they seek OST’s authority to begin operations. Recognizing that a significant amount of resources is expended on applicants that do not complete the certification process, FAA revised its process in October 1995 to make the process more efficient. FAA officials stated that this action was necessary given the amount of time and resources devoted to applicants that never successfully complete the process and given the need to find a way to reduce the staff resources expended on these applicants. Under FAA’s new process, which incorporates a “gate” system, applicants are required to complete certain steps—at key points in the process—before FAA inspectors will expend additional resources on certification activities. To illustrate, FAA now requires applicants to have applied for OST’s authority during the preapplication phase (phase one) before FAA assigns a certification team to the applicant. During our review, we found that one applicant had proceeded to phase three—the document compliance phase—of FAA’s five-phase process before it submitted an application to OST. Upon reviewing the application, OST analysts questioned the reasonableness of the applicant’s estimated start-up expenses and operating costs for 3 months. As a result of the analysts’ inquiry, the applicant subsequently withdrew its application. However, by this time FAA had expended 1,300 hours of inspectors’ time, incurring about $104,000 in certification costs. FAA’s new process, if properly implemented, should preclude the recurrence of this type of problem. FAA officials told us that in the past, some applicants would wait until the last moment to purchase or lease the aircraft, facilities, and services necessary to conduct the proposed operations. Because some applicants could not raise the needed capital, they delayed completing or never completed the process, resulting in FAA’s expending significant resources on unsuccessful applications. Under FAA’s revised process, when submitting their formal applications in phase two, the applicants must provide proof, such as signed contracts or letters of agreement, that they have purchased or leased the aircraft, facilities, and services needed for the proposed operations before FAA will begin reviewing their operating, maintenance, or training manuals. In addition, by the time the applicants reach the formal application phase, they must have been tentatively found fit by OST and a show cause order must have been issued. Furthermore, FAA now requires applicants to submit completed general operating, maintenance, and training manuals at the time of the formal application. Applicants are encouraged to seek outside assistance in preparing these documents. FAA inspectors told us that in the past it was not uncommon for them to spend a significant amount of time assisting applicants in developing these documents. For example, although OST had determined that one applicant’s key personnel possessed the technical knowledge and skills necessary to provide the proposed services, during a subsequent certification review, FAA inspectors found that the applicant’s personnel did not have the necessary knowledge and skills to develop the required manuals for the proposed operations. Even after obtaining extensive assistance from FAA, the applicant submitted maintenance manuals that included procedures for replacing an aircraft’s propellers, whereas the proposed operations would use only DC-9 jet aircraft. When the applicant did not obtain certification within 1 year of the date of the initial determination of fitness, OST granted the applicant an extension without fully coordinating with FAA. Even with the extension, the applicant could not produce acceptable manuals, and FAA eventually terminated its certification efforts. By this time, however, FAA had expended about 1,800 staff hours, or about $144,000, processing the application. According to DOT officials, in October 1995 OST and FAA established an electronic communications link to better share information about applicants, and OST now routinely contacts FAA before granting any extensions of the 1-year period. Applicants currently pay nominal fees to OST but nothing to FAA to certify their proposed new operations. The fees that applicants currently pay represent less than 1 percent of what it costs the government to conduct certification activities. For example, the 90 applicants that completed OST’s and FAA’s certification processes paid an average fee of only $760 for certification, or less than 1 percent of the government’s average estimated cost of over $150,000 to certify each applicant. OST officials recognize that the existing fees do not cover a substantial portion of the costs of certifying new airlines. The Chief of the Air Carrier Fitness Division estimated that it typically takes an OST analyst about 80 to 100 staff hours, costing about $4,000, to certify a new carrier. We could not determine the actual number of staff hours or dollars OST spent on certification efforts for applicants from January 1990 through July 1995 because, according to OST analysts, they did not maintain such data. Nevertheless, based on the Chief’s estimate of $4,000 per applicant, we calculated that OST spent about $360,000 in certification costs for the 90 airlines that actually began operations, or about $720,000 for the 180 applicants that filed applications during the 5-1/2 years covered by our review. In comparison, OST officials estimated that the 180 applicants paid a total of only $160,000 in fees. The Chief of the Air Carrier Fitness Division recognized that OST may be recouping only a portion of the government’s costs for processing applications through the fees. Nevertheless, the Chief commented that the regulation setting the application fees paid to OST—which includes fees for 50 types of applications, including applications to operate new airlines—has not been reviewed in over 10 years because of the scope of the undertaking and the limited availability of staff. Like OST, FAA could not readily determine the total number of staff hours spent on the applications received since January 1990 because, according to both FAA headquarters officials and field inspectors, they did not have a centralized system for recording this information for the 5-1/2 years covered by our review. Nevertheless, in May 1995 FAA told us that recent certification efforts have required between 1,200 and 2,700 hours of inspectors’ time, for an average of 1,835 hours, to certify a new airline. At the $80 hourly rate for inspectors, the average cost is about $150,000 per certification. We estimate that it cost FAA more than $13.5 million to certify the 90 airlines that actually began operations. In October 1995, FAA estimated the staff time and costs for the applicants that did not complete its process to be about 800 hours, or $64,000 per applicant. Nevertheless, FAA does not charge fees for its certification efforts. We found that, in addition to paying nominal fees for certification, applicants also can make substantial modifications to their proposed operations during the certification process without paying additional fees, even though such actions can significantly increase the government’s costs. For example, during the certification process one applicant changed the type of aircraft it planned to use. This action caused FAA inspectors to essentially restart their efforts, resulting in additional reviews and increased costs. Title 31, section 9701, of the U.S. Code gives federal agencies the authority to charge fees for services or benefits provided to specific beneficiaries. The Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-25 implements this authority by prescribing guidelines for imposing charges on users of the government’s services. The general policy is that a reasonable charge should be made to each identifiable recipient of a government service, privilege, authority, or certificate from which a special benefit is derived. Section 9701 states that such charges are to be based on the (1) cost of the service to the government, (2) value of the service to the recipient, and (3) public policy or interest served. In addition, the statute establishes a policy that such services should be as self-sustaining as possible. Although FAA does not currently charge a fee for its certification efforts, DOT officials commented that a portion of the certification costs is recouped from ticket and fuel taxes paid by the operating airlines and deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Even so, applicants do not pay into the fund until they begin operations; therefore, applicants that never begin operations never contribute to the fund. As mentioned earlier, 80 of the 180 applicants that filed applications with OST between January 1990 and July 1995 (1) were tentatively found fit but had yet to begin or had never begun operations or (2) withdrew their applications or had them dismissed or denied and thus had never contributed to the fund. OST and FAA officials recognized that the existing fees were insufficient to cover certification costs but have not reviewed the appropriateness of the current fee structures. Under legislation introduced in the Congress in September 1995, FAA would be allowed to charge fees to support various aviation services. According to the Deputy Director of Flight Standards Service, FAA plans to examine all services requiring certificates and the existing fee structures to determine the extent to which the government’s costs have been or should be recouped. A date for completing this action has yet to be determined. DOT’s certification processes have resulted in 90 new carriers’ entering the airline industry over the past 5-1/2 years. These new carriers have benefited the traveling public by increasing competition among airlines and, in turn, reducing airfares. However, about half of the applicants that applied to operate new airlines did not complete the processes, primarily because they could not obtain sufficient financial resources. In some instances, FAA expended a significant amount of resources on costly certification activities. Although OST and FAA recently revised their certification processes to reduce the amount of resources spent on unsuccessful applications, it is too early to determine how the revisions will work in practice and to what extent they will reduce unnecessary expenditures. The fees that applicants pay for certification allow the government to recoup only a small portion—less than 1 percent—of its costs for those applicants that complete DOT’s processes. Although the government recoups some of its certification costs through ticket and fuel taxes, these funds are collected only from applicants that successfully begin and sustain their operations. Applicants that never begin operations do not pay such taxes. Requiring applicants to pay a greater share of the certification costs could generate revenue that could help defray these costs—a particularly important outcome during this period of declining federal budgets. We recognize that the Congress will ultimately be involved in any decision to establish fees for various aviation support services. Given the current reduction in federal resources, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation reevaluate the appropriateness of the Office of the Secretary’s increasing its fees and FAA’s establishing fees for services to certify new airlines, taking into consideration the government’s costs, the value of the services to the applicant, and the public policy or interest served. We provided a draft of this report to DOT officials for their review and comment. We met with Department officials, including OST’s Chief of the Air Carrier Fitness Division and FAA’s Deputy Director of Flight Standards Service, to discuss their comments. The draft report contained proposed recommendations to DOT to improve OST’s and FAA’s certification processes and to reevaluate the existing fees for certification services. These officials generally agreed with the findings and conclusions in the draft report. In commenting, the officials provided a number of clarifications and updates that have been incorporated into the report as appropriate. Most significantly, the report has been updated to recognize a number of actions that OST and FAA have taken during the course of our review to improve their processes for certifying new airlines. Specifically, (1) FAA has revised its certification process to require that applicants complete certain steps before it will expend additional resources, (2) OST now requires all applicants to submit, with their applications, third-party verification that they are working with an established brokerage firm, financial institution, or qualified individuals to raise the necessary capital, and (3) OST and FAA have established an electronic communications link to better share information about applicants. As a result of these actions, we have deleted our proposed recommendation to improve OST’s and FAA’s certification processes because, if properly implemented, these actions should mitigate several of the concerns we identified and improve the efficiency of the process for certifying new airlines. DOT officials generally agreed with our remaining recommendation, recognizing that the existing fees do not cover the government’s certification costs. But DOT has taken no action to date to reevaluate the existing fees. In addition, while legislation introduced in the Congress in September 1995 would allow FAA to charge fees for various aviation services, this legislation has not yet been enacted. Therefore, we continue to believe that DOT should review the appropriateness of its fees for certifying new airlines, either as a separate issue or as part of any broader effort to examine FAA’s fees for the services provided to the aviation industry. We conducted our review from October 1994 through December 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology appears in appendix I. Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, FAA; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available on request. Please call me at (202) 512-2834 if you have any questions about this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. In August 1994, Representative James L. Oberstar, the then Chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation (now the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure), asked us to examine the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) efforts to ensure that new airlines meet federal economic and safety standards before commencing flight operations. On the basis of subsequent discussions with the Subcommittee’s office, this report addresses three questions: (1) How many applicants have applied for and received certification to begin new airlines since 1990? (2) What processes does DOT have in place to certify new airlines? and (3) How much does it cost to certify new airlines and how are these costs distributed between the government and the applicants? To address the first question, we obtained from DOT’s Office of the Secretary (OST) a list of all the applicants that applied for new airline certification between January 1990 and July 1995. The list identified 180 applicants and gave the status of their applications as of July 1995. We also asked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to verify the status of the applications. To address the second question, we reviewed pertinent federal statutes and DOT’s regulations to identify which DOT units are responsible for performing certification activities. We also reviewed OST’s criteria, procedures, and other pertinent documents outlining the requirements for determining an applicant’s fitness. We discussed these issues with the five analysts in OST’s Air Carrier Fitness Division who are responsible for assessing whether applicants have the necessary skills and resources to operate a new airline. We also selected a judgmental sample of 40 of the 180 applications filed with OST from January 1990 through July 1995 for detailed review to validate how OST’s process was implemented. We selected these 40 applicants because they represented a broad mix of categories of applicants and proposed operations. The 40 applicants selected included 15 of the 57 operating airlines, 7 of the 33 airlines that began but ceased operations, 7 of the 33 airlines that were found tentatively fit but had yet to begin operations or had never operated, and 11 of the 47 applicants that had withdrawn their applications or had them dismissed or denied. We did not review any of the 10 pending applications. In addition, we reviewed FAA’s criteria, procedures, and other documents used to certify new airlines and discussed them with a selected sample of 37 FAA inspectors working in the flight standards district offices we visited. We also conducted detailed reviews of a judgmental sample of files on 16 of the 57 airlines that began operations after January 1990 in order to validate how FAA’s certification process was implemented. We selected the 16 airlines because they represented a mix of carriers, including different types of airlines, fleet sizes, aircraft, and proposed operations. While examining OST’s and FAA’s criteria, documentation, and procedures for certifying new airlines, we looked for possible deficiencies in the certification processes. Additionally, we interviewed analysts in OST’s Air Carrier Fitness Division and FAA inspectors to obtain their views on what deficiencies, if any, existed in the processes and whether any efforts were under way to correct the known problems. To address the third question, we interviewed analysts in the Air Carrier Fitness Division and FAA headquarters officials and field inspectors and reviewed OST and FAA documents to determine the number of staff hours and associated costs required to certify a new airline. We also discussed with the officials how the costs are distributed between the government and applicants. In addition, we reviewed DOT’s regulations and the Office of Management and Budget’s guidance on charging fees for services provided by the government and the collection of fees by OST and FAA to determine the extent to which the government’s certification costs are or should be recouped. We performed our work at the DOT’s Air Carrier Fitness Division within OST and at FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. We also performed work at three of the nine FAA regional offices (Eastern, Southern, and Western Pacific) and six of FAA’s 91 flight standard district offices (Reno, Nevada; Scottsdale, Arizona; Chantilly, Virginia; and Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale, and Miami, Florida). We selected the regional and flight standards district offices to obtain geographical diversity and because these locations were responsible for certification efforts for many of the applications that FAA received between January 1990 and July 1995. We conducted our review between October 1994 and December 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. David K. Hooper The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Transportation's (DOT) processes for certifying the initial operations of new airlines, focusing on the: (1) number of applicants that applied for and received authorization to begin new airlines since 1990; and (2) cost to certify new airlines and how the cost is distributed between the government and the applicants. GAO found that: (1) from January 1990 to July 1995, 90 of 180 applicants were authorized to begin new airline operations; (2) 33 of these 90 airlines ceased operations prior to July 1995; (3) the 90 remaining applicants were not authorized to begin airline operations because they lacked the financial resources needed to perform proposed services or the DOT Office of the Secretary (OST) had not approved their applications; (4) factors that determine whether applicants receive OST and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification include the completeness of the initial application and applicant's ability to meet operation and financial criteria; (5) OST has tightened its financial standards by requiring applicants to provide third-party verification of their financial plans; (6) FAA has revised its certification process to prevent applicants lacking sufficient financial resources from proceeding into the airline certification process; (7) OST and FAA have established an electronic communication link to share information about airline applicants, but it is unknown how much this will reduce DOT resource waste; (8) applicants pay less than $1,000 to apply for airline certification, while the government pays up to $150,000 to process each application; (9) a portion of the government's cost of certifying new airlines is recouped from ticket and fuel taxes once the applicants begin operations; and (10) OST and FAA must examine the appropriateness of certification fees, since certification costs are not recovered under the fee structure.

New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez is moving behind-the-scenes to control the damage caused by a series of unseemly allegations involving his personal life that now loom over his chairmanship of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee and could threaten his standing with Senate Democrats. Menendez’s aides are quietly laying out a detailed defense to Democratic pundits, operatives and TV talking heads in New Jersey and Washington in which they characterize the scandal as one without merit and peddled by his political opponents. Text Size - + reset Video: Menendez denies prostitute ‘smears’ Sen. Flake on Menendez & immigration effort (Also on POLITICO: Can Robert Menendez survive?) After initially appearing stunned and paralyzed by the latest developments — Menendez ran away from reporters at a Garden State delegation event on Friday — the New Jersey Democrat is starting to fight back. He’s waging a public and private campaign to clear his name, including giving an interview to a national TV network and some New Jersey reporters. In one key move, Menendez has begun to rely on trusted aides and former advisers for guidance, including one who is very close to Attorney General Eric Holder. Menendez’s campaign has hired Matt Miller, a former top spokesman for the Justice Department — which is investigating a campaign donor caught up in the scandal — under Holder. “Bob Menendez has been a friend and a mentor for years,” Miller said. “And like a lot of people, I want to do anything I can to help fight these ridiculous smears.” Menendez initially tried to dismiss allegations in November by The Daily Caller that he had sex with prostitutes in the Dominican Republic following several trips to the Caribbean island on the private jet of a friend and big donor, Salomon Melgen, a Florida eye surgeon. The New Jersey Democrat vehemently dismissed the reports as false and a “smear job” by a conservative publication, as the first story ran on Nov. 1, just days before his reelection. But the story gained traction last week when the FBI and investigators from the Department of Health and Human Services raided Melgen’s office in West Palm Beach, Fla. Since the story first broke, Menendez has repaid $58,500 for the cost of two 2010 flights on Melgen’s jet to the Dominican Republic, claiming his failure to do so was simply an “administrative mistake.” Menendez clearly hopes that move will help shift the issue from a criminal case involving the Justice Department to a probe headed by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, if he has to deal with any probe at all. Justice wouldn’t be involved in investigating a relatively minor issue like failing to disclose the flights, although the ethics panel would. Menendez also has quietly started to distance himself from Melgen, even though he enjoys a long personal relationship with the Florida doctor and tried to intervene on Melgen’s behalf with the State and Commerce departments in regard to a port security contract a Melgen-owned company has with the Dominican government. Menendez allies are now privately pushing the line that the FBI raid in West Palm Beach was focused on Melgen alone. Miller, a respected former aide to both Menendez and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), left Justice in 2011. Miller has now been hired by Menendez’s campaign to help out on the scandal, though he would not offer details on how long or how much he will be paid or how long the assignment will be. Menendez is already being advised by Democratic attorney Marc Elias on ethics-related issues, but it is not clear whether Menendez has hired a criminal defense attorney at this time. ||||| WASHINGTON — Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey intervened with federal health officials on two occasions in the last four years in an effort to help a close friend in a billing dispute with Medicare, federal investigators said Wednesday. The senator’s efforts were unavailing, but he persisted, the investigators said. The senator’s friend, Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, a Florida eye surgeon, is under federal investigation. A team of agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Health and Human Services raided Dr. Melgen’s offices in West Palm Beach and removed 30 boxes of documents and other material last week. The revelation about the senator’s involvement in the Medicare matter was reported by The Washington Post on Wednesday night. Last week, The New York Times published an article detailing the senator’s efforts to help Dr. Melgen, a major benefactor of his, revive a lucrative contract to provide port security in the Dominican Republic. Dr. Melgen has been in a dispute with Medicare officials over billing for a drug used to treat certain types of macular degeneration, which can cause loss of vision and damage to the retina. By getting several doses of the drug from a single vial, investigators said, Dr. Melgen was able to make the drug go further, and as a result, he was able to treat more patients and file more claims with Medicare. Photo Thus, for example, Medicare might allow doctors to bill $2,000 for a vial, but the doctor sometimes filed claims for as much as $8,000, said the investigators, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry was continuing. While Medicare was trying to recover money from the doctor, the senator contacted federal officials and suggested that the agency was being unfair and needed to clarify its policy, the investigators said. In 2009, they said, Mr. Menendez, a Democrat, called Jonathan D. Blum, a senior official at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known as C.M.S. In 2012, they said, the senator expressed his concern in a meeting with Marilyn B. Tavenner, the acting administrator of the agency, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Both officials indicated to Mr. Menendez that they had no plans to change the payment policy for the drug. The government eventually recovered some of the money from Dr. Melgen, but he is exercising his right to pursue an administrative appeal, challenging Medicare’s determination that he had overbilled the program, the investigators said. An aide to Mr. Menendez issued a statement on Wednesday night, saying that the senator had no knowledge of any Medicare fraud investigation involving Dr. Melgen’s company. “Senator Menendez was never aware of and has not intervened in any Medicare fraud investigation on behalf of Vitreo Retinal Consultants,” one of Mr. Melgen’s companies, the aide said. The Menendez aide confirmed that the senator has “in the past raised concerns with C.M.S. about conflicting guidelines and ambiguity in C.M.S. rules that are difficult for providers to understand.” Mr. Menendez wanted to make sure that “providers were not penalized if C.M.S. clarified or changed the rules of the game retroactively,” the aide added. Alan Reider, a lawyer representing Dr. Melgen, issued a statement Wednesday night saying that his client was cooperating fully with the government and had not been told the focus of the investigation. Because Dr. Melgen is a Medicare provider, Mr. Reider said, his claims had been subject to audits by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and he called the audits routine. “Those audits have been resolved administratively, consistent with Medicare requirements,” Mr. Reider said. The relationship between Mr. Menendez and Dr. Melgen has been drawing scrutiny since reports recently surfaced that Mr. Menendez had accepted two round-trip flights aboard Dr. Melgen’s jet for personal vacations in the Dominican Republic in 2010. He failed to report them as gifts or reimburse Dr. Melgen at the time, as required. Then in January, he sent the doctor a check to cover the cost of the flights, with his aides saying that he failed to reimburse the doctor earlier because of sloppy paperwork. Mr. Menendez has been helpful to Dr. Melgen. Two years ago, Dr. Melgen bought an ownership interest in a company that had a long-dormant contract with the Dominican Republic to provide port security. Mr. Menendez, who is chairman of the Senate subcommittee that holds sway over the Dominican Republic, subsequently urged officials in the State and Commerce Departments to intervene so the contract would be enforced, at an estimated value of $500 million. While the focus of the investigation involving the raid late last month is not clear, Mr. Menendez finds himself defending his relationship with a major benefactor as he ascends to the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. ||||| Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), right, and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), join other senators in announcing that they have reached agreement on the principles of sweeping legislation to rewrite the nation's immigration laws. In January, the senator’s role in Washington grew as he became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Jan. 28, 2013 Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), right, and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), join other senators in announcing that they have reached agreement on the principles of sweeping legislation to rewrite the nation's immigration laws. In January, the senator’s role in Washington grew as he became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has been embroiled in a controversy involving his relations with a Miami campaign contributor and the awarding of a security contract at a port in the Dominican Republic. Here is a look at the senator’s career in Washington. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has been embroiled in a controversy involving his relations with a Miami campaign contributor and the awarding of a security contract at a port in the Dominican Republic. Here is a look at the senator’s career in Washington. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has been embroiled in a controversy involving his relations with a Miami campaign contributor and the awarding of a security contract at a port in the Dominican Republic. Here is a look at the senator’s career in Washington. Sen. Robert Menendez raised concerns with top federal health-care officials twice in recent years about their finding that a Florida eye doctor — a close friend and major campaign donor — had overbilled the government by $8.9 million for care at his clinic, Menendez aides said Wednesday. Menendez (D-N.J.) initially contacted federal officials in 2009 about the government’s audit of Salomon Melgen, complaining to the director overseeing Medicare payments that it was unfair to penalize the doctor because the billing rules were ambiguous, the aides said. Last year, in a meeting with the acting administrator of the agency in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, Menendez again questioned whether federal auditors had been fair in their assessment of Melgen’s billing for eye injections to treat macular degeneration, the senator’s aides said. The agency had ordered Melgen to repay the $8.9 million, and at the time of both conversations, Melgen was disputing the agency’s conclusion. His appeal continues to this day. Menendez’s office provided this account of his contacts with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after The Washington Post asked about the role he had played in the long-standing dispute between Melgen and the agency over his billing practices. Menendez, who became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month, is under scrutiny because of his close relationship with Melgen. The doctor donated more than $700,000 last year to Menendez’s reelection campaign and other Senate Democrats. And when Melgen needed help with a port security contract in the Dominican Republic last year, Menendez urged U.S. officials to press the country to carry out the multimillion-dollar agreement. Menendez is facing a Senate ethics inquiry about two free trips he took in 2010 on Melgen’s private plane to the doctor’s seaside mansion in the Dominican Republic. Menendez acknowledged this month that he had not properly disclosed the trips. He wrote a personal check for $58,500 to reimburse Melgen. Meanwhile, a federal investigation of what law enforcement officials say are allegations of health-care fraud by Melgen escalated last week when FBI agents and health-care investigators raided medical offices in West Palm Beach where he runs Vitreo-Retinal Consultants. The teams spent nearly 24 hours searching the premises and removing dozens of boxes containing billing and medical records and computer files. Federal investigators and health-care auditors have had concerns about Melgen’s billing practices at various times over the past decade, two former federal officials said. In part, they have examined the volume of eye injections, surgeries and laser treatments performed at his West Palm Beach clinic. But a Menendez aide said Wednesday that the senator did not know Melgen was under formal investigation for possible fraud until the well-publicized raid last week. “Senator Menendez was never aware of and has not intervened in any Medicare fraud investigation on behalf of Vitreo Retinal Consultants,” his office said in a statement. The senator’s conversation with federal officials about Melgen’s case was unrelated to the current investigation, Menendez aides said. “On a separate issue regarding Medicare reimbursement, he has in the past raised concerns with CMS about conflicting guidelines and ambiguity in CMS rules that are difficult for providers to understand and can lead to judgments after the fact,” the statement said. “His interest was in making sure providers were not penalized if CMS clarified or changed the rules of the game retroactively.” Alan Reider, Melgen’s attorney, said Wednesday that his client has returned the government money in dispute but is contesting the CMS audit finding so he can reclaim the money. Reider said Melgen believes he was following Medicare guidelines. Reider added that Melgen was not aware that his practice was under investigation until federal agents arrived at his clinic last week. At issue in the reimbursement dispute is Melgen’s multiple use of individual vials for eye injections to treat macular degeneration. Federal auditors have said Melgen often billed the government three to four times for injections from a single vial, according to two federal officials and lawyers familiar with the case. The government’s Medicare program reimburses providers $2,000 for each vial, so Melgen was billing $6,000 to $8,000 for each vial. Melgen’s attorneys said the doctor was properly billing for treating four patients with medical injections, albeit from one vial. After CMS ruled in 2008 that Melgen would have to repay the government, he and his legal representatives contacted Menendez’s office, arguing that the finding was unfair, the senator’s aides said. Menendez’s staff members had several conversations with agency officials to learn more about the billing rules and the details of Melgen’s case in particular, the aides said. In July 2009, Menendez called Jonathan Blum, the Medicare director at CMS, to express concern, the aides said. Menendez brought up Melgen’s case, they said, in the context of broader concerns about the guidelines. Then, in June 2012, Menendez raised Melgen’s case again at a meeting with CMS Acting Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, aides recounted. They said the primary subject of the meeting was the implementation of President Obama’s health-care overhaul. The aides said Menendez never urged the CMS to take specific action on Melgen’s case. Blum and Tavenner declined to comment through a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services. Melgen frequently cited his connection to Menendez, according to two former federal officials and doctors in South Florida. When federal health-care fraud investigators were questioning him several years ago about his billing practices, he invoked the senator’s name, the former officials said. “He used Menendez’s name all the time. He would say, “Menendez is a good friend of mine, and he knows I never did anything wrong,’ ” said a former senior federal official familiar with the investigation. In Florida, it was more threatening, several doctors in the South Florida region recounted. After one local eye surgeon criticized Melgen’s treatment methods in discussions with other Florida doctors, Melgen warned that he had important friends in the Senate, including Menendez, said two doctors familiar with the exchange. They said Melgen cautioned that his Washington friends could arrange an intensive federal audit of the surgeon’s practice. Reider, the attorney, said he had no knowledge of any comments Melgen may have made mentioning his friendship to Menendez. Melgen came to the attention of fraud investigators amid complaints from other local eye doctors alleging that his treatments were often unnecessary, a waste of money and sometimes harmful to patients’ eyesight, the two former federal officials and several doctors said. At the same time, investigators considered him an “outlier” compared with his peers because of the volume of his billing and the rate at which he administered eye injections and performed procedures on government-insured patients, the former officials said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is still ongoing. Melgen “was somebody who consistently showed up on the radar and was being looked at quite a bit,” said a former senior health-care fraud investigator. “The sheer volume itself is going to keep him on the radar.’’ When federal investigators interviewed Melgen, he tried to exert pressure on them by mentioning the names of Menendez and other influential politicians, the former fraud investigator said. “We thought it was odd because Menendez was in New Jersey and this guy was in Florida,’’ the official said. A second former federal official recounted that Menendez’s name came up repeatedly when Melgen was interviewed by investigators from the Justice Department and the inspector general’s office at the Department of Health and Human Services. “He was using Menendez more as a character reference,” the official said. “He thought he was untouchable.” The federal interest in Melgen stretches back 10 years, when investigators interviewed Philip Rosenfeld, a nationally known retina specialist, about the volume of treatments Melgen was performing, said several eye doctors in South Florida. These doctors said Rosenfeld, who pioneered the use of Avastin injections for macular degeneration to stem eyesight loss, had long been troubled by Melgen’s methods. FBI agents recently interviewed Rosenfeld again, this time two days before they raided Melgen’s clinic, the doctors said. Reached at his home in Key Biscayne, Rosenfeld declined to comment. Doctors in south Florida said that they have been fearful of criticizing Melgen publicly, and that his Washington connections may be protecting him. In 2010, Melgen scolded eye surgeon Randy Katz for publicly criticizing the quality of his care. According to two fellow doctors, Melgen cited his Senate connections and told Katz that he could face a Medicare investigation. Katz did not respond to requests for comment. Melgen’s attorney declined to discuss his client’s conversations with Katz or allegations that his client had threatened other doctors. Soon after the encounter, according to a copy of a letter obtained by The Post, Katz wrote to Palm Beach doctors in praise of Melgen. “It has come to my attention that certain statements I made have been misunderstood as criticisms of Dr. Melgen,” Katz wrote in the open letter. “To be clear, I know Dr. Salomon Melgen to be a capable and highly-skilled vitreo-retinal surgeon. . . . If you hear any suggestion that I have said otherwise, you should disregard that suggestion as being false.” Alice Crites contributed to this report. Read more from Washington Post Politics: Exclusive resort at center of Menendez allegations The Fix: What we know (and don’t know) about the Menendez allegations New Jersey Democrats watch and wait on Menendez

Sen. Robert Menendez twice tried to intervene on behalf of pal and major campaign donor Dr. Salomon Melgen in the optometrist's ongoing battle with Medicare over alleged fraud, the Washington Post and New York Times report. Melgen is accused of overbilling Uncle Sam to the tune of $8.9 million—he allegedly would stretch out a single vial of a drug among multiple patients, then bill Medicare as if they'd each gotten a full dose. Menendez tried first in 2009 and again in 2011 to convince Medicare officials they were being unfair to Melgen. Menendez's office says the senator didn't know of any fraud investigation; he was just raising concerns that the rules were ambiguous or hard to understand. After an initial period of apparent shock, Menendez has begun a forceful backstage push back against the allegations swirling around him, attempting to convince Democrat pundits that the scandal is trumped up, Politico reports.

The X-33 and X-34 programs were part of an effort that began in 1994— known as the Reusable Launch Vehicle Technology/Demonstrator Program (Reusable Launch Vehicle Program)—to pave the way to full- scale, commercially-developed, reusable launch vehicles reaching orbit in one stage. In embarking on the Reusable Launch Vehicle Program, NASA sought to significantly reduce the cost of developing, producing and operating launch vehicles. NASA’s goal was to reduce payload launch costs from $10,000 per pound on the space shuttle to $1,000 per pound. It planned to do so, in part, by finding “new ways of doing business” such as using innovative design methods, streamlined acquisition procedures, and creating industry-led partnerships with cost sharing to manage the development of advanced technology demonstration vehicles. The vehicles were seen as the “stepping stones” in what NASA described as an incremental flight demonstration program. The strategy was to force technologies from the laboratory into the operating environment. The X-34 Project started in 1995 as a cooperative agreement between NASA and Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital). The project was to demonstrate streamlined management and procurement, industry cost sharing and lead management, and the economics of reusability. However, the industry team withdrew from the agreement in less than 1 year, for a number of reasons including changes in the projected profitability of the venture. NASA subsequently started a new X-34 program with a smaller vehicle design. It was intended only as a flight demonstration vehicle to test some of the key features of reusable launch vehicle operations, such as quick turn-around times between launches. Under the new program, NASA again selected Orbital as its contractor in August 1996, awarding it a fixed price, $49.5 million contract. Under the new contract, Orbital was given lead responsibility for vehicle design, fabrication, integration, and initial flight testing for powered flight of the X-34 test vehicle. The contract also provided for two options, which were later exercised, totaling about $17 million for 25 additional experimental flights and, according to a project official, other tasks, including defining how the flight tests would be undertaken. Under the new effort, NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center was to develop the engine for the X-34 as part of its Low Cost Booster Technology Project. The initial budget for this development was about $18.9 million. In July 1996, NASA and Lockheed Martin Corporation and its industry partners entered into a cooperative agreement for the design, development, and flight-testing of the X-33. The X-33 was to be an unmanned technology demonstrator. It would take off vertically like a rocket, reaching an altitude of up to 60 miles and speeds to about Mach 13 (13 times the speed of sound), and land horizontally like an airplane. The X-33 would flight test a range of technologies needed for future launch vehicles, such as thermal protection systems, advanced engine design and lightweight fuel tanks made of composite materials. The vehicle would not actually achieve orbit, but based on the results of demonstrating the new technologies, NASA envisioned being in a better position to make a decision on the feasibility and affordability of building a full-scale system. Under the initial terms of the cooperative agreement, NASA’s contribution was fixed at $912.4 million and its industry partners’ initial contribution was $211.6 million. In view of the potential commercial viability of the launch vehicle and its technologies, the industry partners also agreed to finance any additional costs. During a test in November 1999, one of the fuel tanks failed due to separation of the composite surface. Following the investigation, NASA and Lockheed Martin agreed to replace the composite tanks with aluminum tanks. In February 2001, NASA announced it would not provide any additional funding for the X-33 or X-34 programs under its new Space Launch Initiative. The Space Launch Initiative is intended to be a more comprehensive, long-range plan to reduce high payload launch costs. NASA’s goal is still to reduce payload launch cost to $1,000 per pound to low Earth orbit but it is not limited to single-stage-to-orbit concepts. Specifically, the 2nd Generation Program’s objective is to substantially reduce the technical, programmatic, and business risks associated with developing reusable space transportation systems that are safe, reliable and affordable. NASA has budgeted about $900 million for the SLI initial effort and, in May 2001, it awarded initial contracts to 22 large and small companies for space transportation system design requirements, technology risk reduction, and flight demonstration. In subsequent procurements in mid- fiscal year 2003, NASA plans to select at least two competing reusable launch system designs. The following 2.5 to 3.5 years (through fiscal years 2005 or 2006) will be spent finalizing the preliminary designs of the selected space transportation systems, and maturing the specific technologies associated with those high-risk, high-priority items needed to develop the selected launch systems. Undertaking ambitious, technically challenging efforts like the X-33 and X- 34 programs—which involve multiple contractors and technologies that have yet to be developed and proven—requires careful oversight and management. Importantly, accurate and reliable cost estimates need to be developed, technical and program risks need to be anticipated and mitigated, sound configuration controls need to be in place, and performance needs to be closely monitored. Such undertakings also require a high level of communication and coordination. Not carefully implementing such project management tools and activities is a recipe for failure. Without realistically estimating costs and risks, and providing the reserves needed to mitigate those risks, management may not be in a position to effectively deal with the technical problems that cutting-edge projects invariably face. In fact, we found that NASA did not successfully implement and adhere to a number of critical project management tools and activities. Specifically: NASA did not develop realistic cost estimates in the early stages of the X- 33 program. From its inception, NASA officials considered the program to be high risk, with a success-oriented schedule that did not allow for major delays. Nevertheless, in September 1999, NASA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reported that NASA’s cost estimate did not include a risk analysis to quantify technical and schedule uncertainties. Instead, the cost estimate assumed that needed technology would be available on schedule and as planned. According to the OIG, a risk analysis would have alerted NASA decision-makers to the probability of cost overruns in the program. Since NASA’s contribution to the program was fixed—with Lockheed Martin and its industry partners responsible for costs exceeding the initial $1.1 billion—X-33 program management concluded that there was no risk of additional government financial contributions due to cost overruns. They also believed that the projected growth in the launch market and the advantages of a commercial reusable launch vehicle would provide the necessary incentive to sustain industry contributions. NASA did not prepare risk management plans for both the X-33 and X-34 programs until several years after the projects were implemented. Risk management plans identify, assess, and document risks associated with cost, resource, schedule, and technical aspects of a project and determine the procedures that will be used to manage those risks. In doing so, they help ensure that a system will meet performance requirements and be delivered on schedule and within budget. A risk management plan for the X-34 was not developed until the program was restructured in June 2000. Although Lockheed Martin developed a plan to manage technical risks as part of its 1996 cooperative agreement for the X-33, NASA did not develop its own risk management plan for unique NASA risks until February 2000. The NASA Administrator and the NASA Advisory Council have both commented on the need for risk plans when NASA users partnering arrangements such as a cooperative agreement. Furthermore, we found that NASA’s risk mitigation plan for the X-33 program provided no mechanisms for ensuring the completion of the program if significant cost growth occurred and/or the business case motivating industry participation weakened substantially. Sept. 24, 1999. responsibility for key tasks and deliverables and provide a yardstick by which to measure the progress of the effort. According to the OIG, NASA did not complete a configuration management plan for the X-33 until May 1998—about 2 years after NASA awarded the cooperative agreement and Lockheed Martin began the design and development of a flight demonstration vehicle. Configuration management plans define the process to be used for defining the functional and physical characteristics of a product and systematically controlling changes in the design. As such, they enable organizations to establish and maintain the integrity of a product throughout its lifecycle and prevent the production and use of inconsistent product versions. By the time the plan was implemented, hardware for the demonstration vehicle was already being fabricated. Communications and coordination were not effectively facilitated. In a report following the failure of the X-33’s composite fuel tank, the investigation team reported that the design of the tank required high levels of communication, and that such communication did not occur in this case. A NASA official told us that some NASA and Lockheed personnel, who had experience with composite materials and the phenomena identified as one of the probable causes for the tank’s failure, expressed concerns about the tank design. However, because of the industry-led nature of the cooperative agreement, Lockheed Martin was not required to react to such concerns and did not request additional assistance from NASA. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires federal agencies to prepare annual performance plans to establish measurable objectives and performance targets for major programs. Doing so enables agencies to gauge the progress of programs like the X-33 and X-34 and in turn to take quick action when performance goals are not being met. For example, we reported in August 1999 that NASA’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan did not include performance targets that established a clear path leading to a reusable launch vehicle and recommended such targets be established. Without relying on these important project management tools up front, NASA encountered numerous problems on both the X-33 and X-34 programs. Compounding these difficulties was a decrease in the projected commercial launch market, which in turn lessened the incentive of NASA’s X-33 industry partners to continue their investments. In particular, technical problems in developing the X-33’s composite fuel tanks, aerospike engines, heat shield, and avionics system resulted in significant schedule delays and cost overruns. After two program reviews in 1998 and 1999, the industry partners added a total of $145.6 million to the cooperative agreement to pay for cost overruns and establish a reserve to deal with future technical problems and schedule delays. However, NASA officials stated that they did not independently develop their own cost estimates for these program events to determine whether the additional funds provided by industry would be sufficient to complete the program. Also, these technical problems resulted in the planned first flight being delayed until October 2003, about 4.5 years after the original March 1999 first flight date. After the composite fuel tank failed during testing in November 1999, according to NASA officials, Lockheed Martin opted not to go forward with the X-33 Program without additional NASA financial support. Lockheed Martin initially proposed adding $95 million of its own funds to develop a new aluminum tank for the hydrogen fuel, but also requested about $200 million from NASA to help complete the program. Such contributions would have increased the value of the cooperative agreement to about $1.6 billion or about 45 percent (about $500 million) more than the $1.1 billion initial cooperative agreement funding. NASA did not have the reserves available to cover such an increase. The agency did, however, allow Lockheed Martin to compete, in its 2nd Generation Program solicitation for the additional funds Lockheed Martin believed it needed to complete the program. Similarly, NASA started the X-34 Project, and the related NASA engine development project, with limited government funding, an accelerated development schedule, and insufficient reserves to reduce development risks and ensure a successful test program. Based on a NASA X-34 restructure plan in June 2000, we estimate that NASA’s total funding requirements for the X-34 would have increased to about $348 million—a 307-percent ($263 million) increase from the estimated $86 million budgeted for the vehicle and engine development projects in 1996. Also, since 1996, the projected first powered flight had slipped about 4 years from September 1998 to October 2002 due to the cumulative effect of added risk mitigation tasks, vehicle and engine development problems, and testing delays. Most of the cost increase (about $213 million) was for NASA-directed risk mitigation tasks initiated after both projects started. For example, in response to several project technical reviews and internal assessments of other NASA programs, the agency developed a restructure plan for the X- 34 project in June 2000. This plan included consolidating the vehicle and engine projects under one NASA manager. The project would be managed with the NASA project manager having the final decision-making authority; Orbital would be relegated to a more traditional subordinate contractor role. Under the plan, the contract with Orbital would also be rescoped to include only unpowered flights; Orbital would have to compete for 2nd Generation Program funding for all the powered flight tests. The plan’s additional risk mitigation activities would have increased the X-34 project’s funding requirements by an additional $139 million, which included about $45 million for additional engine testing and hardware; $33 million for an avionics redesign; $42 million for additional project management support and personnel; and $18 million to create a contingency reserve for future risk mitigation efforts. NASA is revising its acquisition and management approach for the 2nd Generation Program. Projects funded under the program will be NASA-led rather than industry-led. NASA also plans to increase the level of insight into the program’s projects, for example, by providing more formal reviews and varying levels of project documentation from contractors depending on the risk involved and the contract value. NASA also required that all proposals submitted in response to its research announcement be accompanied by certifiable cost and pricing data. Finally, NASA discouraged the use of cooperative agreements since these agreements did not prove to be effective contract vehicles for research and development efforts where large investments are required. While it is too early to tell if the agency measures aimed at avoiding the problems experienced in the X-33 and X-34 programs will be sufficient, these experiences show that three critical areas need to be addressed. These relate to (1) adequate project funding and cost risk provisions, (2) the effective and efficient coordination and communication required by many individual but related efforts, and (3) periodically revalidating underlying assumptions by measuring progress toward achieving a new safe, affordable space transportation system that meets NASA’s requirements. First, the technical complexity of the 2nd Generation Program requires that NASA develop realistic cost estimates and risk mitigation plans, and accordingly set aside enough funds to cover the program’s many projects. NASA plans to invest substantially more funds in the 2nd Generation Program than it did in the previous Reusable Launch Vehicle Program, and plans to provide reserves for mitigating program risk. For example, the agency plans to spend about $3.3 billion over 6 years to define system requirements for competing space transportation systems and related risk reduction activities. Most of this amount, about $3.1 billion, is for risk- reduction activities, such as the development of new lightweight composite structures, durable thermal protection systems, and new high performance engine components. NASA officials told us that an important way they plan to mitigate risk is by ensuring adequate management reserves in the 15- to 20-percent range, or higher if needed. They also acknowledged the need for adequate program cost estimates on which to base reserve requirements. However, we are still concerned about the timely preparation of cost estimates. The 2nd Generation deputy program manager stated that, based on the scope of the first contracts awarded, the program office planned to update their cost estimate this summer before NASA conducted a separate, independent technical review and cost estimate in September 2001. Thus, neither of these important analyses were completed prior to the first contract awards. We believe that until the program office completes it own updated cost estimate and NASA conducts an independent cost and technical review, a credible estimate of total program costs and the adequacy of planned reserves will not be available. Also, NASA is still in the process of developing the documentation required for the program, including a risk mitigation plan. NASA policy requires that key program documentation be finalized and approved prior to implementing a program. Second, NASA will face coordination and communication challenges in managing the 2nd Generation Program. As noted earlier, NASA recently awarded initial contracts for systems engineering and various risk reduction efforts to 22 different contractors. Yet to successfully carry out the program NASA must, early on, have coordinated insight into all of the space transportation architectures being proposed by these contractors and their related risk reduction activities. Clearly, this will be a significant challenge. The contractors proposing overall architecture designs must be aware of all the related risk reduction development activities affecting their respective designs. It may also prove difficult for contractors proposing space transportation system designs to coordinate work with other contractors without a prime contractor to subcontractor relationship. NASA’s own Aerospace Technology Advisory Committee, made up of outside experts, has also expressed serious concerns about the difficulty of integrating these efforts effectively. The need for improvement in coordination and communications in all NASA programs has been noted in the past and is not unique to the X-33 and X-34 programs. We and other NASA investigative teams have found and noted similar problems with other NASA programs such as the Propulsion Module for the International Space Station, and several other projects including the two failed Mars missions. NASA’s Space Launch Initiative Program would benefit from lessons learned from past mishaps. At the request of the House Science Committee, we are undertaking a review of NASA’s lessons learned process and procedures. The principal objectives of this review are to determine (1) how NASA captures and disseminates lessons learned and (2) if NASA is effectively applying lessons learned toward current programs and projects. We will report the results of our evaluation in December of this year. The third challenge is establishing performance measures that can accurately gauge the progress being made by NASA and its contractors. NASA officials told us that they plan to periodically reassess the assumptions underlying key program objectives to ensure that the rationale for developing specific technology applications merits continued support. They also told us that they were in the process of establishing such metrics to measure performance. Ensuring that the results from the 2nd Generation Program will support a future decision to develop reusable launch vehicles also deserves attention in NASA’s annual Performance Plan. The plan would be strengthened by recognizing the importance of clearly defined indicators which demonstrate that NASA is (1) on a path leading to an operational reusable launch vehicle and (2) making progress toward its objective of significantly reducing launch costs, and increasing safety and reliability compared to existing systems. Affected NASA Enterprise and Center performance plans would also be strengthened with the development of related metrics. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. We interviewed officials at NASA headquarters in Washington D.C., NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, and at the NASA X-33 program office at Palmdale, California to (1) determine the primary program management factors that contributed to the difficulties experienced in the X-33 and X-34 programs, and (2) to identify steps that need to be taken to avoid repeating those problems within the Space Launch Initiative framework. We also talked to representatives of NASA’s Independent Program Assessment Office located at the Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia and the OIG located at NASA headquarters and Marshall Space Flight Center. At these various locations we obtained and analyzed key program, contractual and procurement documentation for the X-33, X-34 and 2nd Generation programs. Further, we reviewed reports issued by the NASA’s OIG and Independent Program Assessment Office pertaining to the management and execution of the X-33 and X-34 programs, and NASA Advisory Council minutes regarding NASA’s efforts to develop reusable launch vehicles. In addition, we reviewed other NASA internal reports documenting management issues associated with program formulation and implementation of other NASA programs. We also reviewed applicable NASA policy regarding how NASA expects its programs and projects to be implemented and managed. We conducted our review from August 2000 to June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

This testimony discusses the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) X-33 and X-34 reusable launch vehicle programs. The two programs experienced difficulties achieving their goals primarily because NASA did not develop realistic cost estimates, timely acquisition and risk management plans, and adequate and realistic performance goals. In particular, neither program fully (1) assessed the costs associated with developing new, unproven technologies, (2) provided for the financial reserves needed to deal with technical risks and accommodate normal development delays, (3) developed plans to quantify and mitigate the risks to NASA, or (4) established performance targets showing a clear path leading to an operational reusable launch vehicle. As a result, both programs were terminated. Currently, NASA is in the process of taking steps in the Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Program to help avoid problems like those encountered in the X-33 and X-34 programs.

In his State of the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President George W. Bush announced a new $720 million research and development (R&D) initiative to promote hydrogen as a transportation fuel. The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is intended to complement the FreedomCAR initiative, which focuses on cooperative vehicle research between the federal government, universities, and private industry. The FreedomCAR initiative replaced a related Clinton Administration initiative, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), announced in 1993. While both initiatives aimed to increase fuel efficiency of the automotive fleet, FreedomCAR extended the time frame by another 10 to 15 years and focused research on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; PNGV focused mainly on diesel-fueled hybrid vehicles. Through FY2003, the overall level of funding for PNGV- and FreedomCAR-related research at the Department of Energy (DOE) remained relatively constant, with some of the funds for hybrid vehicles transferred to fuel cell research. For FY2004, however, overall funding for research (within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) into hydrogen fuel, fuel cells, and vehicle technologies increased by about 30%. Some of this increase was offset by funding reductions in other programs, but the major portion of the increase was new funding. For FY2005 through FY2008, funding for hydrogen and fuel cell R&D steadily increased. However, for FY2009, the Bush Administration has requested 30% below the FY2008 appropriation for hydrogen, fuel cell, and vehicle technologies programs. Much of that decrease would be offset by an almost doubling of related basic science research. Overall, the request is roughly 4% below FY2008 levels for all related research. Most federal research on hydrogen fuel and fuel cell vehicles is overseen by two offices within the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (FCVT) coordinates research on automotive fuel cells and other advanced vehicle technologies, including electric propulsion systems, vehicle systems, materials technology, and other areas. The Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies (HFCIT) coordinates research on fuel cell technologies (for all applications, not solely transportation), as well as research on hydrogen fuel production, delivery and storage systems. As part of its FY2006 budget request for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, DOE added ongoing research funded through three additional DOE offices, as well as a small amount of research funding at the Department of Transportation. The three DOE offices are the Office of Fossil Energy (FE), the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), and the Office of Science (SC). Members of the partnerships include the federal government and the national laboratories, as well as universities, state governments, vehicle manufacturers, energy companies, equipment manufacturers, and industry groups. Funding for FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative research (including hydrogen-related research fossil energy research, nuclear hydrogen research and basic scientific research) is included in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. Funding for these areas is shown in Table 1 . The mission of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is to "research, develop, and validate fuel cells and hydrogen production, delivery, and storage technologies for transportation and stationary applications." Fuel cell R&D areas include transportation systems, stationary systems, fuel processing, fuel cell components, and technology validation. The focus of hydrogen fuel R&D includes hydrogen production and delivery, fuel storage, hydrogen infrastructure, safety, codes and standards, and training and education. The FreedomCAR and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives have each set four goals for 2015, and share one additional goal between them. The shared goal is to produce hydrogen-fueled engine systems that achieve double to triple the efficiency of today's conventional engines at a cost competitive with conventional engines. FreedomCAR's individual goals mainly focus on reducing system costs for various technologies. The FreedomCAR goals are to develop electric drive systems with a 15-year life and significantly reduced hardware costs; advanced internal combustion engine systems with double to triple the efficiency of current systems at no greater cost and no higher emissions than conventional engine systems; electrical energy storage with improved life and lower cost than current systems; and materials and manufacturing technologies that achieve a 50% weight reduction in vehicle structure, while maintaining affordability and increasing the use of recyclable/recycled materials. The four goals for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative focus on improvements in fuel cell technology and improvements in the storage and delivery of hydrogen fuel. The Initiative's goals are to develop hydrogen fuel cell power systems that are durable, and deliver higher efficiency at lower cost than today's systems; transportation fuel cell systems that deliver greater efficiency and lower cost, and meet or exceed emissions standards; hydrogen refueling systems that are highly efficient and deliver fuel at the market price of gasoline; and on-board hydrogen storage systems with improved energy density and cost over existing systems. The creation of FreedomCAR and the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives have raised debate over several issues. These issues include the proper role of the government in R&D, as well as the proper level of funding, and concerns over energy efficiency and fuel consumption. Some environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, have criticized the initiatives. They argue that while funding has increased for efficient technologies, the initiatives do not require auto manufacturers to make fuel cell vehicles available to customers by any specific time. Also, groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council argued that the initiatives were put in place to forestall significant increases in national fuel economy standards. However, in 2007 Congress enacted more stringent fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ( P.L. 110-140 ). The Administration argues that the higher R&D funding will provide significant impetus for advancements in hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, and that without those advancements, the technology would be unaffordable for consumers. Further, some engineers argue that FreedomCAR's efficiency and cost goals may be difficult to attain in the time frame of the program, and that any sort of sales goal would be unrealistic. Moreover, industry groups argue that an explicit sales goal could force manufacturers to abandon R&D on other promising technologies like gasoline-electric hybrids. Even among supporters of the program, there is criticism that FreedomCAR and the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative are under-funded and that additional government commitments to hydrogen and fuel cells must be made. According to some proponents, these commitments could take the form of increased R&D funding, expanded demonstration programs, vehicle and fuel sales or production incentives, and other incentives to make these vehicles attractive to customers. Finally, some critics argue there are too many technical and economic hurdles to the development of affordable, practical hydrogen and fuel cell technology, especially for automobiles, and that federal research should focus on more realistic goals. In addition to DOE, other government agencies are also involved in fuel cell vehicle R&D, although this funding is considerably lower. For example, the National Automotive Center (NAC), part of the Army's Tank-Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center (TARDEC), coordinates fuel cell vehicle research between the Department of Defense (DOD) and private contractors, and partners with DOE, the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), academia, and industry. The appropriations processes over the next few years will directly affect the future of FreedomCAR and the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Between FY2004 and FY2008, the Administration's stated goal was a funding increase for both initiatives of $720 million above FY2003 levels for FY2004 through FY2008. In total, Congress appropriated an additional $450 million in total between FY2004 and FY2008 for hydrogen, fuel cell, and advanced vehicle programs. Congress appropriated an additional $145 million for other programs, mainly basic sciences, for a total increase of roughly $600 million over that five-year period. In addition to appropriations legislation, hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles are addressed by other recent legislation. On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-58 ). Among other provisions, P.L. 109-58 authorizes appropriations for hydrogen and fuel cell research at higher levels than requested by the President—$3.3 billion over five years. In addition to R&D funding, the bill provides tax incentives for the purchase of new fuel cell vehicles. FreedomCAR and the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative raise several key issues for Congressional consideration. Some of these issues are: Given rising federal deficits and the potential for increased defense costs, can the federal government afford the recent increase for hydrogen and fuel cell R&D? Should the federal government be picking hydrogen and fuel cell vehicle technologies over other technologies, such as hybrid vehicles and lean-burn engines? Would the designation of a target deadline for commercialization of fuel cell vehicles help focus the program and make better use of funding resources? Alternately, would such a deadline force manufacturers to abandon other promising technologies or create an unfair burden on the industry? Should the government focus on long-term research or should it focus on technologies closer to commercialization, or both? Is the widespread use of hydrogen and fuel cells technically and economically feasible, or is the government taking too large a risk on unproven technology?

FreedomCAR and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative are two complementary government-industry research and development (R&D) policy initiatives that promote the development of hydrogen fuel and fuel cell vehicles. Coordinated by the Department of Energy (DOE), these initiatives aim to make mass-market fuel cell and hydrogen combustion vehicles available at an affordable cost within 10 to 15 years from the launch of the initiatives. However, questions have been raised about the design and goals of the initiatives. This report discusses the organization, funding, and goals of the FreedomCAR and Fuel partnerships, and issues for Congress.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today to discuss work we have done addressing management and program challenges at the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). These challenges have been related to INS’ strategic planning process, organizational structure, communications and coordination, financial management, and program implementation. For the most part, our testimony is based on products that we have issued on these matters since 1991. Attached to my statement is a bibliography of this work. INS’ mission involves carrying out two primary functions. One is an enforcement function that involves preventing aliens from entering the United States illegally and removing aliens who succeed in doing so. The other is a service function that involves providing services or benefits to facilitate entry, residence, employment, and naturalization of legal immigrants. To enable INS to better implement and enforce immigration laws, Congress significantly increased its resources during the past several years. For example, between fiscal years 1993 and 1998, the number of onboard staff at INS increased from about 19,000 to nearly 31,000. During the same period, INS’ budget more than doubled from $1.5 billion in fiscal year 1993 to about $3.8 billion in fiscal year 1998. Funding increases have continued in fiscal year 1999 with Congress providing over $3.9 billion. Earlier this year, we reported on management challenges and program risks in the Justice Department. Most of the challenges and risks that we identified were in INS. However, we noted that, in carrying out its responsibilities, INS has to contend with issues of foreign policy (e.g., U.S. readiness to provide asylum to political refugees); domestic policy (e.g., the tension between the need for cheap labor that immigrants have historically met and the protection of employment and working standards for U.S. citizens); and intergovernmental relations (e.g., between the federal government, which sets policy on immigration, and state and local governments, which largely bear its costs and consequences). (3) communications and coordination; and (4) financial management processes. In 1991, we reported that INS lacked a strategic plan and that past priority management processes were not successful. We also stated that past efforts to implement agencywide planning systems lacked sustained top management support, managers were not held accountable for achieving goals and objectives, and priorities were not used in planning for decisionmaking. Three years later, INS developed and issued a strategic plan to better focus its attention on key mission and operational priorities. The plan identified eight major strategic priorities, including such challenges as facilitating compliance with immigration laws, deterring unlawful migration, and reengineering INS work processes. In fiscal year 1995, INS implemented a priorities management process intended to facilitate the achievement of the strategic priorities identified in the plan. Specific annual goals related to strategic priorities were identified for special management attention, including the establishment of objectives, time frames, and performance measures. In fiscal year 1996, to further focus management attention on the most important goals, INS ranked the annual goals according to their priority. By assigning senior INS managers specific responsibility for achieving the annual priority goals, INS intended to establish better organizational and individual accountability. In 1997, we said that these efforts appeared to be consistent with the intent of the Government Performance and Results Act. However, we also concluded that, while INS’ initial steps in developing a strategic plan and management priorities had been positive, our past work at INS had indicated that, to be successful, such initiatives would require sustained management attention and commitment. INS’ 33 district directors and 21 Border Patrol chiefs were supervised by a single senior INS headquarters manager. In 1994, with the appointment of a new Commissioner, INS implemented an organizational structure intended to remedy at least two problems with the 1991 structure. First, the Commissioner thought the agency’s field performance was uneven and poorly coordinated. In particular, the headquarters operations office had an unrealistically large span of control because of its responsibility for overseeing the operations of 33 district offices and 21 Border Patrol sectors. Second, the Commissioner believed that program planning, review, and integration had suffered because the operations office was preoccupied with matters that should have been handled by field managers and therefore could not focus on program planning. To address these and other problems, the reorganization established Executive Associate Commissioner (EAC) positions for (1) policy and planning, (2) programs, (3) management, and (4) field operations. The EAC for Field Operations had overall responsibility for managing INS’ operational field activities through three regional directors, who were delegated budget and personnel authority over INS’ district directors and Border Patrol chiefs in their respective areas. In 1997, we reported that the reorganization had succeeded in shifting some management authority to officials closer to the field activities, and many INS managers that we interviewed perceived the reorganization as a positive step in providing oversight to the field units. However, the implementation of the headquarters reorganization also appeared to have created some uncertainty among INS managers and field staff about the relative roles and responsibilities of some of the EACs. This uncertainty had been amplified by internal questions about possible staffing imbalances among the offices. For example, we found that no analysis had been done to determine the appropriate number of staff needed for the office of programs, given the reassignment of some its new responsibilities to other offices. communications challenge involved uncertainty among INS managers about the roles and responsibilities of headquarters executives, which in turn caused uncertainty about proper channels of communication for obtaining policy guidance or implementing program initiatives. Headquarters’ efforts to resolve concerns about roles, responsibilities, and communication processes were not successful. For example, there was still confusion among field managers regarding roles and responsibilities, and inconsistent versions of guidance on naturalization procedures were distributed to field offices. INS did not intend to issue written guidance on appropriate communication channels and coordination methods between offices until it obtained a decision on how the agency would be restructured. Lack of up-to-date policies and procedures had also contributed to INS’ communications challenges. For example, at the time of our 1991 report, field manuals containing policies and procedures on how to implement immigration laws were out-of-date and had not been updated by the time of our 1997 report. As a result, INS employees were burdened with having to search for information on immigration laws or regulations in multiple sources, which sometimes resulted in their obtaining conflicting information. The lack of current manuals also led some field officers to create policy locally, thus compounding coordination difficulties. However, during the past 2 years, INS has published an administrative manual and established a timetable through January 2001 for issuing five field manuals. management systems. INS has taken action to address some of its financial management problems, including engaging a contractor to reconcile the fund balance differences with Treasury. With respect to INS’ financial management systems, the auditor reported that the systems (1) were not integrated, resulting in significant delays and burdensome reconciliation efforts; (2) had significant internal control weaknesses—including computer control problems—affecting the accuracy and reliability of financial information; and (3) limited, rather than enhanced, effective decisionmaking. In 1991, we reported that INS’ budget development process, which had evolved with weak controls over expenditures and revenues, significantly impeded INS management’s ability to address program weaknesses. In addition, we said that INS did not have fiscal accountability over its resources. Its outdated accounting systems, weak internal controls, and lack of management emphasis on financial management had contributed to this situation. As we reported again in 1993 and more recently in 1997,INS’ financial management systems’ weaknesses made it difficult for the agency to monitor the status of its budget and to make sound budgetary decisions. For example, in March 1995, INS’ budget office projected that the field offices would have about $115 million in surplus funds through the rest of the year. Upon subsequent input from INS’ field offices, it turned out that the field offices would experience a $5 million shortfall for the remainder of the year. Earlier this year, concerned that INS would incur a budget shortfall, the House Appropriations Committee asked that we examine INS’ fiscal condition for fiscal year 1999. Based on discussions with officials from INS, the Justice Department, and the Office of Management and Budget, and based on our analysis of INS budget documents, we concluded that INS was not experiencing an overall budget shortfall for fiscal year 1999.However, we noted that the hiring policy that INS followed in fiscal year 1998, and the reduced revenues from INS’ Examinations Fee revenues, contributed to reduced discretionary funding in fiscal year 1999. Cohen Act of 1996, to ensure that the new system did not automate outmoded, inefficient business processes. Instead of developing and implementing a risk management plan, as we had recommended, INS tasked its contractor with helping to ensure that risks associated with implementation of the new system would be identified and necessary steps taken to mitigate them. According to INS, it had an urgent need to replace its financial management system, which was over 19 years old and did not have the functionality needed for INS to efficiently manage and account for its resources, and INS believed that this was a prudent way to proceed. In addition to the long-standing management challenges that we identified, program implementation issues at INS have been of continuing concern. These issues have been related to INS’ efforts to (1) stem the flow of illegal aliens across the border, (2) identify and remove criminal aliens, (3) process applications for naturalization, (4) enforce immigration laws that pertain to the workplace, and (5) process aliens for expedited removal from the country. In 1993, we testified that INS was confronted with the challenge of preventing millions of aliens from entering the country illegally. Our prior work in this area had shown that INS had difficulty in removing illegal aliens once they entered the country and had limited space to detain aliens it apprehended. We concluded, therefore, that the key to controlling the illegal alien population was to prevent their initial entry. Consistent with the Attorney General’s strategy, in 1994, INS issued a national Border Patrol strategy intended to deter illegal entry between the ports of entry along the Southwest Border. In the strategy’s initial phase, the focus was on two sectors—San Diego and El Paso—that in 1993 accounted for the majority of apprehensions nationwide. In the second phase of the strategy, INS increased the resources it allocated to sectors in Tucson, Arizona, and south Texas. agents at the Southwest Border collectively spent on border enforcement activities did not increase between 1994 and 1997 as planned. Further, the Border Patrol had not determined the most appropriate mix of staffing and other resources needed for its sectors, as called for in the strategy. We also stated in our 1997 report that INS lacked data on several outcomes that the strategy was expected to achieve. For example, there were no data to indicate whether (1) illegal aliens were deterred from entering the United States, (2) there had been a decrease in attempted reentries by those who had been previously apprehended, and (3) the strategy had reduced border violence. We said that, despite the investment of billions of dollars in the strategy, INS had amassed only a partial picture of the effects of increased border control and did not know whether the investment was producing the intended results. Further, INS lacked a systematic and comprehensive evaluation plan to assess the strategy’s overall effectiveness. We noted also that developing such a plan would be in keeping with the principles embodied in the Results Act. In September 1998, INS contracted with independent research firms for an evaluation. In an update to our 1997 report, we noted that available data suggested that several anticipated interim effects of the strategy had occurred. For example, apprehensions of illegal aliens continued to shift from traditionally high entry points like San Diego and El Paso to other locations along the border, as resources were deployed. Also, southwest border ports of entry inspectors apprehended an increased number of persons attempting fraudulent entry, and there were reports of higher fees being charged by smugglers, which INS said indicated an increased difficulty in illegal border crossing. However, data were still not available on the overall impact of the strategy and how effective it has been in preventing and deterring illegal entry. work has shown that removing deportable criminal aliens from this country has been one of INS’ long-standing challenges. INS’ Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) is the Department of Justice’s main vehicle for placing aliens who are incarcerated in state and federal prisons into deportation proceedings so that they can be expeditiously deported upon release. In 1997, we reported on the 1995 performance results of the IHP, and more recently, in 1998, we reported on 1997 IHP results. In each year, for a 6-month period, we found that INS failed to identify nearly 2,000 potentially deportable criminal aliens before they completed their prison sentences. Hundreds of those criminal aliens were aggravated felons who, by law, should have been placed in removal proceedings while in prison and taken into INS custody upon release. Some of those aliens were subsequently rearrested for new crimes, including felonies. Even when INS determined that an alien was potentially deportable and should be placed in removal proceedings, INS did not complete the IHP for at least half of such cases in both 1995 and 1997. As a result, INS took many of the released criminal aliens into custody and completed the removal process for them after their prison release. As a result of its failure to complete the IHP before prison release, INS incurred about $37 million in avoidable detention costs in 1995 and about $40 million in 1997. INS took action on some, but not all of our 1997 recommendations to improve the IHP. For example, responding to our recommendation that INS give priority to aliens serving time for aggravated felonies, INS indicated that it should be screening all foreign-born inmates as they enter the prison systems. Therefore, INS took the position that it did not need to single out aggravated felons as a unique group. However, it remains unclear whether INS has the resources needed to screen everyone as they enter the prison system. INS has acknowledged and started to address the need for eliminating the backlog of cases that were not screened in previous years because aggravated felons could be part of the backlog. INS is authorized to charge user fees to recipients of certain INS services, such as the processing of an alien’s application. In 1991, we said that INS had a chronic problem with not processing applications for naturalization within its 4-month time frame. In our 1994 report on INS user fees, our analysis of INS’ workload in its four largest districts showed that it did not allocate its staff in proportion to its estimated workload. We said that about 80 percent of applicants could expect to wait 4 months or less for their applications to be processed. However, the expected waiting times for two of the four districts in our review exceeded 4 months; in New York and San Francisco, the waiting times for naturalization applications took 7 and 10 months, respectively. More recently, we reported that the number of applications was continuing to grow and that differences in production rates and processing times existed among field units in application processing. For example, our analyses of INS data for the 25-month period of June 1994 through June 1996 showed significant differences in the production rates for the five predominant types of applications processed by INS’ district offices and three predominant types of applications processed by its service centers. We also reported large differences in the projected processing times for the types of applications for which these data were readily available. While we did not directly determine the cause of the differences, we noted that differences in processing times mean that aliens in different INS districts have had to wait disparate amounts of time for their applications to be processed. We pointed out that the need to treat applicants fairly and use government resources efficiently makes both determining the causes of the production and timing differences and, if feasible, improving production and timeliness, important goals for INS. results of all requested fingerprint checks from the FBI, and the results were, therefore, not always available to examiners before the alien’s hearings. As a result, INS improperly naturalized citizens with felony convictions. In 1997, we testified that INS could still not assure itself and Congress that it was granting citizenship only to deserving applicants. In addition, a report to the Department of Justice by a consulting firm indicated that INS had not ensured that its field units were implementing internal control procedures issued by the INS Commissioner. INS has begun restructuring its naturalization process to address these problems. documents with increased security features, which it hoped would make it easier for employers to verify the documents’ authenticity. However, in addition to those INS documents, aliens can show employers various other less secure documents that authorize them to work. Therefore, unauthorized aliens seeking employment can circumvent the improved security features of INS documents by simply presenting fraudulent non- INS documents—such as counterfeit Social Security cards—to employers. Further, we reported that, since no verification system is foolproof, enforcing IRCA’s employer sanctions provisions would continue to be important. Since 1994, INS had devoted about 2 percent of its enforcement work years to its worksite enforcement program, which is designed to detect noncompliance with the law. INS completed about 6,500 investigations of employers in 1998—about 3 percent of the U.S. employers believed to have unauthorized workers on their payrolls. INS’ worksite enforcement program has infrequently imposed sanctions on employers. INS is in the process of changing its approach to worksite enforcement, but it is too soon to know how these changes will be implemented or to assess their impact on the hiring of unauthorized workers. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 included provisions establishing a new process for dealing with aliens who attempt to enter the United States by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation (e.g., falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen or misrepresenting a material fact) or who arrive with fraudulent, improper, or no documents (e.g., visa or passport). Known as expedited removal, the new process gives INS officers, rather than immigration judges, the authority to formally order these aliens removed from the country. The process also limits the rights of aliens to appeal a removal order. Aliens who fear being persecuted or tortured if they are returned to their home country are to be granted a “credible fear” interview to determine if their claims of asylum have a significant possibility of succeeding. removal processes at five selected locations. For example, case file documentation indicated that supervisors reviewed the expedited removal orders in an estimated 80 to 100 percent of the cases at the five locations. Further, our report noted that INS had or was in the process of developing mechanisms to monitor the expedited removal procedures, including the credible fear determinations. Those mechanisms included creating an Expedited Removal Working Group to visit locations and address problems, creating a quality assurance team at headquarters to review selected credible fear files, and meeting with nongovernmental organizations to discuss issues and concerns. INS has made changes to its processes on the basis of concerns raised by these internal reviewers and outside organizations. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Richard M. Stana at (202) 512-8777. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Evi Rezmovic and Brenda Rabinowitz. Illegal Aliens: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment Exist (GAO/T-GGD-99-105, July 1, 1999). Illegal Immigration: Status of Southwest Border Strategy Implementation (GAO/GGD-99-44, May 19, 1999). Immigration Benefits: Applications for Adjustment of Status Under the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 (GAO/GGD-99-92R, April 21, 1999). Illegal Aliens: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment Exist (GAO/GGD-99-33, April 2, 1999). Drug Control: INS and Customs Can Do More To Prevent Drug-Related Employee Corruption (GAO/GGD-99-31, March 30, 1999). Visa Issuance: Issues Concerning the Religious Worker Visa Program (GAO/NSIAD-99-67, March 26, 1999). INS Budget: Overhiring and Decline in Revenues Have Created Fiscal Stress (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-99-129, March 24, 1999). Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Justice (GAO/OCG-99-10, January 1, 1999). Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Remove Imprisoned Aliens Continue to Need Improvement (GAO/GGD-99-3, October 16, 1998). INS User Fee Revisions: INS Complied With Guidance but Could Make Improvements (GAO/GGD-98-197, September 28, 1998). H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program: Experiences of Individual Vidalia Onion Growers (GAO/HEHS-98-236R, September 10, 1998). Immigration Statistics: Information Gaps, Quality Issues Limit Utility of Federal Data to Policymakers (GAO/GGD-98-164, July 31, 1998). Immigration Statistics: Guidance on Producing Information on the U.S. Resident Foreign-Born (GAO/GGD-98-155, July 22, 1998). Immigration Statistics: Status of the Implementation of National Academy of Sciences’ Recommendations (GAO/GGD-98-119, June 9, 1998). Assessment of Contractor’s Review of INS’ Analysis of a Random Sample of Recently Naturalized Aliens (GAO/GGD-98-131R, May 28, 1998). Illegal Aliens: Changes in the Process of Denying Aliens Entry Into the United States (GAO/GGD-98-81, March 31, 1998). Naturalized Aliens: Efforts to Determine if INS Improperly Naturalized Some Aliens (GAO/GGD-98-62, March 23, 1998). Retirement Eligibility of Customs and INS Employees on the Southwest Border (GAO/GGD-98-70R, March 13, 1998). Community Development: Changes in Nebraska’s and Iowa’s Counties With Large Meatpacking Plant Workforces (GAO/RCED-98-62, February 27, 1998). H-2A Agricultural Guestworker Program: Changes Could Improve Services to Employers and Better Protect Workers (GAO/HEHS-98-20, December 31, 1997). Illegal Immigration: Southwest Border Strategy Results Inconclusive; More Evaluation Needed (GAO/GGD-98-21, December 11, 1997). Customs and Border Patrol: Resources Needed for Reopening Rail Line From Mexico-U.S. Border Into the United States (GAO/GGD-98-20R, November 5, 1997). Combating Terrorism: Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Implement National Policy and Strategy (GAO/NSIAD-97-254, September 26, 1997). Illegal Immigration: Information on Illegal Immigrants and Automobile Insurance in California (GAO/GGD-97-172R, September 5, 1997). Higher Education: Verification Helps Prevent Student Aid Payments to Ineligible Noncitizens (GAO/HEHS-97-153, August 6, 1997). INS Management: Follow-up on Selected Problems (GAO/GGD-97-132, July 22, 1997). Immigration and Naturalization Service: Employment Verification Pilot Project (GAO/GGD-97-136R, July 17, 1997). Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need To Be Improved (GAO/T-GGD-97-154, July 15, 1997). INS Criminal Record Verification: Information on Process for Citizenship Applicants (GAO/GGD-97-118R, June 4, 1997). Alien Applications: Processing Differences Exist Among INS Field Units (GAO/GGD-97-47, May 20, 1997). State Department: Efforts to Reduce Visa Fraud (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-167, May 20, 1997). Naturalization of Aliens: INS Internal Controls (GAO/T-GGD-97-98, May 1, 1997). Naturalization of Aliens: Assessment of the Extent to Which Aliens Were Improperly Naturalized (GAO/T-GGD-97-51, March 5, 1997). Federal Law Enforcement: Investigative Authority and Personnel at 13 Agencies (GAO/GGD-96-154, September 30, 1996). Border Patrol: Staffing and Enforcement Activities (GAO/GGD-96-65, March 11, 1996). INS Investment Strategy (GAO/AIMD-96-26R, December 11, 1995). INS Border Crossing Cards (GAO/GGD-96-25R, November 29, 1995). Federal Law Enforcement: Information on Certain Agencies’ Criminal Investigative Personnel and Salary Costs (GAO/T-GGD-96-38, November 15, 1995). Law Enforcement Support Center: Name-Based Systems Limit Ability to Identify Arrested Aliens (GAO/AIMD-95-147, August 21, 1995). Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely (GAO/HEHS-95- 133, July 25, 1995). INS: Information on Aliens Applying for Permanent Resident Status (GAO/ GGD-95-162FS, June 8, 1995). Information Integrity: Using Technology to Determine Eligibility to Work and Receive Benefits (GAO/T-AIMD-95-99, March 7, 1995). Border Control: Revised Strategy Is Showing Some Positive Results (GAO/GGD-95-30, December 29, 1994). INS Fingerprinting of Aliens: Efforts to Ensure Authenticity of Aliens’ Fingerprints (GAO/GGD-95-40, December 22, 1994). INS: Management Problems and Program Issues (GAO/T-GGD-95-11, October 5, 1994). Employer Sanctions: Comments on H.R. 3362 - - Employer Sanctions Improvement Act (GAO/T-GGD-94-189, September 21, 1994). INS Drug Task Force Activities: Federal Agencies Supportive of INS Efforts (GAO/GGD-94-143, July 7, 1994). INS User Fees: INS Working to Improve Management of User Fee Accounts (GAO/GGD-94-101, April 12, 1994). INS’ EEO Progress in DC/LA (GAO/GGD-94-10R, October 5, 1993). Illegal Aliens: Despite Data Limitations, Current Methods Provide Better Population Estimates (GAO/PEMD-93-25, August 5, 1993). Assessing EEO Progress at INS (GAO/GGD-93-54R, July 15, 1993). Customs Service and INS: Dual Management Structure for Border Inspections Should Be Ended (GAO/GGD-93-111, June 30, 1993). INS Corrective Action (GAO/GGD-93-46R, June 16, 1993). Information on Black Employment at INS (GAO/GGD-93-44R, May 17, 1993). Border Patrol: Southwest Border Enforcement Affected by Mission Expansion and Budget (GAO/T-GGD-92-66, August 5, 1992). Immigration Control: Immigration Policies Affect INS Detention Efforts (GAO/GGD-92-85, June 25, 1992). Immigration and the Labor Market: Nonimmigrant Alien Workers in the United States (GAO/PEMD-92-17, April 28, 1992). Immigrants in Indiana: Northwest Indiana Compared to Other Parts of the State (GAO/GGD-92-32FS, January 10, 1992). U.S.-Mexico Trade: Concerns About the Adequacy of Border Infrastructure (GAO/NSIAD-91-228, May 16, 1991). Employee Drug Testing: Status of Federal Agencies’ Programs (GAO/GGD- 91-70, May 6, 1991). Border Patrol: Southwest Border Enforcement Affected by Mission Expansion and Budget (GAO/GGD-91-72BR, March 28, 1991). International Trade: Easing Foreign Visitors’ Arrivals at U.S. Airports (GAO/NSIAD-91-6, March 8, 1991). Financial Management: INS Lacks Accountability and Controls Over Its Resources (GAO/AFMD-91-20, January 24, 1991). Immigration Management: Strong Leadership and Management Reforms Needed to Address Serious Problems (GAO/GGD-91-28, January 23, 1991). Information Management: Immigration and Naturalization Service Lacks Ready Access to Essential Data (GAO/IMTEC-90-75, September 27, 1990). Immigration Services: INS Resources and Services in the Miami District (GAO/GGD-90-98, August 6, 1990). Criminal Aliens: Prison Deportation Hearings Include Opportunities to Contest Deportation (GAO/GGD-90-79, May 25, 1990). Immigration Reform: Employer Sanctions and the Question of Discrimination (GAO/GGD-90-62, March 29, 1990). Immigration Reform: Major Changes Likely Under S. 358 (GAO/PEMD-90-5, November 9, 1989). Immigration Control: Deporting and Excluding Aliens From the United States (GAO/GGD-90-18, October 26, 1989). The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the management and program challenges facing the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). GAO noted that: (1) GAO and others have identified management and program challenges that have troubled INS for years; (2) GAO's management reports in 1991 and 1997 and related reviews have indicated that urgent attention should be given to INS' management challenges; (3) GAO pointed out significant issues related to INS': (a) strategic planning process; (b) organizational structure; (c) communications and coordination; and (d) financial management processes; (4) specifically, GAO noted that INS': (a) strategic planning required sustained management attention and commitment; (b) reorganization had created some uncertainty about organizational roles and responsibilities; (c) internal communications and coordination were problematic, as evidenced by outdated policies and procedures on how to implement immigration laws; and (d) financial management processes were weak, including outdated accounting systems, weak internal controls, and a lack of management emphasis on financial management; (5) in addition to these management challenges, program implementation issues at INS have been the focus of much of GAO's work; (6) GAO's reports on these issues have been related to INS' efforts to: (a) stem the flow of illegal aliens across the Southwest Border; (b) identify and remove criminal aliens from the country; (c) process applications for naturalization; (d) enforce workplace immigration laws; and (e) process aliens for expedited removal; (7) GAO recognizes that addressing these management and program challenges can be difficult; (8) in carrying out its mission, INS has to contend with issues of foreign policy, domestic policy, and intergovernmental relations; and (9) sustained top-level management commitment and monitoring are necessary to ensure that these challenges are addressed appropriately.

Xiaoyan Zhang made it clear that she had one objective for traveling to the U.S. from China — to give birth so her child would automatically be an American citizen. Rest assured, a representative of You Win USA, a company advertising “maternity tourism” services, told Zhang. For fees starting at $38,000, the firm guides pregnant women through the process, and she would soon be in the U.S. on a tourist visa to await the birth of her child at a luxury Irvine apartment complex. The company instructed Zhang and her cousin to book tickets to a popular tourist destination, such as Hawaii or Las Vegas, purchase a tour package she had no intention of using and fabricate an employment history to convince immigration officials that she would not overstay her visa, according to a federal affidavit unsealed Tuesday. “If the story is convincing and she’s good looking then the success rate will be pretty high when she goes for the visa interview,” a company representative told Zhang’s cousin. In fact, the woman and her cousin were undercover Homeland Security Investigations agents, according to the affidavit, which documented their discussions with You Win USA officials. In a coincidence, the operators of You Win USA set up their operation in an apartment complex across the street from the federal agency’s Irvine field office. You Win USA was one of three operations raided Tuesday by federal agents targeting “maternity tourism” schemes in which pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States, usually on tourist visas, so that their children will be born U.S. citizens. The raids marked the largest federal investigation of its kind aimed at cracking down against the widespread practice of foreign nationals traveling to the U.S. solely to give birth. Swarms of agents descended on apartment complexes in Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties, carting out boxes of documents, diaper containers and trash, and interviewing pregnant women to the backdrop of wailing babies. Investigators said they were looking for evidence of visa fraud, conspiracy and other crimes in which women were helped to fabricate documents for visa applications and coached to falsely claim that they were traveling to the U.S. for tourism. Women were instructed to travel early in their pregnancy and wear loose clothing to avoid detection, and enter the U.S. through popular tourist destinations rather than Los Angeles, where authorities are more likely to suspect birth tourism, according to the affidavits. “U.S. might refuse entry [if] the belly is too big,” one business stated on its website, advising women to travel at 24 to 30 weeks into their pregnancy, according to an affidavit. “The size of the belly is quite important to determine when you should arrive in Los Angeles.” The businesses, known as “maternity hotels” or “birthing centers,” present a headache for local government and law enforcement because it is not necessarily illegal for foreign nationals to give birth in the U.S. Many agencies openly advertise services offering assistance in getting newborns a U.S. passport and extolling the benefits that come with American citizenship, including public education and immigration benefits for parents. Taiwanese, Korean and Turkish mothers are also known to engage in birth tourism, but the practice has become particularly popular in recent years with the newly wealthy Chinese middle class. Cities have cited such operations for building, fire or zoning violations, but they often swiftly relocate and reopen for business. One affidavit quoted a law review article estimating that about 40,000 of 300,000 children born to foreign citizens in the U.S. each year are the product of birth tourism. One of the companies raided Tuesday, Star Baby Care, boasted on its site that it had served 4,000 women from China since it was founded in 1999, according to an affidavit. Efforts to outlaw or regulate the practice has so far been unsuccessful. A bill in the 2013 Congress to limit birthright citizenship to babies with at least one American parent was never voted on. A state Assembly proposal that would have made it a misdemeanor to operate hotels outside areas where they are allowed by zoning codes died in a legislative committee. Los Angeles County assembled a task force in 2013 to field related complaints and cited 28 maternity hotels, but never passed an ordinance specifically barring birth tourism. Such operations, however, could run afoul of existing visa and tax laws. At a Rowland Heights apartment complex where Star Baby Care operated, about 40 personnel from various law enforcement agencies pounded on doors early Tuesday. Teams of agents aided by interpreters entered about a dozen apartments, conducting interviews and collecting evidence. Some poked flashlights into units where residents wouldn't open the door. “Baby here,” said one agent, beckoning a colleague to an apartment. Units that authorities said were used by Star Baby Care were lined with green AstroTurf mats and a row of plants on the outside and furnished inside with Ikea-style furniture. One woman interviewed by federal agents Tuesday said she didn’t understand why investigators came knocking on her door. “This is a good company and I've been treated well,” she said in Chinese, asking that her name not be used because she was concerned about legal ramifications. She said she came from China late last year and went sightseeing throughout San Diego and Los Angeles — skipping Disneyland because of the measles outbreak — until she gave birth to a son a few weeks ago. She said that even though she has no intention of living here, she wanted her son to be able to apply to U.S. colleges because “America has the world's best universities.” At another apartment raided by federal authorities, a man said he and his wife were not in the country for maternity tourism. The man, who only gave his last name, Chen, said they had green cards and were residents of Rowland Heights who were using Star Baby Care’s services for postpartum care, a traditional practice known as “confinement.” Operators of the agencies in Tuesday’s raids could not be reached for comment. No arrests were made, though authorities said those involved could face tax evasion and money laundering charges for hiding income from the lucrative business. Agents wrote in affidavits that the schemes also defrauded the hospitals where the women gave birth. Even though the mothers paid birth tourism operators tens of thousands of dollars in fees, they paid local hospitals nothing or a reduced sum for uninsured, low-income patients, according to the affidavits. More than 400 women associated with the Irvine location have given birth at one Orange County hospital since 2013, agents wrote in the affidavit. One of the women paid $4,080 out of $28,845 in hospital bills when her bank account showed charges at Wynn Las Vegas and purchases at Rolex and Louis Vuitton stores, the affidavit said. ||||| Federal agents searched three dozen homes Tuesday in California during a crackdown on so-called maternity tourism operators who arrange for pregnant Chinese women to give birth in the U.S., where their babies automatically become American citizens. The investigation of three alleged birth tourism rings may be the biggest yet by federal homeland security agents who say that, while pregnant women may travel to the United States and deliver their babies here, they cannot lie about the purpose of their trip when applying for a visa. Authorities believe people from other countries are carrying out similar schemes but recent cases in California have catered to wealthy visitors from China, most likely due to the country’s large population, recent economic boom and ties to the region. It is unclear how many women travel to the United States for maternity tourism. “It is fertile ground for this kind of scheme,” said Claude Arnold, special agent in charge for Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s homeland security investigations in Los Angeles. “These people were told to lie, how to lie, so that their motives for coming to the U.S. wouldn’t be questioned.” Shortly after sunrise, dozens of federal agents swarmed an upscale apartment complex in the Orange County city of Irvine, where authorities say a birth tourism business known as You Win USA Vacation Resort marketed to pregnant women who were then charged $50,000 for lodging, food and transportation. Investigators said women were coached to lie about their travel plans when applying for tourist visas and wear loose clothing to hide their pregnancies, and they were promised Social Security numbers and U.S. passports for their babies before returning to China. In one instance, a trainer in China helped fabricate employment and income information for an undercover federal agent posing as a pregnant client to secure a tourist visa. The undercover agent was encouraged her to fly through Hawaii, where customs officers were believed to be more lenient than in Los Angeles, according to a copy of an affidavit in support of a search warrant. The business netted its owners hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past two years and helped Chinese tourists deliver more than 400 American babies at just one Orange County hospital, the court papers said. No arrests were made or charges filed. Investigators obtained warrants for the searches in Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties hoping to collect evidence of suspected crimes, including visa and tax fraud, immigration officials said. They did not release details of their findings. The key draw for travelers is that the United States offers birthright citizenship. Maternity tourists believe citizenship will help their children secure a top-notch U.S. college education and provide a sort of insurance policy should economic conditions crumble in their home country — especially since the tourists themselves can apply for a green card once their American child turns 21. U.S. Customs and Border Protection warns on its website that officers at airports and on the border will consider a pregnant woman’s due date, travel plans and medical insurance to determine whether she can enter the country. In Irvine, neighbor Linda Trust said she saw small groups of pregnant Chinese women together at the complex, and people bringing in platters of food and cases of diapers. “I don’t think it’s right,” she said, adding that she had never seen any of the babies. Dr. Jin-Jou Lu, who also lives in the complex, said he wasn’t surprised to learn of the scheme. “Come on, people go across the border to have a baby from Mexico all the time, so what’s the problem?” he told reporters. Federal agents started investigating the business in Irvine after an anonymous tip last year. During the investigation, they tracked the movements of a couple who arrived in February 2014, had their baby in April and returned in May. While the couple’s bank account recorded charges at luxury stores including Louis Vuitton and Rolex, they paid $4,080 — less than 15 percent of the billed amount — to an Orange County hospital for medical services after stating the mother was not employed, the affidavit said. In 2013, Los Angeles County cited more than a dozen maternity hotels for code violations after an uproar in a nearby suburban community about a hotel operating in a residential neighborhood. ||||| Photo Advertisement Continue reading the main story Federal agents stormed 37 locations in Southern California early Tuesday, gathering evidence about what they say are three illegal “birth tourism” businesses for wealthy Chinese women. According to affidavits unsealed Tuesday, the businesses arranged for pregnant women to come to the United States on tourist visas to give birth to babies. The children will be American citizens, entitled to birth certificates and passports — and, when they turn 21, able to help their parents become legal residents of the United States. “This is still very much an ongoing investigation, coming after undercover activities that have lasted most of the last year,” said Virginia Kice, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman. “Today is just the execution of search warrants and evidence gathering. We are not anticipating any arrests right now.” The affidavits, filed in support of search warrants, describe businesses that charge clients up to $60,000, with the size of the fee depending on housing arrangements, the number of Chinese-speaking nannies desired once the baby is born and other factors. The businesses arrange the women’s transportation, housing and prenatal care, and obtain birth certificates and passports for the babies before they leave the country. The companies caution the women to wear loosefitting clothes, to lie to the American authorities about the intent of their trip and not to wait too far into their pregnancy before traveling. Most women arrive two to three months before their due date, many initially flying to a tourist destination like Hawaii or Las Vegas rather than the Los Angeles airport, where there is greater scrutiny. They usually stay for about a month after giving birth. According to the affidavits, clients were told not to bring any maternity clothes and were given some coaching on how to answer immigration questions; one company, USA Happy Baby, promised a refund if a client was sent home at the airport. While Mexicans, Koreans and families from other countries have also engaged in so-called birth tourism, in recent years it has been most often Chinese families who have been willing to pay large sums to have their children born in the United States. The births usually occur in Southern California, where, one of the affidavits said, Chinese women delivered more than 400 American babies at just one Orange County hospital. The affidavits quote Chinese government sources as reporting that Chinese nationals had 10,000 babies in the United States in 2012, up from 4,200 in 2008. One of the businesses said on its website, starbabycare.com, that since it began in 1999, it had served 8,000 pregnant women, 4,000 of them Chinese. Complaints about Southern California maternity hotels for Chinese women have surfaced with some regularity in recent years. Four years ago, in San Gabriel, a city in east Los Angeles County with a large Asian population, local officials closed a house where neighbors had reported many women, some pregnant, some with infants, coming and going. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story And in 2013, Los Angeles County brought code violations against 16 maternity hotels for operating as boardinghouses in residential areas; one of those cited was Pheasant Ridge, a 600-unit apartment complex in Rowland Heights, where 11 units were raided on Tuesday. Zoning laws have generally been the primary legal tool against maternity hotels, since it is not illegal for pregnant foreigners to visit the United States or to give birth while visiting. And while lying to get a tourist visa is illegal, it is not easy to prove. Tuesday’s raids, the largest so far, were an attempt to crack down on the industry promoting maternity tourism, rather than the women having the babies. “It’s a good start if the goal is to discourage fraudulent acts related to birth tourism,” said Jon Feere, a legal and policy analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, which favors tighter immigration laws. “It’s a possibility that this will send a message to future birth tourists that maybe the trip isn’t worthwhile. But if the government isn’t going to prosecute the actual birth tourists, or prevent the issuance of passports to their babies, this may not have much effect.” On Tuesday, dozens of federal agents raided upscale apartment complexes — and the business owners’ homes — in Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, looking for documents, computer records and other evidence of tax and immigration fraud. According to the affidavits, the businesses hid their income and foreign bank accounts. The federal authorities used undercover informants to find out the details of the businesses. In one case, an American-based Chinese national posing as the cousin of a potential client in China explored the different options and even asked to see the “confinement” accommodations that might be available.

Federal agents have launched a major crackdown on what they say is a big industry that helps wealthy Chinese women have American babies. Agents raided 37 addresses in California yesterday in the crackdown on "birth tourism" rings that allegedly charge up to $60,000 to help the women come to the US and have babies that automatically become US citizens, reports the New York Times. Investigators, who said they were seeking evidence of visa fraud and other crimes, could be seen carting away boxes of documents and interviewing pregnant women at upscale apartment complexes, the Los Angeles Times reports. It's not illegal for a pregnant woman to come to the US and have a baby, which could help her become a US resident herself after her child turns 21, but investigators say the businesses being investigated illegally coached the women on how to lie on visa applications and convince immigration authorities that they were visiting the US for the purpose of tourism, the Orange County Register reports. "Birth tourists" also come to the US from countries such as Turkey, South Korea, and Taiwan, and while it's not clear just how many people are involved, one affidavit relating to yesterday's raid estimated 40,000 of the 300,000 children born to foreign citizens in the US every year are born to birth tourists, reports the LA Times.

The Highway Revenue Act of 1956 established the Highway Trust Fund as an accounting mechanism to help finance federal highway programs. In 1983, the Highway Trust Fund was divided into two accounts: a Highway Account and a Mass Transit Account. Receipts to the Highway Account are used to fund highway programs, through which billions of dollars are distributed to the states annually for the construction and repair of highways and related activities. Treasury uses a revenue allocation and reporting process to distribute highway user taxes to the Highway Trust Fund. Financing for the Highway Trust Fund is derived from a variety of federal highway user taxes including excise taxes on motor fuels (gasoline, gasohol, diesel, and special fuels) and tires, sales of new trucks and trailers, and the use of heavy vehicles. As table 1 shows, the excise tax rates and distribution of the tax revenues vary. The different tax rates reflect federal policy decisions. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, the federal government adopted numerous policies to encourage the use of alternatives to imported fossil fuels and help support farm incomes. Among these policies were tax incentives that targeted the use of alcohol fuels derived from biomass materials, such as ethanol. Ethanol blended fuels (gasohol) are partially exempt from the standard excise tax on gasoline (18.4 cents). The proportion of ethanol contained in each gallon of fuel determines the size of the partial exemption. The most common ethanol blend contains 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol and is currently taxed at 13.1 cents per gallon—an exemption of 5.3 cents. The federal government also uses the distribution of excise tax receipts to different accounts to achieve policy goals. For example, a small part of the excise tax on most motor fuels is distributed to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund to clean-up contamination caused by underground storage tanks. Additionally, 2.5 cents of the tax received on each gallon of gasohol is transferred to the General Fund, rather than the Highway Trust Fund, for deficit reduction purposes. TEA-21 continued the use of the Highway Trust Fund as the mechanism for accounting for federal highway user taxes. TEA-21 also established guaranteed spending levels for certain highway and transit programs. Prior to TEA-21, these programs competed for budgetary resources through the annual appropriations process with other domestic discretionary programs. New budget categories were established for highway and transit spending, effectively establishing a budgetary “firewall” between those programs and other domestic discretionary spending programs. Of the $217.9 billion authorized for surface transportation programs over the 6-year life of TEA-21, about $198 billion is protected by the budgetary firewall—about $162 billion for highway programs and $36 billion for transit programs. Under TEA-21, the amount of highway program funds distributed to the states is tied to the amount of actual tax receipts credited to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. TEA-21 guaranteed specific levels of funding for highway programs from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2003, on the basis of projected receipts of the Highway Account. TEA-21 also provided that beginning in fiscal year 2000, this guaranteed funding level for each fiscal year would be adjusted upward or downward through the RABA calculation as the levels of Highway Account receipts increased or decreased. To determine the RABA adjustment, the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the Secretary in the Department of Transportation rely on information on Highway Account receipts and revised Highway Account projections supplied by Treasury. Specifically, the Bureau of Public Debt provides the actual Highway Account receipts for the prior fiscal year, and the Office of Tax Analysis (OTA) provides a projection of Highway Account receipts for the next fiscal year. On the basis of the information we reviewed, the fiscal year 2003 RABA calculation—a negative $4.369 billion—appears reasonable. The RABA adjustment for fiscal year 2003 was calculated by (1) comparing the actual Highway Account receipts for fiscal year 2001 to the projections of receipts for fiscal year 2001 included in TEA-21, and an adjustment for the RABA calculation made for that year (the look back portion of the calculation) and (2) comparing projections of Highway Account receipts for fiscal year 2003 with the projection of these receipts contained in TEA-21 (the look ahead portion of the calculation). The sum of these differences is the RABA adjustment. Table 2 shows the RABA calculations for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. As shown, the RABA adjustments for fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2002 were positive—increasing highway funding levels by a total of over $9 billion. However, the RABA adjustment for fiscal year 2003 is negative $4.369 billion. Eighty percent of the fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustment is attributable to the look back portion of the calculation. The actual fiscal year 2001 Highway Account receipts were about $1.6 billion lower than projections in TEA-21. According to Treasury, actual fiscal year 2001 receipts were lower than expected due to the slowdown in the economy, which especially affected heavy truck sales, and increased gasohol use. We reviewed the amounts distributed to the Highway Trust Fund for the first 9 months of fiscal year 2001, and concluded that these amounts were reasonable and adequately supported on the basis of available information. With respect to the look ahead portion of the calculation, we reviewed Treasury’s process for projecting Highway Account revenues. Although we did not independently evaluate the methodology and the economic models Treasury used to develop its revenue projections, our review of a qualitative description of the process, key inputs, and changes to the models gave us no reason to question the resulting projections. The Secretary of the Treasury transfers applicable excise tax receipts, including receipts from gasoline and other highway taxes, from the General Fund to the excise tax related trust funds, including the Highway Trust Fund, on a monthly basis. These transfers are based on estimates because actual data on which to base the allocations are not available when the deposits are initially made. OTA prepares these estimates on the basis of historical IRS certification data and actual excise tax revenue collections. Subsequently, IRS certifies the actual excise tax revenue collections that should have been distributed to the trust funds on the basis of tax returns and payment data. Using the IRS certifications, Treasury makes quarterly adjustments to the initial trust fund distributions. For example, in March 2001, Treasury made an adjustment to decrease the fiscal year 2001 excise tax revenue distributions to the Highway Trust Fund to correct for actual collections in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2000. The certified fourth quarter receipts were $1.2 billion less than the amount initially distributed on the basis of OTA’s estimates for that quarter. According to an OTA official, OTA had calculated the original estimated transfer amounts for the quarter using an economic model that assumed a higher rate of economic growth through calendar year 2000 than was actually the case. As a result, the downward adjustment was made, reducing the fiscal year 2001 distributions to the Highway Trust Fund by $1.2 billion, which contributed to the fiscal year 2003 negative RABA adjustment. Our past reports have identified errors and problems with Treasury’s excise tax allocation process. However, Treasury has made and continues to make improvements to this process. On February 11, 2002, we issued a report on the results of procedures we performed related to the distributions of excise tax revenue to the Highway Trust Fund in fiscal year 2001. On the basis of this work, we believe the amounts distributed to the Highway Trust Fund for the first 9 months of fiscal year 2001, which were subject to IRS’ quarterly excise tax certification process and which were adjusted on the basis of this process, were reasonable and were adequately supported according to available information. Additionally, we believe the March 2001 adjustment made by Treasury to reduce fiscal year 2001 excise tax distributions to the Highway Trust Fund by $1.2 billion was reasonable and adequately supported. IRS expects to deliver the results of its certifications for distributions of excise tax revenue collected during the period July 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001 to Treasury’s Financial Management Service by March 20, 2002. Consequently, the distributions of fourth quarter fiscal year 2001 excise tax revenue were based solely on estimates prepared by OTA. We did not draw any conclusions about the reasonableness of the distributions made to the Highway Trust Fund for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2001. One component of the look back portion of the RABA calculation is the comparison of actual fiscal year 2001 Highway Account receipts with projections of those receipts in TEA-21. The actual receipts were about $1.6 billion lower than the amounts contained in TEA-21. According to Treasury, the lower than expected highway excise tax receipts in fiscal year 2001 were due to several factors. Most importantly, the weakened economy contributed to a decline in highway excise taxes paid. All but one of the Highway Trust Fund receipt sources were lower in fiscal year 2001 than 2000. For example, tax revenue from the retail tax on trucks dropped 55 percent from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001. It is important to note that the tax is applied to the sale of new trucks only. As the economy weakened, large numbers of used trucks were placed on the market, which depressed prices and sales in the new heavy truck market. In addition to the economic downturn, the rise in the use of gasohol contributed to decreased Highway Account receipts. The amount of gasohol receipts allocated to the Highway Account rose by 17.5 percent between fiscal years 2000 and 2001, which Treasury believes is evidence of an ongoing substitution of gasohol fuels for gasoline. Because gasohol is taxed at a lower rate than gasoline and a portion of the tax on gasohol is transferred to the General Fund, increases in gasohol use and corresponding reductions in gasoline use decrease Highway Account revenues. While not the main factor, the look ahead portion of the RABA calculation also contributed to the overall negative RABA adjustment. As discussed earlier, the look ahead is the difference between TEA-21’s projections for the next fiscal year to current projections from the president’s budget, which are prepared by Treasury. Based on the general qualitative description Treasury provided us about its methodology and economic models used to develop Highway Trust Fund revenue projections, we have no reason to question the projections for fiscal year 2003. Treasury generally performs two forecasting exercises each year, including one for the president’s budget. Treasury uses seven econometric models to forecast each highway excise tax revenue source, such as the tax on gasoline. These models seek to approximate the relationship between historical tax liability and current macroeconomic variables, such as the gross domestic product. This estimated relationship is the baseline, and Treasury uses it to project future excise tax liability, given current law and the administration’s economic assumptions. After calculating future tax liability, Treasury forecasters convert the tax liability forecast to a tax receipts forecast using information on deposit rules, payment patterns, and actual collections. The administration’s economic assumptions drive the projections made with each model. According to Treasury, receipts forecasting is a policy exercise conducted for the president to show the state of the Highway Trust Fund if the administration’s economic assumptions were to come to fruition. Consequently, Treasury’s forecasts incorporate economic assumptions formulated for the budget by the “Troika,” which consists of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Office of Management and Budget, and Treasury. Because the goal is to provide a forecast consistent with these economic assumptions, the models use these assumptions directly as explanatory variables, or link other explanatory variables to the assumptions provided. Several of the administration’s economic assumptions are publicly available, such as the gross domestic product and consumer price index. However, most Troika assumptions are not publicly available. Other variables specific to the Highway Trust Fund are included in the economic models. Treasury generally obtains this information from other federal agencies. For example, Treasury incorporates USDA’s forecast of ethanol use in its gasohol model. However, according to Treasury, the forecasters must ensure that the addition of these other variables does not create inconsistencies between the projections and the administration’s assumptions. It should also be noted that Treasury does not try to predict future regulatory or legislative changes at the federal or state levels that could affect Highway Trust Fund revenue but bases its projections on current law. Any legislative or regulatory changes that affect Highway Trust Fund revenue will affect the accuracy of the forecasts. Treasury continuously updates its models to incorporate legislative, economic, and other relevant changes—which are then reflected in the next forecasting exercise. According to Treasury officials, Treasury’s modeling framework for projecting highway excise tax receipts has not changed in recent years. Treasury’s framework consists of a series of econometric models that approximate the relationship between historical tax liability and current macroeconomic variables, which are then used to project future tax liability given current law and certain economic assumptions. Although the overall framework has remained consistent, Treasury officials noted that the specific economic models used to project receipts are continuously evolving to reflect current circumstances. For example, the models are constantly updated to incorporate the most current information on tax collections and reported tax liabilities, as well as enacted legislation. In addition to these routine changes, the models have occasionally undergone other modifications. Treasury identified 15 major changes to the models since 1998. These changes ranged from moving the highway-type tire tax from an annual model to a quarterly model and revising the ethanol forecast in the gasohol model to reflect the phasing out of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) in certain states. According to Treasury, the identified changes were designed to improve the models’ forecasting ability. Although Treasury does not use an independent reviewer to validate the models, Treasury officials noted several ways they validate them. First, the Director of Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis reviews the results of the model for accuracy and soundness at least twice a year. Second, Treasury officials compare the projected receipts with actual receipts to assess the validity of the models. In comparing the projected and actual receipts, Treasury forecasters try to determine the cause of any substantial differences and make changes to the model, as appropriate. Third, trust fund agencies, such as FHWA, receive the forecasts semiannually and may offer comments to Treasury on the projections. In order to help determine the reasonableness of Treasury’s projection, we compared it with CBO’s forecasts. This comparison does not raise any questions about the reasonableness of Treasury’s projections. For example, despite different methodologies and assumptions, Treasury and CBO projections of Highway Account receipts for the budget window are very similar. (See fig. 1.) Both agencies forecast steady growth in receipts from fiscal years 2002 through 2012. For example, both Treasury and CBO project the average annual growth of highway-related excise taxes will be about 3 percent. In January 2002, the administration announced that the fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustment would be a negative $4.965 billion. The administration subsequently announced that an error had been made in calculating the RABA adjustment and that the correct amount was a negative $4.369 billion—a $600 million difference. The error, which was made in Treasury’s allocation of projected highway tax revenues to various accounts rather than in its economic models, affected the look ahead part of the fiscal year 2003 RABA calculation. Specifically, it occurred in Treasury’s allocation of projected revenues from gasohol sales to the General Fund, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, and the Highway and Transit Accounts within the Highway Trust Fund. In short, the error resulted in the incorrect distribution of projected gasohol receipts among the funds. Because gasohol has six different blends—all with different tax rates and distributions—the gasohol allocations are complicated and require many “links” among several spreadsheets. With respect to gasohol, the Highway Account receipts are calculated after allocations for the other accounts— the Mass Transit Account, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, and the General Fund—have been calculated. This is because the Highway Account is a “catch-all” for taxes not already attributed to other accounts. A misalignment occurred between the different spreadsheets used to distribute gasohol tax revenues to the different accounts, which caused too much of the gasohol revenues to be transferred to the General Fund. Therefore, the error incorrectly lowered projected Highway Account revenue beginning with fiscal year 2002. According to a Treasury official, a number of factors contributed to the error, including tightened time constraints during this budget cycle for Treasury forecasters to calculate and review their projections for the fiscal year 2003 budget. Each forecaster is responsible for reviewing his/her own calculations. In hindsight, however, this official said that the internal quality checks his office made were insufficient, especially on the gasohol calculations, which are very complex. He noted that Treasury plans to take several steps to avoid such an error in the future, including requiring another Treasury forecaster to spot check the projections. The use of gasohol instead of gasoline affects the amount of Highway Account revenue for two reasons. First, gasohol is partially exempt from the standard gasoline excise tax. Second, 2.5 cents of the tax received on each gallon of gasohol sold is transferred to the General Fund. (See fig. 2.) Based on our ongoing work, our preliminary estimates show that the partial tax exemption resulted in $3.86 billion in revenue forgone by the Highway Account during fiscal years 1998 through 2001. We also estimate that the General Fund transfer caused a reduction of $2.15 billion in Highway Account revenue during the same period. Treasury projects that gasohol use will continue to rise steadily through fiscal year 2012. According to Treasury, such an increase will occur at the expense of gasoline as some states ban the use of MTBE as an oxygenate additive. Using Treasury’s highway excise tax revenue projections, we estimate that the partial tax exemption will lower Highway Account revenue by a total of $13.72 billion from fiscal years 2002 through 2012. (See fig. 3.) We also estimate that the Highway Account will not receive $2.36 billion due to the General Fund transfer from fiscal years 2002 through 2005, when the transfer ends. In addition, if the amount of the transfer is not dedicated to the Highway Account following fiscal year 2005, we project that the Highway Account will forgo $4.56 billion from fiscal years 2006 through 2012. State or federal legislation or regulations that result in gasohol use above what is currently projected, such as a nationwide ban on MTBE, would increase the negative impact on the Highway Account absent other changes. According to USDA and ethanol industry officials, the partial tax exemption for gasohol is intended to create a demand for ethanol that will raise the price of ethanol at least to the point where producers can cover costs. These officials stated that if the partial tax exemption on ethanol was removed, the price of ethanol would no longer be competitive with gasoline and the demand would disappear. In this case, ethanol fuel production would, for the most part, not continue. Furthermore, ethanol industry officials we talked to warned that because a substantial amount of the corn grown in the United States is used for ethanol, the collapse of the ethanol industry would affect the corn and agriculture markets which could in turn affect the federal government’s agricultural support payments. As the Congress considers the reauthorization of surface transportation programs, there are several ways it could restructure the RABA adjustment to reduce fluctuations in highway funding. Furthermore, industry officials have identified a number of possible ways to increase Highway Trust Fund revenues. Ultimately, the Congress and the administration must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of changing the RABA adjustment and/or Highway Trust Fund revenue streams. The discussion that follows is not intended to show support for any possible alternatives but instead to describe some of the ways highway funding could be increased. The RABA formula as defined by TEA-21 contains look back and look ahead components that tend to accentuate the impact of any shifts in Highway Account receipts. For example, the recent downturn in the economy is reflected in several elements of the fiscal year 2003 RABA calculation. First, the actual receipts for fiscal year 2001 were lower than expected. Second, the downturn caused a need to correct for optimistic projections of fiscal year 2001 receipts made in December 1999. Third, the fiscal year 2003 projections are lower than those contained in TEA-21 because the updated projections reflect the current economic conditions. There are several changes that could be made to reduce the potential for dramatic swings in funding for highway programs but maintain a tie to actual receipts credited to the Highway Account. For example, changes to the RABA adjustment that could smooth out the impact of significant funding changes would include (1) eliminating the look ahead part of the RABA calculation, (2) averaging the look back part of the calculation over 2 years, and (3) distributing the RABA adjustments over 2 years. In figure 4, we show the actual RABA adjustments under the current structure and the adjustments that would have been made using these three options from fiscal years 2000 through 2003. As shown, the three options appear to produce less dramatic shifts in funding than the current RABA mechanism over the past four years. However, we did not analyze how these options would perform against different trust fund scenarios or economic cycles in the future. Industry groups have proposed various ways to increase Highway Trust Fund revenue such as crediting the Highway Trust Fund for the interest earned on its balances, increasing the use of tolls, and/or establishing an indexing system to help ensure that gas tax revenues are linked to inflation. Although each of these actions would increase Highway Trust Fund revenues, we have not evaluated their fiscal or public policy implications. Another way to enhance Highway Trust Fund revenues would be to increase highway excise taxes. Although no tax increase is attractive, there are some equity arguments that support an increase in certain highway user taxes. For example, for some time FHWA has reported that heavy trucks (trucks weighing over 55,000 pounds) cause a disproportionate amount of damage to the nation’s highways and have not paid a corresponding share for the cost of the pavement damage they cause. Currently, heavy vehicles are taxed at the rate of $100 per year plus $22 for every 1,000 pounds (or fraction thereof) they weigh over 55,000 pounds. However the tax is capped at $550. In 2000, we reported that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that raising the ceiling on this fee to $1900 could generate about $100 million per year. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. For questions regarding this testimony please contact JayEtta Z. Hecker on (202) 512-2834 or at [email protected]. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Nikki Clowers, Helen Desaulniers, Mehrzad Nadji, Stephen Rossman, Ron Stouffer, and James Wozny. To determine the reasonableness of the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) calculation we relied in part on previous work done by GAO under an agreement with the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General which resulted in a February 2002 report: Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures: Highway Trust Fund Excise Taxes (GAO-02-379R). Under that agreement we (1) performed detailed tests of transactions that represent the underlying basis of the amounts distributed to the Highway Trust Fund, (2) reviewed the Internal Revenue Service’s quarterly certifications of these amounts, and (3) reviewed the Office of Tax Analysis’ process for estimating amounts distributed to the Highway Trust Fund in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2001. We also interviewed knowledgeable Department of Treasury, Office of Management and Budget, and Department of Transportation officials who provided documentation and described the processes used to develop the calculation. We obtained from the Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis (OTA) a general description of its economic models, including key inputs and changes made to the models since 1998, which are used to estimate future Highway Trust Fund revenues. Additionally, we reviewed related OTA internal analyses and reports. However, we did not evaluate or certify Treasury’s economic models that forecast future Highway Trust Fund revenues. We met with Congressional Budget Office (CBO) officials who described their process for projecting Highway Trust Fund revenues. CBO officials also provided their Highway Trust Fund revenue forecast, which we compared to Treasury’s projections. To determine how the $600 million error in the initial RABA adjustment was made, we interviewed Treasury and DOT officials. We also reviewed Treasury’s workpapers to determine the source and cause of the error.

The Highway Trust Fund "guarantees" specific annual funding levels for most highway programs on the basis of projected receipts to the fund. It also makes annual adjustments to these funding levels on the basis of actual receipts and revised projections of trust fund revenue. These adjustments are called the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA). GAO concludes that the fiscal year 2003 RABA calculation appears reasonable. Although the RABA adjustment is clearly severe, it reflects the many ways in which an economic downturn affects the calculation. In late January 2002, the administration announced that the fiscal year 2003 RABA adjustment would be a negative $4.965 billion. Within a few days of the announcement, the administration reported that an error had been made and the correct amount was a negative $4.369 billion--a $600 million difference. Treasury is taking steps to improve its internal controls in order to prevent this type of error from reoccurring. The use of ethanol blended fuel instead of gasoline reduces Highway Trust Fund revenue because it is partially exempt from the standard excise tax on gasoline and 2.5 cents of the tax received on each gallon of gasohol sold is transferred to the General Fund. Gasohol use is projected to rise and the impact of these tax provisions will grow as well. The RABA adjustment could be changed in several ways to help reduce fluctuations in highway funding. However, Congress and the administration must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of these and other ways to stabilize highway funding and increase Highway Trust Fund revenues.

One of the last great liberal lions, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo died on New Year’s Day at 82, leaving behind a legacy both enormous and unfulfilled. Earlier Thursday, Cuomo’s son Andrew Cuomo was inaugurated to his second term as governor of New York. In his speech, Andrew Cuomo said his father was too ill to attend the inauguration ceremony, noting that the two spent New Year’s Eve together Wednesday. In a statement released Thursday, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office confirmed that the former governor died of natural causes in his home. “Governor Cuomo presented 11 consecutive balanced budgets, reduced taxes, and implemented comprehensive governmental ethics and fiscal reforms,” the statement says, noting that “2014 marked 60 years of marriage to first lady Matilda Raffa Cuomo.” In addition to his wife and son Andrew, the former governor is survived by daughter Margaret, daughter Maria, daughter Madeline and son Christopher. “An Italian Catholic kid from Queens, born to immigrant parents, Mario paired his faith in God and faith in America to live a life of public service – and we are all better for it,” President Obama said in a statement released Thursday. Obama called Andrew Cuomo Thursday to extend his condolences, according to White House spokesman Eric Schultz. In the era of Ronald Reagan, Mario Cuomo was an unabashed liberal who famously called out the president’s sunny optimism during a 1984 Democratic National Convention keynote speech that catapulted the governor into a national leader and became a touchstone for a generation of progressives. While Reagan called America a “Shining City on a Hill,” Cuomo said “this nation is more ‘A Tale of Two Cities.’” “A shining city is perhaps all the president sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well,” Cuomo said. But there exists, “another part to the shining the city … where students can’t afford the education they need, and middle-class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate.” Cuomo served three terms as governor of New York, but never ran for president, as many Democrats expected him to do. His indecision over whether to run for president even earned him a nickname: Hamlet on the Hudson. And in 1992, Cuomo came so close to a run that he had an airplane waiting on the runway, ready to fly him to New Hampshire to enter the race. He never boarded the plane. Another chance for national office came a few years later when President Bill Clinton offered to appoint Cuomo to the Supreme Court, but he turned that down as well. Cuomo’s decisions not to seek either office have haunted some liberals, but not Cuomo. He told The New York Times in 2011 that he always believed there was someone more qualified than he to sit in the Oval Office or on the Supreme Court. Cuomo was also a staunch defender of government’s ability to help people, often citing his own family’s rags-to-riches immigrant story. During the peak of “tough-on-crime politics,” Cuomo led the fight against the death penalty both in his home state and nationally. Cuomo was religious, but pro-choice at a time when abortion rights were not a litmus test for Democrats. He explained his relationship with religion and politics at a famous speech at Notre Dame University that, along with his convention speech, helped make him one of the greatest political orators of the 20th Century. A savvy deal-maker who was willing to make compromises to get things done, Cuomo often said, “You campaign in poetry, but govern in prose.” ||||| + READ ARTICLE Mario Cuomo, the former New York governor whose fiery, eloquent advocacy of liberal policies made him a key figurehead in the Democratic Party for years, died Thursday. He was 82, and his death was confirmed by the office of his son, current New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo died just hours after his son was inaugurated to a second term as governor. Andrew Cuomo said during his inauguration Thursday that his father was too ill to attend. Cuomo’s family said he died “from natural causes due to heart failure this evening at home with his loving family at his side.” President Barack Obama paid tribute to “a determined champion of progressive values, and an unflinching voice for tolerance, inclusiveness, fairness, dignity, and opportunity.” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said the President also phoned Andrew Cuomo to personally extend his condolences. “An Italian Catholic kid from Queens, born to immigrant parents, Mario paired his faith in God and faith in America to live a life of public service—and we are all better for it,” Obama said in a statement. “His own story taught him that as Americans, we are bound together as one people, and our country’s success rests on the success of all of us, not just a fortunate few.” Mario Cuomo served as governor from 1983 to 1994, during which he was twice considered a clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. But both times, in 1988 and 1992, he declined to run. His keynote speech at the 1984 Democratic convention is remembered as a forceful defense of liberalism—and a searing attack on then-President Ronald Reagan. “Mr. President, you ought to know that this nation is more ‘a tale of two cities’ than it is just a ‘shining city on a hill,'” Cuomo said then. Cuomo often found his liberal policy ambitions in New York thwarted by a harsh economic climate, but his personification of the Democratic Party’s liberal wing at a time when conservatism was ascendant made him a political player far beyond the state’s borders. The 1984 convention speech was a high-water mark in his political career, and he very publicly flirted with White House runs in the years ahead. In a dramatic moment in December of 1991, Cuomo kept an airplane waiting on the tarmac while he mulled whether to fly to New Hampshire to hand in his application to be on the primary ballot on the day it was due. A budget clash with Republicans in the state legislature kept him from leaving, and he announced that he wouldn’t run. Had he decided to run in 1992 it’s possible Bill Clinton would have never become president. “We have lost a true progressive giant with Governor Mario Cuomo’s passing today,” former New York Gov. David Paterson wrote on Twitter. Former New York Gov. George Pataki called Cuomo “a proud son of immigrants, possessed of a soaring intellect [and] a great New Yorker.” —With reporting by Zeke Miller / Washington Read next: Vice President Biden, Gov. Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio Honor Life of Fallen Officer Sign up for THE BRIEF and more view example Listen to the most important stories of the day. ||||| But he was no longer the formidable figure in New York he had been. His popularity ratings had dropped. State legislators, who had never been fond of him, were emboldened to challenge him. He pinned the blame for this erosion of support on the way the news media had covered his response to all the talk about a presidential run. “You’ve done everything but call me a liar,” he told The Washington Post, speaking generally of the press. “You said that I was cute. You said that I misplayed the game. You said that I was really waiting for another scenario. Well, the net result of that is it costs me credibility, because you spent all those months saying I was conning people.” Recession, too, was looming and state revenues were declining. Still, in 1990, he won a third term. His Republican opponent, Pierre A. Rinfret, a financial consultant and economics adviser to presidents, had not been taken seriously even by his own party. It was a convincing but unsatisfying victory: Mr. Cuomo had done better against Mr. O’Rourke four years before. When he returned to Albany to deliver his ninth State of the State address, Mr. Cuomo suggested diminished ambitions for his next term. “This is a wonderful year for raw truth,” he said. “We don’t have any money.” But he had one more presidential flirtation left in him: in October 1991, while on a trip to Chicago, he said he was “looking at” a run. Many of his supporters had grown weary of such talk, some viewing it as a ruse to reinvigorate his sagging political image. And that December, with the planes waiting on the runway, he announced again that he would not be a candidate for president. ||||| Long before Bill de Blasio summoned the ghost of Charles Dickens, long before the phrase “income inequality” became part of the political lexicon, long before shimmering castles rose in the Midtown sky in celebration of a new gilded age, there was Mario Matthew Cuomo, son of immigrants, child of the New Deal, keeper of his party’s conscience. Cuomo became a political sensation through a medium thought to belong to another era: words. Beautiful, poetic, meaningful words, spoken in a strong, clear voice, with a cadence that turned even a clumsy phrase into a baroque masterpiece. He was reared in a household of Italian speakers; English, his greatest companion and most formidable ally, was his second language. It was hardly a wonder that embedded in all those beautiful words there was a palpable love of American possibilities. Where else, he might have asked, could an Italian-speaking kid from Queens become not just an orator but a philosopher whose texts will be read for as long as American political thought matters? Cuomo was a relative political unknown in 1984, when the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, Walter Mondale, asked him to deliver the keynote address at the party’s national convention in San Francisco. Mondale had heard something about Cuomo’s use of the English language, heard something about a speech he gave in Albany on January 1, 1983, after taking the oath of office as governor of New York. On that first of 4,380 days he would spend in residence on Eagle Street, Mario Cuomo spoke of “the idea of the family, mutuality, the sharing of benefits and burdens for the good of all.” “There is an ideal essential to our success,” he said, “and no family that favored its strong children or that in the name of even-handedness failed to help its vulnerable ones would be worthy of the name.” There are people with us still who vividly remember that speech not only because of the words and not only because of the power of the man who spoke them, but also because nobody else in public life spoke like that. Not in 1983. The age belonged to Ronald Reagan, the onetime New Dealer who preached the gospel of self-reliance and regaled the nation with anecdotes about individuals who made themselves rich, or, if already rich, then even richer. The age belonged to Reagan’s ideological sidekick, Margaret Thatcher, who said there was no such thing as society. And here was this man from Queens, Mario Cuomo, all but saying that these powerful people were peddling lies. “It has become popular is some quarters,” he said, “to argue that the principal function of government is to make instruments of war and to clear obstacles away from the strong. It is said that the rest will happen automatically. The cream will rise to the top. … Survival of the fittest may be a good working description of the process of evolution, but a government of humans should elevate itself to a higher order, one which tries to fill the cruel gaps left by chance, and by a wisdom we don’t fully understand.” From his listening post in Washington, New York Times columnist James (Scotty) Reston announced that “the governor may be on to something.” Hoping that Reston was right, Mondale arranged for Mario Cuomo to face the nation on a July evening in the Moscone Center in San Francisco. Today, at a time when the president of the United States bears the name Barack Hussein Obama, it is quite impossible to appreciate the impact of a man named Mario Cuomo speaking on behalf of a presidential candidate to a national television audience numbering in the tens of millions. Covering that convention, I recall a man from the South—Texas, I seem to remember—reminding us Northerners that all those vowels in the governor’s name might not sit well with his America. He at least pronounced Cuomo’s last name correctly. There were many in that convention hall in San Francisco who seemed to believe the governor was related to the old crooner, Perry Como. He came to the podium, waved, and then excused himself from the usual preliminaries, “the stories and the poetry and the temptation to deal in nice but vague rhetoric.” Instead, he offered a polite but passionate assault on Ronald Reagan’s America, his shining city on a hill. “A shining city is perhaps all the president sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well,” Cuomo said. “But there's another city; there's another part to the shining city; the part where some people can't pay their mortgages, and most young people can't afford one; where students can't afford the education they need, and middle-class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate. … There is despair, Mr. President, in the faces that you don't see, in the places that you don't visit in your shining city. In fact, Mr. President, this is a nation—Mr. President you ought to know that this nation is more a ‘Tale of Two Cities’ than it is just a ‘Shining City on a Hill.’" Mario Cuomo said these things in 1984, to a nation that was in thrall to Reagan and his narrative of an America reborn and resurgent. Cuomo continued with phrase upon devastating phrase, asking the president to consider those left behind, pleading with the American people to see the poor and the disenfranchised not as failures and losers, but fellow citizens of the same city, of one city and a single nation. To be in that hall on that night 30 years ago was to be in Chicago in 1896, when a former congressman named William Jennings Bryan called on his fellow Democrats to hear the voices of those left behind, to prevent their crucifixion on a cross of gold. He was nominated for president on the spot. The rules of politics had changed since Bryan’s time; Mario Cuomo could be no more than a surrogate for the party’s duly anointed candidate, Mondale. But the delegates left San Francisco knowing they had nominated the wrong man, a fine man no doubt, but a man who could not stir the soul. Mario Cuomo would never run for president, even though the party saw him as a savior after Mondale lost 49 states—all but Minnesota—that year. Cuomo chose not to run in 1988, and the Democratic consolation prize was Michael Dukakis. He chose not to run in 1992, when a plane was waiting to take him from Albany to New Hampshire to file late-minute paperwork for the state’s primary. Cuomo said he could not run for president because he had to figure out the state’s budget, a curious explanation he would reiterate in years to come, no matter how bizarre it seemed. For Democrats who had never forgotten the San Francisco speech, for hundreds of patronage holders and reporters in Albany, Cuomo’s announcement, made 90 minutes before a 5 o’clock filing deadline, was one of the great could-have-beens in modern political history. William Faulkner once said that for young white men in the South, it is always a few minutes before two o’clock on July 3, 1863 in Gettysburg, and General George Pickett and his men “are in position behind the rail fence … waiting for Longstreet to give the word.” For those who worked for or who covered Mario Cuomo a generation ago, there are times when it once again is 3:15 p.m. on Friday, December 20, 1991. A small plane is warming up, bound for Manchester, N.H., and Governor Cuomo’s office has just scheduled a press conference on the second floor of the state Capitol. Mario Cuomo’s hold on the imagination of his fellow Democrats was all about soaring rhetoric and political poetry. But it was the governor himself who noted that politicians campaign in poetry but govern in prose. And as a governor, Cuomo’s record was more prosaic than many Democrats and journalists from outside the state realized. He built more prisons than any other governor in the state’s history. He and his legislative colleagues couldn’t deliver a budget on time. He cut taxes but didn’t raise the state’s minimum wage until 1990, after he had been governor for seven years. By 1994, as he tried in vain to win a fourth term, he found himself talking about improvements made to Thruway rest stops during his watch. Hardly the stuff of poetry. His principled stand against capital punishment—which he shared with his predecessor, Hugh Carey—won him accolades from liberals tired of Democratic compromises and cave-ins. His nuanced defense of abortion rights, brilliantly argued in a speech at the University of Notre Dame in 1985, earned him the support of powerful activists who policed the party’s pro-choice orthodoxy. Combined with his wonderful speeches, those two positions earned Cuomo a reputation as the Democratic Party’s leading liberal spokesman at a time when liberalism was banished to the political wilderness. But it was, in many ways, an illusion. If Bill Clinton is credited with the political gymnastic known as triangulation, Mario Cuomo deserves recognition for embracing a form of political bifurcation even if party diehards insisted that he was the true liberal they had been yearning for since Adlai Stevenson led them to principled disaster twice in the 1950s. Cuomo disdained the term “liberal,” preferring to describe himself as a pragmatic progressive or a progressive pragmatist. The rhetorical sleight of hand was evident even in some of the speeches that sent liberal heart aflutter. “We believe in only the government we need, but we insist on all the government we need,” Cuomo said in his San Francisco speech. On other occasions, he noted that government required both a head and a heart, of the need to provide jobs as well as justice. Conservative. Liberal. Pragmatic progressive. Progressive pragmatist. This careful attention to linguistic detail could be exasperating for those looking for simple, straightforward answers. People like, well, reporters. Along with others who covered Cuomo far more closely, I knew that the right question phrased the wrong way would lead only to a Cuomo verbal assault and a non-answer. He’d attack the question. He’d question the attacker. I can hear his voice now: Governor, other Democrats are saying you should raise the minimum wage. Who? I can’t tell you that, governor. How can I answer the question if I don’t know who is saying these things? Why do you allow people to hide behind a veil of anonymity? Is this the way you always operate? The issue here is not the minimum wage but the people who are making statements without putting their names to those statements. That’s the real issue here. This imaginary conversation was pretty close to daily reality for Albany’s press corps, although visiting journalists from the Beltway generally were spared the full Mario treatment. That accounted for the disparate narratives: Mario the Poet versus Mario the Lawyer. In 1994, as he sought to become only the second New York governor to win a fourth four-year term (the first one was Nelson Rockefeller; Al Smith won four two-year terms), Cuomo published a collection of his speeches, reminding so many of his supporters why they adored him. The volume was called More Than Words. It is a suitable epitaph for a politician who used words to inspire, to probe, to critique, and to provoke. Yes, he will be remembered best as an orator, but there was something more about him, something more than the pretty pictures he painted with the English language. He was unafraid to challenge a comforting narrative with impertinent questions at a time when others preferred to simply go along and get along. Yes, that required more than words. That required ideas, that required courage, and that required intelligence. Mario Cuomo had all three. CORRECTION: The original version of this article stated incorrectly that Walter Mondale won Massachusetts in 1984, rather than Minnesota.

The late Mario Cuomo is being called a "liberal icon" (Time), a "liberal beacon" (the New York Times), and even a "liberal lion" (MSNBC), but in his appreciation at Capital New York, Terry Golway points out that Cuomo himself wasn't a big fan of the l-word: "Cuomo disdained the term 'liberal,' preferring to describe himself as a pragmatic progressive or a progressive pragmatist." Golway writes that Cuomo's thinking shows up in lines like this one: “We believe in only the government we need, but we insist on all the government we need." Yes, the government had to provide jobs, Cuomo argued, but it also had to provide justice. It needed to be both compassionate and strong, to have both a "head and a heart," writes Golway. That was Cuomo: "Conservative. Liberal. Pragmatic progressive. Progressive pragmatist." Read his full post.

Since the 1960s, there have been significant advances in protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects in biomedical and behavioral research. The federal presence has grown in this area, establishing and enforcing regulations for protecting human subjects in federally funded and federally regulated research. HHS’ regulation of biomedical and behavioral research consists of two principal tiers of review: one at the federal level and one at the research institution level. Both tiers are responsible for ensuring that individual researchers and their research institutions comply with federal laws and regulations for protecting human subjects. When the core of HHS’ human protection regulations was adopted by 15 other federal departments and agencies in 1991, it became known as the Common Rule. Within the HHS oversight system there are several entities overseeing compliance with human protection regulations. At the federal level are the NIH’s OPRR and the FDA. At the local level, institutional review boards (IRB)—that is, review panels that are usually associated with a particular university or other research institution—are responsible for implementing federal human subject protection requirements for research conducted at or supported by their institutions. In general, IRB members are scientists and nonscientists who volunteer to review proposed studies. The Common Rule requires research institutions receiving federal support and federal agencies conducting research to establish IRBs to review research proposals for risk of harm to human subjects and to perform other duties to protect human research subjects. It also stipulates requirements related to informed consent—how researchers must inform potential subjects of the risks to which they, as study participants, agree to be exposed. HHS regulations contain additional protections not included in the Common Rule for research involving vulnerable populations—namely, pregnant women, fetuses, subjects of in vitro fertilization research, prisoners, and children. Preventing harm to human subjects’ rights and welfare is the overarching goal of HHS’ protection system. The organizational components of the system—OPRR, FDA, and local IRBs—have heightened the compliance of the research community with human protection guidelines through a variety of activities. OPRR’s chief preventive measure is its assurance process. Assurances are contract-like agreements made by research institutions to comply with federal human subject protection requirements. Assurances include the following: a statement of ethical conduct principles, a guarantee that an IRB has been designated to approve and periodically review the institution’s studies, and the specifics of the IRB’s membership, responsibilities, and process for reviewing and approving proposals. An institution must have an assurance approved by OPRR before the institution can receive HHS research funding. Depending on an institution’s willingness and expertise, as well as the requirements of specific research studies, OPRR can negotiate several different types of assurances. Through a multiple project assurance, for example, OPRR can delegate broad authority to an institution, allowing it to approve a wide array of research studies. Or, through a single project assurance, OPRR can retain the authority to approve studies one by one. As of November 1995, OPRR had 451 active multiple project assurances and over 3,000 active single project assurances. OPRR also had over 1,300 active cooperative project assurances, which pertain to multiple-site research projects. FDA works to prevent the occurrence of human subject protection violations in the drug research it regulates. Before permitting drug research with human subjects, FDA requires researchers to submit a brief statement that they will uphold ethical standards and identify the IRB that will examine their study. FDA can request modifications to proposals or reject proposals deemed to present unacceptable risk. IRBs play a major role in the protection of patients and healthy volunteers, according to federal officials and members of the research community alike. For each study conducted using human subjects, researchers must first get IRB approval. In fact, HHS will neither fund new human subject research nor authorize ongoing research to continue without IRB approval. The IRB’s basic role when deciding whether to approve new research is to determine if the rights and welfare of subjects will be safeguarded. IRB members ensure that a study’s procedures are consistent with sound research design and that the consent document conforms to federal rules for adequate informed consent. IRB reviews, however, generally do not involve direct observation of the research study or the process in which a subject’s consent is obtained. IRB members are expected to recognize that certain research subjects—such as children, prisoners, the mentally disabled, and individuals who are economically or educationally disadvantaged—are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence. The local nature of most IRBs enables members to be familiar with the research institution’s resources and commitments, the investigators’ capabilities, and community values. IRBs are also required to review previously approved research periodically. The purpose of these continuing reviews is for IRBs to keep abreast of a study’s potential for harm and benefit to subjects so that boards can decide whether the study should continue. No system of prevention is foolproof. Therefore, FDA’s and OPRR’s monitoring and enforcement efforts include review of results of IRB operations, clinical trials, and allegations of researcher misconduct. FDA’s primary tool for monitoring human subject protection is its on-site inspections of the IRBs that oversee drug research. FDA’s inspections of IRBs demonstrate that, at some institutions, compliance with federal oversight rules is uneven. Between January 1993 and November 1995, FDA issued 31 Warning Letters to institutions regarding significant deficiencies in the performance of their IRBs’ oversight of drug research. Among the more serious violations cited were the following: participation of researchers as IRB members in reviewing their own studies, absence of a process for tracking ongoing studies, and failure to ensure that required elements of informed consent were contained in consent documents. The FDA Warning Letters terminated the IRBs’ authority to approve new studies or to recruit new subjects into ongoing studies until FDA received adequate assurance of corrective action. From October 1993 to November 1995, FDA found less serious deficiencies involving about 200 other IRBs, such as failure to document the names of IRB members and failure of IRB minutes to identify controversial issues discussed. In addition to monitoring IRBs, FDA must be satisfied that manufacturers have complied with human subject protection regulations during clinical trials. To this end, FDA conducts on-site inspections of individual drug studies. When examining how a trial was conducted, FDA determines, for example, if subject selection criteria were followed, if subjects’ consent was documented, and if adverse events were reported. FDA’s principal focus in these efforts, however, is to verify the accuracy and completeness of study data as well as the researcher’s adherence to the approved protocol. Most of the drug study violations FDA identifies are relatively minor. From 1977 to 1995, about one-half of the violations related to the adequacy of the informed consent forms. FDA also identifies more serious violations. Since 1980, FDA has taken 99 actions against 84 clinical investigators regarding their conduct of drug research with human subjects. It cited such instances of serious misconduct as failure to obtain informed consent; forgery of subjects’ signatures on informed consent forms; failure to inform patients that a drug was experimental; and failure to report subjects’ adverse reactions to drugs under study, including a subject’s death. FDA has used four types of actions to enforce its regulations: (1) obtaining a promise from a researcher to abide by FDA requirements for conducting drug research, (2) invoking a range of restrictions on a researcher’s use of investigational drugs, (3) disqualifying a researcher from the use of investigational drugs, and (4) criminally prosecuting a researcher. OPRR also responds to inquiries and investigates allegations of potential harm to human subjects. These inquiries and investigations are largely handled by telephone and correspondence; few investigations result in site visits. Over the past 5 years, OPRR has investigated numerous allegations of serious human subject protection violations. One such example was OPRR’s investigation of whether informed consent procedures clearly identified the risk of death to volunteers in the tamoxifen breast cancer prevention trial. OPRR found that informed consent documents at some sites failed to identify some of tamoxifen’s potentially fatal risks, such as uterine cancer, liver cancer, and embolism. In another instance, OPRR compliance investigators found deficiencies in informed consent and in IRB review procedures in a joint NIH-French study of HIV-positive subjects in Zaire. Among cases currently under investigation are allegations that researchers at a university-based fertility clinic transferred eggs from unsuspecting donors to other women, without consent of the donors. In many cases, OPRR has required institutions to take corrective action. In some instances, OPRR has suspended an institution’s authority to conduct further research in a particular area until problems with its IRBs were fixed. From 1990 to mid-1995, there were 17 instances in which OPRR imposed some type of restriction on an institution’s authority to conduct human subject research. Oversight systems are by nature limited to minimizing, rather than fully eliminating, the potential for mishap, and HHS’ system for protecting human subjects is no exception. Various factors reduce or threaten to reduce the effectiveness of IRBs, OPRR, and FDA. First, pressure from heavy workloads and competing priorities can weaken IRB oversight. In some cases, the sheer number of studies necessitates that IRBs spend only 1 or 2 minutes of review per study. Some IRBs allow administrative staff with no scientific expertise—not board members themselves—to review continuing review forms, ensuring only that the information has been provided. The independence of IRB reviews can be compromised in cases in which IRB members have close collegial ties with researchers at their institutions, when there are pressures from institution officials to attract and retain funding, when IRB members have financial ties to the study, and when IRB members are reluctant to criticize studies led by leading scientists. The increasing complexity of research makes it difficult for some IRBs to adequately assess human subject protection issues when members are not conversant with the technical aspects of a proposed study, or when studies raise ethical questions that have not been satisfactorily resolved within the research community. Given the growing number of large-scale trials, if most involved IRBs have approved a proposed study, then IRBs at other institutions may feel pressured to mute their concerns about the study. Pressures to recruit subjects can lead some researchers and IRBs to overlook informed consent deficiencies. Second, various factors may hamper OPRR oversight. OPRR staff make no site visits during assurance negotiations; instead, they review an institution’s written application and conduct written or oral follow-up. In contrast, on the basis of experience gained from on-site investigations for compliance purposes, OPRR staff told us that their ability to evaluate an institution’s human protection system is greatly enhanced by direct observation and personal interaction with IRB staff, IRB members, and researchers. In the future, OPRR expects to conduct from 12 to 24 technical assistance visits annually to institutions holding OPRR assurances. NIH’s organizational structure may hamper the independence of OPRR with respect to its oversight of studies conducted by NIH’s Office of Intramural Research. From a broad organizational perspective, a potential weakness exists because NIH is both the regulator of human subject protections as well as an agency conducting its own research programs. The NIH Director, therefore, has responsibility for both the success of NIH’s intramural research programs and the enforcement of human subject protection regulations by OPRR. Third, FDA’s inspections of drug research may permit violations to go undetected. FDA’s inspection program is geared more toward protecting the eventual consumer of the drug than the subjects on whom the drug was tested. FDA does not inspect all drug studies but concentrates its efforts on commercial products likely to be approved for consumer use. Furthermore, FDA’s routine on-site inspections of drug studies are conducted only after clinical trials have concluded and subjects have completed their participation. Gaps also exist in FDA’s inspection of IRBs. FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research annually issues the results of about 158 inspections of the approximately 1,200 IRBs reviewing drug studies, although its goal has been to complete and issue reports on about 250 inspections each year. We found that in one of FDA’s 21 districts—one that contains several major research centers conducting studies with human subjects—12 IRBs had not been inspected for 10 or more years. Furthermore, FDA is 3 to 5 years behind in its scheduled reinspection of some IRBs with which it had noted problems. FDA officials told us that some of its inspectors may be inadequately prepared to understand the human subject protection implications of drug studies and to ask meaningful follow-up questions on the research protocols they review. Fourth, additional pressures make it difficult to guarantee the protection of human subjects. When seriously ill individuals, such as some HIV patients, equate experimental and proven therapies, some question the need for protections that appear only to restrict their access to therapy. When physician-researchers do not clearly distinguish between research and treatment in their attempt to inform subjects, the possible benefits of a study can be overemphasized and the risks minimized. When physicians use an innovative but unproven technique to treat patients, they may not consider the procedure to be research. Such treatments, however, could constitute unregulated research, placing people at risk of harm from unproven techniques. Our work suggests that over the last 3 decades federal regulators and members of the research community have improved the protection of human research participants. However, holes inevitably exist in the regulatory net because no oversight system can guarantee complete protection for each individual. The goals remain to encourage researchers’ ethical behavior without hobbling scientific research and to refine regulations and oversight activities to further improve subject protections. Given the many pressures that can weaken the effectiveness of the protection system, continued vigilance is critical to ensuring that subjects are protected from harm. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you or the other Members may have. For more information about this testimony, please call Bruce D. Layton, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7119. Other major contributors included Frederick K. Caison, Linda S. Lootens, and Hannah F. Fein. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

GAO discussed the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) efforts to protect human research subjects, focusing on the prevention, monitoring, and enforcement activities of the National Institutes of Health's Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). GAO noted that: (1) to ensure the protection of human research subjects, the agencies require researchers to make assurance agreements that they will comply with federal human subject protection requirements and uphold ethical standards; (2) the agencies also use institutional review boards (IRB), local review panels that review research plans to ensure that human subjects are protected; (3) both FDA and OPRR conduct on-site visits and inspections, clinical trials, investigations of allegations of researcher misconduct, and IRB reviews to identify violations of protection requirements; (4) to enforce the regulations, FDA and OPRR have requested modifications to research plans, restricted researchers' use of drugs, disqualified, suspended, or criminally prosecuted researchers; and (5) oversight effectiveness is hampered by heavy IRB workloads and competing priorities, organizational conflicts-of-interest, limited site visits and inspections, and pressures resulting from differing perceptions on the need for research versus treatment.

You need Javascript and either Adobe Flash or Html5 to view this video. You need Javascript and either Adobe Flash or Html5 to view this video. You need Javascript and either Adobe Flash or Html5 to view this video. Updated Saturday 9am * Libyan plane hijacked during internal flight * Two hijackers on board claimed to have hand grenade * Passengers started disembarking at 1.50pm * Hijackers seen leaving plane at 3.40pm * Passengers leave Malta early this morning All hostages have been released following a hijack drama at Malta International Airport. At 3.20pm, the hijackers were seen leaving the plane and surrendering to soldiers following an almost four-hour standoff. The Afriqiyah Airways A320 with around 120 people on board landed in Malta after it was hijacked in Libyan airspace. The plane was on an internal flight from Sebha to Tripoli when it was diverted by two hijackers, believed to be in their mid 20s, who threatened to blow up the plane. They were later found to have used fake weapons. A total of 111 passengers - 82 men, 28 women and an infant - and six crew members were on board the aircraft which landed in Malta at 11.32am. All passengers are believed to be Libyan. The updates were provided by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat who posted tweets about the ongoing drama. Video: Steve Zammit Lupi A Libyan security official told Reuters that the pilot told Tripoli Airport Control before communications were lost that the pilot tried to land in Libya but the hijackers refused. A statement from Afriqiyah Airways this evening said the hijackers refused the proposal from the pilot to land the aircraft in Tripoli and negotiate there. Subsequently a decision was taken to land the aircraft in Malta because of fuel limitations. Soldiers and emergency services surrounded the aircraft as soon as it landed in Malta. First group of passengers, consisting of women and children, being released now. — Joseph Muscat (@JosephMuscat_JM) December 23, 2016 The hijackers, later named as Suhaha Mussa and Ahmed Alid, claiming to be from a pro-Gaddafi group, had said they were willing to let all passengers go apart from the crew, if their demands were met. It is still not known what were their demands though as the drama unfolded it appeared to be result of the bitter Libyan political feud rather than an act of terrorism. One German report said they were demanding the release of Saif Gaddafi. TV footage showed the suspected hijacker carrying the green flag outside the plane. The claim was reinforced at 2.50pm when one of the hijackers was seen at the aircraft door waving the former green Libya flag. Reuters reported that the hijacker had told Libyan TV he is the head of the "pro-Gaddafi party". But a Libyan minister was later quoted as saying that the two hijackers were seeking political asylum in Malta, a claim later rejected by Dr Muscat. A gangway was seen being taken towards the plane at 1.45pm and an aircraft door was opened disembarking women and children first. The first coachload of people was taken towards Lufthansa Technik before the rest of the passengers followed shortly after. The disembarkation happened calmly, including the moments when the hijackers were seen leaving the aircraft, one of them holding the former green Libya flag. Screenshot: FlightRadar 24 The head of communications at the Prime Minister's office, Kurt Farrugia, tweeted at 1.15pm that Dr Muscat had spoken to Libyan Prime Minister Faez al Serraj. International media reported that the Libyan transport minister was at one point negotiating with the hijackers. From the Maltese side, AFM commander Jeffrey Curmi was put at the head of negotiations. While thanking all those involved in the operation, the Nationalist Opposition said every effort should be made to avoid a repetition of a similar incident. The passengers on board the flight departed Malta early this morning on another aircraft leased by the same airline. Boarding the passengers for their return to Libya. pic.twitter.com/5vIYO8HIdp — Carmelo Abela (@AbelaCarmelo) December 24, 2016 Flights to Malta diverted Meanwhile MIA informed passengers in the Departures Lounge that all flights had initially been cancelled or diverted until further notice. At 12.43pm, the airport informed passengers airport operations had resumed. At 1.15pm passengers were informed that all flights were delayed and flights that had been diverted to Sicily started returning to Malta. At 12.30pm, nine flights had already been diverted to Catania. Hundreds of passengers are believed to be waiting at the airport departures lounge in Malta as well as in airports in Sicily. Afriqiyah Airways operates from Sebha to Tripoli on Friday, leaving at 10.10am and arriving at 11.20am. It operates another flight on Tuesdays. This evening, MIA said that airport operations will fully recover by the end of this evening. By 6pm, a total of three outgoing flights remain delayed and as a reaction to the disruption this afternoon, seven incoming flights are expected later on this evening. The aerodrome was closed for under 30 minutes with a total of 44 flights affected. Nine incoming flights which were diverted, while delays were registered across 20 departing flights and 15 arrivals. "Malta International Airport would also like to express its satisfaction at the emergency response teams’ reaction to today’s unfortunate events. Our topmost priority was to maintain our safety and security standards across the airport campus, and safeguard our passengers and colleagues at all times." First major hijack in Malta since 1985 The last major hijack incident in Malta took place in November 23, 1985 when an EgyptAir Boeing 737 plane was diverted to the island. What followed was a 24-hour nightmare that ended in a bloody massacre with 62 people dead when Egyptian commandos stormed the plane. Only one of the three hijackers survived and was brought to justice. Forty-three years ago then Prime Minster Dom Mintoff managed to negotiate the release of 247 passengers and eight air hostesses on board a Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet which was also hijacked over Iraq and flown to Malta. The passengers and air hostesses were released in return for fuel. The plane had been hijacked by Palestinian terrorists. The plane later left Malta and the hijackers eventually surrendered. ||||| VALLETTA (Reuters) - Hijackers armed with what were probably replica weapons forced an airliner to land in Malta on Friday before freeing all their hostages unharmed and surrendering, having declared loyalty to Libya’s late leader Muammar Gaddafi. Television pictures showed two men being led from the aircraft in handcuffs. The prime minister of the tiny Mediterranean island, Joseph Muscat, tweeted: “Hijackers surrendered, searched and taken in custody”. The Airbus A320 had been on an internal flight in Libya on Friday morning when it was diverted to Malta, 500 km (300 miles) north of the Libyan coast, after a man told the crew he had a hand grenade. Muscat said the grenade and two pistols the hijackers were also carrying appeared to be replicas, according to an initial forensic examination. A Libyan television channel reported it had spoken by phone with a hijacker who described himself as head of a pro-Gaddafi party. Gaddafi was killed in an uprising in 2011, and Libya has been racked by factional violence since. With troops positioned a few hundred meters (yards) away, buses were driven onto the tarmac at Malta International Airport to carry away 109 passengers, as well as some of the crew. Television footage showed no signs of struggle or alarm. After the passengers had left the plane, a man briefly appeared at the top of the steps with a plain green flag resembling that of Gaddafi’s now-defunct state. Libya’s Channel TV station said one hijacker, who gave his name as Moussa Shaha, had said by phone he was the head of Al-Fateh Al-Jadid, or The New Al-Fateh. Al-Fateh is the name that Gaddafi gave to September, the month he staged a coup in 1969, and the word came to signify his coming to power. Two hijackers of a Libyan Afriqiyah Airways Airbus A320 surrender to Maltese military on the runway at Malta Airport, December 23, 2016. REUTERS/Darrin Zammit-Lupi In a tweet, the TV station later quoted the hijacker as saying: “We took this measure to declare and promote our new party.” STANDOFF ON TARMAC Lawmaker Hadi al-Saghir told Reuters that Abdusalem Mrabit, a fellow member of Libya’s House of Representatives on the plane, had told him the two hijackers were in their mid-20s and were from the Tebu ethnic group in southern Libya. After the standoff ended peacefully, Muscat told a news conference there had been talks between Maltese authorities and the Libyan hijackers. The men had asked for two Maltese negotiators to board the aircraft, but this was rejected. “We were not willing to negotiate until there was a surrender,” he said, adding that the hijackers had not requested asylum. A senior Libyan security official told Reuters the first news of the hijack came in a call from the pilot to the control tower at Tripoli’s Mitiga airport. “Then they lost communication with him,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The pilot tried very hard to have them land at the correct destination but they refused.” Slideshow (22 Images) The aircraft, operated by state-owned Afriqiyah Airways, had been flying from Sebha in southwest Libya to Tripoli, a trip that would usually take a little over two hours. The last major hijacking on Malta was in 1985, when Palestinians took over an Egyptair plane. Egyptian commandos stormed the aircraft and dozens of people were killed. ||||| On Nov. 23, 1985 Egyptair Flight 648, bound from Athens to Cairo, was hijacked and forced to land in Malta. While negotiating their demands, the hijackers-members of a dissident Palestinian faction calling itself Egypt’s Revolution—brutally demonstrated their seriousness. They marched five American and Israeli passengers to the front of the plane, shot them each in the head and shoved them down the steps of the boarding ramp. The drama ended after nearly 24 hours when Egyptian commandos stormed the plane; two hijackers and 57 of 92 passengers were killed during the rescue attempt. The hijacking was one of the bloodiest on record, but there was a trio of miracles. Three of the passengers who had been shot in the head lived: Tamar Artzi, an Israeli woman who was nicked in the ear and Patrick Scott Baker, 29, from White Salmon, Wash., who was only grazed by the hijacker’s bullet and has completely recovered. Not so lucky was Jackie Nink Pflug, 31, a special education teacher, who survived her head wound and surgery but is still troubled by seizures, vision problems and traumatic memories. She discussed her ordeal with correspondent Civia Tamarkin. I am not a hero. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I was lucky survived. I was shot in the head for no other reason than that I am an American, and I’ll live with the results the rest of my life. I didn’t give much thought to the possibility of being hijacked when my husband, Scott, and I left to teach in Cairo in August 1985, only two days after we were married. Hijackings, you always think, happen to other people. We loved living in Cairo. I had a position working with learning-disabled children at the Cairo American School, and Scott taught physical education and coached the girls’ varsity volleyball team there. I felt alive and happy, and then suddenly, without choice, everything in my life changed. In November Scott took his team to play a tournament in Athens. I went along for the fun of a two-day holiday and the chance to shop for all the things I couldn’t find in Cairo. Because I had to get back to teach earlier than Scott did, I booked a reservation on a late Saturday evening flight. When I walked into the airport that night I felt strange, eerie. Security was lax. They were hand checking everything, but not very thoroughly. The guard only shook one or two of the bags stuffed with groceries inside my duffel and then waved me on. I remember thinking that I could have a gun in there and no one would know. On the plane I had an aisle seat in the third row. As people got settled I turned around to see who was on the plane. I noticed the man sitting catty-corner behind me. He was good looking, with short hair and pretty eyes. I guessed he was Egyptian or Palestinian. But he was nervous and fidgeting, and I wondered what his problem was. About 15 minutes after we took off, I was listening on my Walkman to Born in the U.S.A. when I heard a commotion. There was the nervous man standing in the aisle behind me. He had two grenades in his left hand and a gun in his right. He was yelling in English to people, telling them to sit down and shut up. I thought it had to be a bad dream. He was trying to pull the pins out of the grenades with his teeth. “I’ve got to get out of here, I’ve got to get out of here,” I kept thinking, but there was no way out. I put my head in my hands, but as soon as I lifted my face I felt a gun poking me in the back of my head. The hijacker said, “Are you scared, lady?” I said, “No, I’m fine,” and I thought, “Jackie, how could you say that?” The stewardess got on the speaker and said we were being hijacked by members of a group called Egypt’s Revolution. All of us in the front of the plane were told to go to the back and fill up empty seats. I ended up in the last row, next to a hijacker. Meanwhile another one in the front—I think there were four altogether—was collecting passports. Suddenly there were shots. One of the Egyptian sky marshals on board pulled out a gun and shot one of the hijackers. Then the hijacker next to me shot the marshal. Up in the air the shooting sounded like firecrackers. Everyone was in shock. Just as it was my turn to hand in my passport, the plane made a very rough landing at Malta. On the way up the aisle to get my passport, which I had left in my original seat, I stepped over a body. I couldn’t believe I was doing that. I was ushered to the middle of the plane and put in a seat next to Scarlett Rogenkamp, who was a 38-year-old American woman from Oceanside, Calif. Then the hijackers asked if there were any Israelis on board. One woman stood up and walked to the front of the plane. We heard gunshots. Then the hijackers identified another Israeli woman from her passport. We heard another shot and a thump, thump, thump and then a thud. It was a body hitting the stairs and then the tarmac. I knew Scarlett and I were next because we were Americans. Sure enough they came for us and took us to the front row with another American, Patrick Scott Baker. They tied our hands behind our backs with neckties and sat us down. Five or 10 minutes later they came for Patrick Baker. They shot him, and we heard the same thumping sound. Scarlett was next. They shot her in the head and threw her off. She died immediately. Then they came to get me. I walked up to the door without crying or doing anything. They opened the door and I could see bright light. There was a loud and heavy feeling in my head, and I heard something tumbling. But I didn’t feel myself hitting anything. It was more like floating. I thought I had better play dead ’cause I didn’t know where the hijackers were. I didn’t feel any pain. It started to rain, and I could feel the cold rain seeping into my head. Later I was told that the bullet was lodged in the back of my skull like a cork. The bullet was fired point-blank, but miraculously it didn’t go all the way in. I was left lying on the tarmac for over five hours. I drifted in and out of sleep. I thought, “If I live, I probably won’t be normal.” The rain stopped, I saw a really pretty blue sky and puffy white clouds, and I thought, “What a pretty day to have such terrible things happening.” I heard a vehicle approaching. People got out, and I could only see pants legs. I didn’t know whether it was the hijackers, so I closed my eyes and continued to play dead. A voice on the megaphone said, “Okay, you can pick her up now.” They dragged me across the tarmac and threw me face-down on a metal bed. They put me inside some vehicle, and we began moving when one of the medics turned me over. I was startled so I gasped. They screamed, “She’s alive!” And they raced to the hospital. They had been on their way to the morgue. At St. Luke’s Hospital in Valletta, Malta, doctors took the bullet out of my skull. Bone had been shattered, and I now have a dent in my head. In the process of picking out the fragments, they removed some tissue and damaged the part of the brain that controls the left peripheral vision in both eyes. Recuperating at a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, West Germany, I began to realize something was wrong. When I got out of bed, I thought my feet were touching the floor, but they weren’t. When I reached for the wall, it wasn’t there. Both my depth perception and my balance were very bad. I also had a muffled ringing in my ears because of a concussion to the middle ear. The doctors left me with no hope about my depth perception returning. Still, I felt like I was a walking miracle. If the bullet had moved a half inch either way, I could have been paralyzed. The doctors did warn me that there was always a chance I might have seizures. I also saw a psychiatrist who explained I might have post-traumatic stress syndrome, similar to war veterans. I was happy to be alive, but at the same time I felt angry and bitter. Why did this have to happen to me? When we returned to the U.S. we went to live with Scott’s parents near Minneapolis. The worst problem was my vision. I’d look at something and it wasn’t whole. If I looked at a person, the eyes would be in one place and the nose in another. One day my mother-in-law took me shopping for some things to wear because everything I had was left behind in Egypt or lost on the jet. I tried on a pair of pants, but I couldn’t tell what they looked like. I came home and started crying. A month later we moved into our own apartment. I was starting to get some of my health back. But my analytical and critical thinking skills had left me. I didn’t know what anything meant. I’d look at a watch, and it would say 8 o’clock, and I didn’t know what 8 o’clock meant. It is still very difficult for me to read and decode words because letters are on top of letters and pieces of letters are missing, and I only see halves of words. With my visual problems, if I make a letter bigger there are even more pieces. But if I shrink it, I can see it better. I suddenly realized what I had been dealing with for so many years as a special education teacher. Now the tables were turned, and I was a learning-disabled student. There was a lot of self-pity, too. I had torn ligaments in my neck from the fall onto the tarmac. I had severe headaches and I developed seizures. To add to it all, the medication for controlling the seizures made me depressed. I had significant mood swings from very high to very low. I had grown up with this attitude that it’s not okay to cry. Yet I could feel all this emotion bottled up and bubbling inside me. Finally last spring I went to a therapist. Talking to her I was able to let it all out and break down and cry. It felt good. On top of everything else, we also have a problem paying medical bills. President Reagan told me I shouldn’t have to pay these expenses, and he assigned an aide to help us straighten things out. But somehow because of the bureaucracy, we are still stuck with many of these costs. Now it’s a year after the hijacking, and my vision and hearing are still impaired. I still have memory loss and suffer from seizures. But right now the way I measure my success is by not getting upset if I fail at something. I try to tackle it again without quitting. The anger and bitterness are gone. I am determined to make it back to the way I was before. But then I wonder—what’s going to happen up the road? What am I going to be like three months from now?

A hijacking drama unfolded on an airport tarmac in Malta Friday, but it ended without violence. It began when two hijackers commandeered an aircraft carrying 118 people in the skies over Libya and diverted it to the Mediterranean island, reports Reuters. Claiming to have a hand grenade, the hijackers threatened to blow up the Afriqiyah Airways A320, which had been en route from one Libyan airport to another. After a few hours of negotiations once the plane landed, the hijackers freed everybody on board, then turned themselves over to troops, reports the Times of Malta. Their motives remain unclear, but they appear to revolve around the late Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. The hijackers said they belonged to a group called Al Fatah Al Gadida, which is loyal to Gadhafi, and they had promised to release all passengers if their demands were met. Those demands haven't been made public, though one unconfirmed report says they called for the release of Gadhafi's son Saif, per Morroco World News. The Times reports it's the first significant hijacking involving the country since 1985. On Nov. 23 of that year, an EgyptAir Boeing 737 plane was forced to land on the island. A 1986 People article about a survivor of the deadly incident reported 57 of the 92 passengers died during the rescue effort.

A 46-year-old Iowa man accused of ambushing and killing two police officers early Wednesday morning has been arrested, authorities say. Officers had been searching for Scott Michael Greene, of Urbandale, who was considered to be armed and dangerous, police told the Des Moines Register. He was arrested in Dallas County, Iowa, about 9:30 a.m. local time, about seven hours after the shootings, KCCI-TV reports. The slain officers have been identified as Urbandale Police Officer Justin Martin and Des Moines Sergeant Anthony “Tony” Beminio. They were killed in two shootings about 20 minutes apart in Urbandale and Des Moines, police say. “It doesn’t look like there was any interaction between these officers and whoever the coward is who shot them while they sat in their cars,” Des Moines Police Sergeant Paul Parizek said at a press conference. The officers’ patrol vehicles were riddled with bullets. Police said in radio dispatches that it is believed a rifle was used in the shootings. Here’s what you need to know: 1. Scott Greene Clashed With Cops Last Month After Being Kicked Out of a Football Game for Flying a Confederate Flag During the National Anthem A man named Scott Greene, who matches the description of the suspect, recorded himself being kicked out of a football game in Urbandale, Iowa, on October 14, 2016. The Urbandale School District confirmed to the Des Moines Register that a man named Scott Greene was removed from the football stadium that day. The stadium is at the same intersection where the Urbandale police officer was killed Wednesday morning, the newspaper reports. Greene also posted a 10-second video featuring only a still photo showing him in the stands of the high school holding American and Confederate flags. You can see that photo above. In the comments of one of the videos, Greene wrote, “I was offended by the blacks sitting through our anthem. Thousands more whites fought and died for their freedom. However this is not about the Armed forces, they are cop haters.” He titled the second video, which you can watch below, “Police Abuse, Civil Rights Violation at Urbandale High School.” “This is an assault on a person exercising his constitution rights on free speech!” he wrote in the description. The 10-minute video shows Greene after he was removed from the stadium, interacting with Des Moines and Urbandale police officers who are trying to get him to leave the area. It begins with officers telling Greene to leave for “committing a disturbance in the stands.” He asks them repeatedly, “Have I committed a crime?” He also accuses an officer of “assaulting” him by “grabbing” him and “shoving” him around. Daybreak gives us a better look at DMPD squad car. Police say 46 yr old Scott Michael Greene ambushed and killed two officers @WHOhd pic.twitter.com/Njyu75yywJ — Jodi Whitworth (@JodiWhitworth_) November 2, 2016 Greene also says he was assaulted in the stands and had a flag stolen from him. “I’m a citizen of the United States of America and I would like my property back that was stolen from me,” he says. “I want to report the theft of property from myself. I was actually assaulted. I would like to report an assault.” The officer then directs him to a public sidewalk off of the high school property. “Someone behind me hit me and they stole, it was almost like a mugging, because I had my property and I was holding it and they stole it from me,” Greene tells an officer. He said he was standing there “holding a flag,” during the National Anthem, when he was attacked by “African-American people” behind him, who took his flag. He tells the police he wants to press charges. An officer tells Greene the flag he was holding, a Confederate flag, is in violation of school code. “You came just to fly the flag and possibly cause a disruption tonight,” an officer says. “You have to understand in the current social climate we’re in, when you fly a Confederate flag standing in front of several African-American people, that’s going to cause a disturbance, whether you intended to or not.” Greene argues that it is his Constitutional right to do so and says he was “peacefully protesting.” 2. Greene Called a Man at His Apartment Complex the ‘N-Word’ & Threatened to Kill Him in 2014, Court Records Show On the scene where an officer was found shot at Merle Hay road and Sheridan dr early Wed. morning. pic.twitter.com/KupgOHWr6O — Brian Powers (@bpowersphoto) November 2, 2016 Greene has been arrested numerous times, online court records show. According to the Des Moines Register, he was convicted of harassment in 2014 after police said he approached a man in the parking lot of his apartment complex, shined a flash light in his eyes and called him the “N-word.” Greene then told the man, “I will kill you, (expletive) kill you,” according to records. He was sentenced to one year of probation. A probation discharge report filed in June 2015 shows that Greene received a mental health evaluation and “complied with the medication recommendations,” according to the newspaper. Greene was convicted of interference with official acts in 2014 after resisting officers’ attempts to pat him down for weapons at the same apartment complex, the Des Moines Register reports. According to the police report, the officers wanted to search Greene after noticing a pouch similar to a holster on his belt. Officer Chris Greenfield wrote that Greene, was “noncompliant, hostile, combative and made furtive movements toward his pockets,” according to the Register. He was also arrested in 2001 and charged with domestic assault, assault causing bodily injury and fourth-degree criminal mischief. He was also charged in 2010 with driving under the influence. The charges in those cases were all later dismissed, according to court records. Other details about the cases were not immediately available. Police were recently called to the home of Patricia Greene, Scott’s mother, for a domestic disturbance, and arrested Patricia after her son said she assaulted him, the Associated Press reports. According to the criminal complaint obtained by the AP, Scott Greene told police his 66-year-old mother yelled at him on October 17, telling him to remove his daughter’s service dog from the house. Scott Greene told police he was wearing his deceased father’s dog tags, and his mother tried to tear them from his neck. Police said Scott Greene grabbed his mother’s hand and she scratched his face. Scott Greene recorded video of the incident and showed it to police, leading to her arrest. She was released after posting $1,000 bail and is due in court later this month, according to the Associated Press. She was also ordered not to have contact with her son. Patricia Greene appears to have been referencing her troubles with her son in a Facebook post Tuesday night, “ “I can’t believe the love and kindness you are all showing me. With friends and relatives like all you guys, how could a girl ever go wrong. Things are looking up but, please don’t stop your prayers. They are still needed.” 3. His Daughter Posted a Photo to Facebook Saying #Scott’sLifeMatters After the Shootings, Saying He Was ‘Very Sick Mentally’ Greene, a father of three originally from Iowa, filed for bankruptcy in 2007, according to federal court records. He lists a daughter and two sons as dependents in the filing. He also says he was working at an office furniture store and previously worked for a boating company. A recent video on his Youtube account indicates he was fired from a job with a fencing company. “First day on the job, 5 ton truck, pulling skid loader on trailer and driving 75mph down a gravel road. I was fired after reporting this to the owner,” he wrote in the caption of the video, which shows him filming as another man drives a truck. He posted the video, which you can watch below, on October 27, but it’s not clear when it was recorded. His daughter, Sammie Greene, posted a photo of Greene to Facebook with #Scott’sLifeMatters after the shooting, sparking angry comments. “He was also a loving father grandfather and the greatest man I know. He was very very sick mentally,” she wrote. “Evil succumbed him and he made the up worst mistake. Now he will have to live with that for the rest of his life. But I will never turn my back on this man.” “This poor man was consumed by the devil himself this morning. I will continue to pray for him. Along with the families of the officers,” she wrote. Scott Greene’s Facebook page does not include any public photos or details about his life. One post from from 2014, about child abuse, is visible: I have been surrounded by stories of sexual abuse toward children and I am fed up with the predators that lurk in our communities. It seems that nearly all of my dear friends, family, ex relationships, and peers have a story in their lives about someone being sexually abused as a child. We need to band together as a society and protect our children by all legal means necessary. We cannot turn a blind eye to these little victims that are now scarred for the rest of their lives. Please join me in exposing this sickness that lives among all of us. Do not be afraid any longer to speak out against child abuse, awareness is the key in keeping our preciuos children safe. Police searched a home where Greene lived in Urbandale after the shooting. At a press conference, officials said he was known to officers. Neighbors told the Des Moines Register that Greene put a Donald Trump campaign sign on his lawn about two weeks ago. Neighbor tells me that shooting suspect Scott Michael Greene put this Trump sign in his yard approx 2 weeks ago. pic.twitter.com/8HjtthB51I — Grant Rodgers (@GrantMRodgers) November 2, 2016 Register reporter Grant Rodgers added, “Neighbor also says Greene called police last week about a local burglary, seemed excited by helping law enforcement.” Trump tweeted about the shooting, saying, “Praying for the families of the two Iowa police who were ambushed this morning. An attack on those who keep us safe is an attack on us all.” Praying for the families of the two Iowa police who were ambushed this morning. An attack on those who keep us safe is an attack on us all. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 2, 2016 His opponent, Hillary Clinton, also tweeted about it, saying, “Heartbroken for the families of two brave officers who were killed in Iowa. There’s no justification for this kind of violence.” 4. He Surrendered to a Police Officer From the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Without a Struggle The scene of the first shooting at 70th and Aurora where an officer was found shot early Wed morning. Some officers in combat gear here. pic.twitter.com/SJEUY4B3gh — Brian Powers (@bpowersphoto) November 2, 2016 Scott Greene was taken into custody in Dallas County, Iowa, about 9:30 a.m., KCCI-TV reports. According to WHO-TV, Greene turned himself in to a police officer from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources without a struggle. He was then taken into custody by the Iowa State Patrol and Dallas County Sheriff. The arrest happened in a rural part of the state, near Redfield, the news station reports. He had been spotted walking on a G Trail, a road in Wiscotta, south of Redfield, police said. On scene in rural Wiscotta where police arrested suspect Scott Greene, double murder suspect pic.twitter.com/ajn37MBrjT — Jannay Towne (@JannayTowne) November 2, 2016 Redfield is about a 40-minute drive from Des Moines. He was taken to the hospital for an unknown reason after the arrest, the Des Moines Register reports. Greene was believed to be driving a blue 2011 Ford F-150 pickup truck with a silver topper (truck bed cover) and a ladder rack, police say. The truck has the license plate 780 YFR, police say. He was described as being about 5 foot 11 inches tall, weighs 180 pounds and has brown hair and green eyes, according to police. 5. The Officers Were Ambushed & Killed in Their Patrol Cars About 2 Miles Apart The first officer, Urbandale Officer Justin Martin, was found dead about 1:06 a.m. when police responded to a report of shots fired in the area of 70th Street and Aurora Avenue in Urbandale, Des Moines Police Sergeant Paul Parizek said in a press release. Responding officers “found an Urbandale Police Department police officer who had been shot.” Martin was “still seated in his vehicle,” Parizek said at a press conference, “and he’d been shot and killed.” Parizek said Des Moines officers were called to assist at that scene. The second officer, Des Moines Sergeant Tony Beminio, was found fatally shot about 1:25 a.m. in the intersection of Merle Hay Road and Sheridan Drive, Des Moines Police said in a statement. Beminio was found by another Des Moines officer who was in the area assisting in the search for a suspect in the Urbandale shooting, Des Moines Sergeant Paul Parizek said at a press conference. Beminio was taken to a local hospital, where he later died, Parizek said. The scene of the second shooting is about two miles away from where the Urbandale officer was killed. Beminio, 38, had been with the Des Moines Police Department since 2005. He was promoted to sergeant last year. Martin, 24, joined the Urbandale Police Department in 2015. My cousin Tony Beminio was sergeant with the Des Moines PD. He was killed in cold blood by a coward. Don't make it political. Pray. pic.twitter.com/4yUDYKINOB — Jason (@stlrnhwk) November 2, 2016 Beminio attended Iowa City West High School, where he was a standout football player and wrestler. Tony Beminio, from the days when the horse-collar tackle was still legal. #CountdowntoKickoff – 79 Days: http://t.co/2ePLLknVf7 — West Football (@ICWestFB) June 12, 2013 Both Beminio and Martin graduated from Simpson College, the university’s student newspaper, The Simpsonian, reported. Beminio graduated in 2001 and Martin in 2015. Martin grew up in Rockwell City and was an Eagle Scout. Beminio is the third officer to be killed in the line of duty this year, and the first to die by gunfire, according to the Des Moines Register. Officers Susan Farrell and Carlos Puente-Morales were killed in March when their cruiser was struck head on- in a wrong-way drunken driver, the newspaper reports. “I don’t even know where to begin on how bad this year is,” Sergeant Paul Parizek said at a press conference. But, “This is what we do. We come in day in and day out, we go out there and provide the same level of service regardless of what’s going on in our personal and professional lives.” The Des Moines officer is the first to be shot in the line of duty since two officers were killed in 1977, Parizek said. The Urbandale officer is the first to be fatally shot in the line of duty in the history of the department. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad’s office said in a press release that he had been briefed on the shooting. “An attack on public safety officers is an attack on the public safety of all Iowans. We call on Iowans to support our law enforcement officials in bringing this suspect to justice,” the governor’s office said in a statement. “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the police officers who were tragically killed in the line of duty as well as the officers who continue to put themselves in harm’s way.” The shootings also come in a year when five police officers were killed in Dallas and three officers killed in Baton Rouge in ambush attacks. ||||| The interactive transcript could not be loaded. Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. ||||| Scott Michael Greene (Photo: Des Moines Police) A man suspected of fatally shooting two police officers in the Des Moines metro Wednesday morning was arrested hours later in Dallas County, police said. Scott Michael Greene is suspected of ambushing officers in Des Moines and Urbandale. Police identified Scott Michael Greene as a suspect in the fatal shootings at 7:30 a.m. and by 9:30 a.m. he was taken into custody by the Dallas County Sheriff's Department while walking along a rural road in Redfield, about 35 miles west of where the shootings occurred. According to police, Greene flagged down a passing Department of Natural Resources officer, handed over his ID and told the officer to call police. No shots were fired and there was no struggle, according to police. Greene was transported by ambulance to a Des Moines hospital with an unknown injury. Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2eUH7hc

Two police officers in the Des Moines area were shot and killed while sitting in their patrol cars in two separate attacks overnight, and police now have a suspect in custody, reports the Des Moines Register. He is identified as Scott Michael Greene, a 46-year-old white male. Authorities say he surrendered to a Department of Natural Resources officer without a struggle and was in the custody of the Iowa State Patrol. Police have not speculated about a motive. The first officer, from the Urbandale department, was shot about 1:06am Wednesday at an intersection. The second officer, from the Des Moines department, was shot and killed about 20 minutes later while responding to the first shooting. A post at Heavy.com takes note of this video posted by a Scott Greene who matches the general description of the suspect. Titled "Police Abuse, Civil Rights Violation at Urbandale High School," it shows the man being kicked out of a high school football game "after being offended by the blacks sitting through our anthem."

From the late 1930s through the 2004 crop, the USDA operated the tobacco price support program. It was designed to raise and stabilize farm tobacco prices at higher levels than they otherwise would have reached. This was accomplished through a combination of farm marketing quotas and federal nonrecourse commodity loans. Administration was done through the county offices of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and loan program funding was provided through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). In 1982, legislation was adopted that applied an assessment on all tobacco marketings to be used to offset price support losses and make the loan operations function at no net cost to taxpayers. On two occasions legislation relieved the program of its obligations on large inventories. These actions cost about $1 billion. In addition, Congress made so-called tobacco loss payments of $852 million during FY2000-FY2003 to offset a sharp decline in farm sales to domestic and foreign buyers. Overall, from FY1982 through FY2005, tobacco support net expenditures totaled about $1.57 billion, for an annual average cost of $71 million. After Congress enacted the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-357 ), the tobacco support program came to an end. Tobacco quota owners and farm operators were compensated for the diminished value of their farms and the loss of future support with a payment of $9.6 billion over 10 years, funded by an assessment on tobacco manufacturers and importers. Because of this tobacco buyout, CCC support program expenditures have been eliminated, and it is not anticipated there will be any future ad hoc assistance to tobacco farmers. FSA administrative expenditures associated with the buyout are estimated to be $1.827 million in FY2006, and the budget for FY2007 is zero. (For additional information, see CRS Report RS20802, Tobacco Farmer Assistance , and CRS Report RS22046, Tobacco Quota Buyout .). The federal crop insurance program, administered by USDA's Risk Management Agency, provides farmers with subsidized multi-peril insurance on tobacco and other crops. The insurance covers unavoidable production losses due to adverse weather, insect infestations, plant diseases, and other natural calamities. It does not cover avoidable losses caused by neglect or poor farming practices. Sales and servicing of policies are done by private companies with some federal reimbursement, and most of the net indemnity losses fall upon the government. Additionally, the premiums have been subsidized since 1980 in order to encourage participation and avoid enactment of ad hoc disaster assistance programs. Experimental Crop Revenue Coverage, available for wheat, corn, and soybeans, is not available for tobacco. Total net federal expenditures for tobacco crop insurance coverage include outlays for crop loss indemnity payments, plus the premium subsidies, plus sales administrative expenses, less the farmer-paid premiums. Net federal outlays are estimated to be $27.9 million in FY2006, and are budgeted at $28.7 million for FY2007. The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) carries out voluntary inspection and grading services at tobacco auction markets and import terminals. The establishment of uniform standards of quality, with grading by unbiased experts, helps assure that auction markets perform efficiently and fairly. Historically, federal grading provided an assurance of quality for tobacco held as collateral for CCC price support loans. Additionally, imported and domestic tobacco is inspected voluntarily to guard against illegal pesticide residues. Since 1981, the grading and inspection services have been financed through user fees (now set at $0.62 per 100 pounds for grading and $0.85 per 100 pounds for pesticide testing). These fees are sufficient to fully cover the costs of inspection activities as well as the cost of developing and maintaining the standards applied by the inspectors. This has dramatically reduced the use of AMS inspectors. AMS inspection work now is done on imported tobacco, as nearly all of the domestic crop is contracted for sale rather than auctioned. The Agricultural Marketing Service provides a market news service for sellers and buyers of tobacco. Daily reports of grades, prices, and sales volume at the auction markets are distributed throughout the tobacco industry. The cost of the tobacco news service in FY2006 is an estimated $190,000, and the budget for FY2007 is $194,000. Similar market news services are provided for all major agricultural commodities. Market news services are designed to provide farmers, and others in the marketing chain, with timely, accurate, and unbiased information on market conditions, to help them make better decisions on where and when to sell and buy commodities. According to economists, such information is necessary for a market economy to function efficiently and effectively. In the absence of a taxpayer-funded market news service, the information might be collected and sold by commercial enterprises, but questions of bias could arise. In the past, USDA-funded research related to tobacco production, processing, and marketing. Some of the research was carried out by Agriculture Research Service (ARS) scientists and some was done by university scientists funded through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). Annual research spending by the USDA averaged about $6.6 million until it was terminated under the FY1995 agricultural appropriations law and subsequent laws. The restriction does not apply to research on medical, biotechnological, food, and industrial uses of tobacco. A special research grant of $329,000 was approved for FY2006 to investigate alternative uses of tobacco plant material. No similar spending is anticipated in FY2007. The jointly funded federal-state-county extension education and technical assistance program is designed to serve as a link between the nation's agricultural research institutions and farmers. The term extension conveys the concept of extending the work of researchers into the community. At the county level, extension agents distribute information and expert advice to farmers and others through published materials, seminars, and direct consultation. The state extension staff, given their close proximity to researchers, continuously trains the county agents and designs and prepares materials for use by the county agents. In FY1997, CSREES spent $680,000 on tobacco-related extension activities. Federal funding was eliminated in FY1998 by the Administration and remains at zero. All state and county extension activity related to tobacco is funded by the states. The Economic Research Service (ERS) is responsible for assembling and analyzing economic data and forecasting market data within the USDA. As with the other major commodities, ERS assembles and analyzes supply and demand data on tobacco. ERS periodically publishes analytical findings in a Tobacco Situation and Outlook Report. Economists also conduct studies on related topics, such as the structural characteristics of tobacco farming, the role of tobacco in local economies, and the likely impact of program changes and policy options. ERS spending on tobacco analysis during FY2006 is estimated at $123,000, and the budget for FY2007 is $125,000. The Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS), through its network of agricultural counselors and attaches, collects economic intelligence throughout the world. This intelligence is used by trade negotiators, economists, policymakers, and the business community. Tobacco is one in a long list of commodities on which the FAS staff collects information. The USDA estimates that the cost of this effort for tobacco will be $200,000 in FY2006, and the budget for FY2007 is $205,000. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) collects field-level data on planting intentions, crop conditions, harvesting progress, yield, and production. This information helps the business community, including farmers develop marketing plans. Also, it serves to alert policy officials of likely shortages or surpluses, thereby facilitating plans for any government action that might be taken. The information that NASS compiles and distributes is considered by economists to be critical to an efficiently functioning market economy. It is argued that the absence of NASS data would most severely disadvantage farmers and government officials, who are least able to obtain information through alternative sources. Tobacco is one in a long list of commodities on which NASS staff collects information. The estimated cost of this effort for tobacco is $231,000 in FY2005, and the budget for FY2007 is $231,000.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has long operated programs that directly assist farmers and others with the production and marketing of numerous crops, including tobacco. In most cases, the crops themselves have not been controversial. However, where tobacco is involved, the use of federal funds has been called into question. Taken together, all of the directly tobacco-related activities of the USDA generated net expenditures of an estimated $30.8 million in FY2006, and the budget anticipates net expenditures of $29.5 million for FY2007. Over 90% of this spending is related to crop insurance. The federally financed tobacco price support program, once the major form of tobacco farmer assistance and in some years a costly program, was terminated at the end of crop year 2004. The USDA is prohibited by language in the annual appropriations law from spending funds to help promote tobacco exports and to conduct research relating to production, processing, or marketing of tobacco and tobacco products. Other tobacco-related activities have been subjected to congressional scrutiny. The USDA does operate numerous programs that are not tobacco-specific, but are available to farmers that produce tobacco and other crops. These are not examined in this report.

NEW YORK (AP) — Teen smoking hit a new low last year while the popularity of electronic cigarettes and water pipes boomed, a government report shows. This Wednesday, April 23, 2014 photo shows electronic cigarettes and accessories displayed at a store in Chicago. For the first time, a government survey released on Thursday, April 16, 2015 says U.S.... (Associated Press) The number of high school students who tried e-cigarettes tripled in one year — to more than 13 percent. Water pipes or hookahs were used by 9.4 percent. But smoking of traditional cigarettes plummeted to 9.2 percent from more than 13 percent. That means smoking in high school is now less common than e-cigarette or hookah use. The decline in cigarette smoking "is very dramatic and very encouraging," said Robin Koval, president of Legacy, an anti-smoking organization. The report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mirrors the results of another government-funded study issued in December. The CDC report is based on a national survey of about 22,000 students at middle schools and high schools, both public and private. Similar trends were found for middle school but at lower levels of use. Students were asked whether they had smoked or used a tobacco product in the previous 30 days; those who said yes were deemed current smokers Besides cigarettes, the report found continuing declines in the use of cigars, chewing tobacco and snuff among high school students. CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden this week described the findings as "alarming." He said the decline in use of most tobacco products was more than offset by the growth in nicotine-laden e-cigarettes and hookahs. Some public health experts say the CDC is taking an unusually hard stand against e-cigarettes, at a time when scientists still trying to determine how harmful they are. They started selling in the U.S. in 2006 and are often described as a less dangerous alternative to cigarettes. "The CDC has been very one-sided on the e-cigarette issue," said Kenneth Warner, a University of Michigan public health professor who is a leading authority on smoking and health. E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that produce an odorless vapor that typically contains nicotine and flavorings. Scientists say nicotine is harmful for the developing brain. Frieden said e-cigarettes are a new way of introducing kids to nicotine — and potentially hooking them on tobacco products in the future. "The idea that kids are better off using e-cigarettes is just the wrong way of thinking about it," he said. A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration proposed regulating e-cigarettes, including banning sales to minors. A final rule is expected by June, an FDA spokesman said Thursday. Others were more positive about the new report and the drop in traditional cigarettes, and voiced more uncertainty about the science around e-cigarettes. There's not yet a scientific consensus on whether kids who try e-cigarettes go on to become regular smokers, Koval said. "Is this a gateway in? Or a pathway out? We don't know," she said. Warner said it's also not clear how many of those deemed users of e-cigarettes in the survey tried them once and didn't use them again. "Is it a fad? Or will it stick around and come back to haunt us? We really don't know the implications of this in the long run," he said. ___ Online: CDC report: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr ||||| The use of electronic cigarettes by high school students tripled from 2013 to 2014 — a surprising boom that threatens to wipe out hard-won gains in the fight against teen smoking, a new government report says. The percentage of American high school students who smoked traditional cigarettes on a regular basis dropped from 15.8% in 2011 to 9.2% in 2014, according to a study by a team from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that drop has been more than offset by increases in e-cigarette use, which increased from 1.5% of high school students in 2011 to 13.4% in 2014, the study says. E-cigarettes are now the most popular tobacco product used by both high school and middle school students, the federal data show. As a result, overall tobacco use by high school students — including the use of cigars, pipes, hookahs, bidis, snus and other smokeless tobacco — has remained essentially flat, with nearly 1 in 4 students using some kind of tobacco product. Among them is Dean Wilson, an 18-year-old who attends Polytechnic High School in Long Beach. Though he has tried regular cigarettes, he said he prefers “vaping” with e-cigarettes because they are new and trendy, and because they come in a variety of appealing flavors. He also believes they are less dangerous than traditional cigarettes. “They supposedly have less nicotine,” he said. Fellow student Jose Sanchez said he wouldn't use any type of cigarette because he has asthma and smoking would interfere with his ability to play soccer. But he has certainly noticed his classmates using the electronic devices. “They're a lot more popular now,” he said. “People want to fit in.” With their colorful designs and candy-store flavors, e-cigarettes — battery-powered devices that heat a nicotine solution into a vapor — seem perfectly designed to get kids and teens hooked on nicotine, many public health experts say. The Food and Drug Administration defines e-cigarettes as a tobacco product because they use nicotine. Some experts fear e-cigarettes are becoming a “gateway drug” that makes young people more inclined to try traditional cigarettes, cigars or other dangerous products. “They're like cigarettes on training wheels,” said UC San Francisco tobacco researcher Stanton Glantz. The new study, based on data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey and released Thursday in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, doesn't prove that hypothesis. But it isn't exactly reassuring either. The CDC study backs up a Monitoring the Future report released in December by the University of Michigan, which found that twice as many eighth- and 10th-graders had used e-cigarettes in the previous month than had smoked traditional cigarettes. E-cigarettes were also more popular among 12th-graders, 17% to 14%. The Michigan report was the first to show that e-cigarettes had become teens' tobacco product of choice. Their appeal extends to students in middle schools, the new CDC study shows. In 2014, 3.9% of students in grades six through eight were using e-cigarettes. That was well above the 2.5% rate for traditional cigarettes and for hookahs. Among the high school crowd, hookahs were the second most popular form of tobacco, with 9.4% of students reporting current use. Regular cigarettes came in third, with a 9.2% use rate, followed by cigars at 8.2%. Altogether, 24.6% of ninth- through 12th-graders were regularly using some kind of tobacco product in 2014. That equates to more than 3.7 million teens. An additional 910,000 middle school students were regular tobacco users in 2014, or 7.7% of kids in this age group. The speed with which electronic cigarettes have swept through schools has alarmed the nation's health experts. In 2011, when the CDC first tracked their use, only 1.5% of high school students said they had used the devices in the previous 30 days. That rate tripled to 4.5% by 2013 before tripling again last year. Glantz said he was particularly troubled because “the epidemic was building from the bottom up.” Unlike traditional smoking, a habit that has trickled down from adults to kids, e-cigarettes seem to be gaining the strongest foothold with the youngest users and expanding upward, he said. He added that psychology studies suggest that many kids who pick up e-cigarettes would never have tried traditional cigarettes. “This is explosive growth,” he said. “If we were talking about the spread of any other toxic chemical it would be a public health crisis.” Michael Siegel, a professor of community health sciences at Boston University's School of Public Health, said that public health advocates were drawing the wrong conclusion from the study. “The CDC should be celebrating that we're seeing a decline in youth smoking,” he said. If vaping is a gateway to smoking regular cigarettes, he added, the data would have revealed an increase in their use. “We're getting kids off tobacco,” he said. “That's the goal.” The FDA has been trying to regulate e-cigarettes since 2009, first as medical devices and later as tobacco products. But legal challenges, a lack of clear-cut data on their health effects and other hurdles have slowed the effort. “These staggering increases in such a short time underscore why FDA intends to regulate these additional products to protect public health,” said Mitch Zeller, director of the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products. Last year, the federal agency said it intended to ban e-cigarette sales to minors and require manufacturers to put health warnings on the devices, as is required for traditional cigarettes. These rules have not yet been implemented because the FDA is still reviewing public comments. The FDA's proposal did not include other restrictions that might limit e-cigarettes' appeal to young people, such as restrictions on advertising and flavorings. ||||| Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students — United States, 2011–2014 Please note: An erratum has been published for this article. To view the erratum, please click here. René A. Arrazola, MPH1, Tushar Singh, MD, PhD1,2, Catherine G. Corey, MSPH3, Corinne G. Husten, MD3, Linda J. Neff, PhD1, Benjamin J. Apelberg, PhD3, Rebecca E. Bunnell, PhD1, Conrad J. Choiniere, PhD3, Brian A. King, PhD1, Shanna Cox, MSPH1, Tim McAfee MD1, Ralph S. Caraballo, PhD1 (Author affiliations at end of text) Tobacco use and addiction most often begin during youth and young adulthood (1,2). Youth use of tobacco in any form is unsafe (1). To determine the prevalence and trends of current (past 30-day) use of nine tobacco products (cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes, hookahs, tobacco pipes, snus, dissolvable tobacco, and bidis) among U.S. middle (grades 6–8) and high school (grades 9–12) students, CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analyzed data from the 2011–2014 National Youth Tobacco Surveys (NYTS). In 2014, e-cigarettes were the most commonly used tobacco product among middle (3.9%) and high (13.4%) school students. Between 2011 and 2014, statistically significant increases were observed among these students for current use of both e-cigarettes and hookahs (p<0.05), while decreases were observed for current use of more traditional products, such as cigarettes and cigars, resulting in no change in overall tobacco use. Consequently, 4.6 million middle and high school students continue to be exposed to harmful tobacco product constituents, including nicotine. Nicotine exposure during adolescence, a critical window for brain development, might have lasting adverse consequences for brain development (1), causes addiction (3), and might lead to sustained tobacco use. For this reason, comprehensive and sustained strategies are needed to prevent and reduce the use of all tobacco products among youths in the United States. NYTS is a cross-sectional, school-based, self-administered, pencil-and-paper questionnaire administered to U.S. middle and high school students. Information is collected on tobacco control outcome indicators to monitor the impact of comprehensive tobacco control policies and strategies (4) and inform FDA's regulatory actions (5). A three-stage cluster sampling procedure was used to generate a nationally representative sample of U.S. students who attend public and private schools in grades 6–12. This report includes data from 4 years of NYTS (2011–2014), using an updated definition of current tobacco use that excludes kreteks (sometimes referred to as clove cigarettes).* Of 258 schools selected for the 2014 NYTS, 207 (80.2%) participated, with a sample of 22,007 (91.4%) among 24,084 eligible students; the overall response rate was 73.3%. Sample sizes and overall response rates for 2011, 2012, and 2013 were 18,866 (72.7%), 24,658 (73.6%), and 18,406 (67.8%), respectively. Participants were asked about current (past 30-day) use of cigarettes, cigars (defined as cigars, cigarillos, or little cigars), smokeless tobacco (defined as chewing tobacco, snuff, or dip), e-cigarettes,† hookahs,§ tobacco pipes (pipes),¶ snus, dissolvable tobacco (dissolvables), and bidis. Current use for each product was defined as using a product on ≥1 day during the past 30 days. Tobacco use was categorized as "any tobacco product use," defined as use of one or more tobacco products and "≥2 tobacco product use," defined as use of two or more tobacco products. Data were weighted to account for the complex survey design and adjusted for nonresponse; national prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals and population estimates rounded down to the nearest 10,000 were computed. Estimates for current use in 2014 are presented for any tobacco use, use of ≥2 tobacco products, and use of each tobacco product, by selected demographics for each school level (high and middle). Orthogonal polynomials were used with logistic regression analysis to examine trends from 2011 to 2014 in any tobacco use, use of ≥2 tobacco products, and use of each tobacco product by school level, controlling for grade, race/ethnicity, and sex and simultaneously assessing for linear and nonlinear trends.** A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. SAS-Callable SUDAAN was used for analysis. In 2014, a total of 24.6% of high school students reported current use of a tobacco product, including 12.7% who reported current use of ≥2 tobacco products. Among all high school students, e-cigarettes (13.4%) were the most common tobacco products used, followed by hookahs (9.4%), cigarettes (9.2%), cigars (8.2%), smokeless tobacco (5.5%), snus (1.9%), pipes (1.5%), bidis (0.9%), and dissolvables (0.6%) (Table). Among high school non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics,†† and persons of non-Hispanic other races, e-cigarettes were the most used product, whereas among non-Hispanic blacks, cigars were used most commonly. Current use of any tobacco and ≥2 tobacco products among middle school students was 7.7% and 3.1%, respectively. E-cigarettes (3.9%) were the tobacco product used most commonly by middle school students, followed by hookahs (2.5%), cigarettes (2.5%), cigars (1.9%), smokeless tobacco (1.6%), pipes (0.6%), bidis (0.5%), snus (0.5%), and dissolvables (0.3%). From 2011 to 2014, statistically significant nonlinear increases were observed among high school students for current e-cigarette (1.5% to 13.4%) and hookah (4.1% to 9.4%) use (Figure 1). Statistically significant linear decreases were observed for current cigarette (15.8% to 9.2%) and snus (2.9% to 1.9%) use. Statistically significant nonlinear decreases were observed for current cigar (11.6% to 8.2%), pipe (4.0% to 1.5%), and bidi (2.0% to 0.9%) use. Current use of any tobacco product (24.2% to 24.6%) and use of ≥2 tobacco products (12.5% to 12.7%) did not change significantly from 2011 to 2014. Among middle school students, similar trends were observed during 2011–2014 (Figure 2). A statistically significant linear decrease was observed only in middle school students currently using ≥2 tobacco products (3.8% to 3.1%). In 2014, an estimated 4.6 million middle and high school students currently used any tobacco product, of which an estimated 2.2 million students currently used ≥2 tobacco products. Of current tobacco users, 2.4 million used e-cigarettes and 1.6 million used hookahs. The largest increase in current e-cigarette use occurred from 2013 to 2014. Current e-cigarette use tripled from 2013 (660,000 [4.5%]) to 2014 (2 million [13.4%]) among high school students (Figure 1); and among middle school students, prevalence increased by a similar magnitude, from 1.1% (120,000) to 3.9% (450,000) (Figure 2). From 2013 to 2014, substantial increases also were observed for current hookah use, with prevalence almost doubling for high school students from 5.2% (770,000) to 9.4% (1.3 million) and for middle school students from 1.1% (120,000) to 2.5% (280,000) over this period. Discussion From 2011 to 2014, substantial increases were observed in current e-cigarette and hookah use among middle and high school students, resulting in an overall estimated total of 2.4 million e-cigarette youth users and an estimated 1.6 million hookah youth users in 2014. Statistically significant decreases occurred in the use of cigarettes, cigars, tobacco pipes, bidis, and snus. The increases in current use of e-cigarettes and hookahs offset the decreases in current use of other tobacco products, resulting in no change in overall current tobacco use among middle and high school students. In 2014, one in four high school students and one in 13 middle school students used one or more tobacco products in the last 30 days. In 2014, for the first time in NYTS, current e-cigarette use surpassed current use of every other tobacco product, including cigarettes. These findings are subject to at least three limitations. First, data were collected only from youths who attended either public or private schools and might not be generalizable to all middle and high school-aged youth. Second, current tobacco use was estimated by including students who reported using at least one of the nine tobacco products asked in the survey but might have had missing responses to any of the other eight tobacco products; missing responses were considered as nonuse, which might have resulted in underestimated results. Finally, changes between 2013 and 2014 in the wording and placement of questions about the use of e-cigarettes, hookahs, and tobacco pipes might have had an impact on reported use of these products. Despite these limitations, overall prevalence estimates are similar to the findings of other nationally representative youth surveys (6,7). Tobacco prevention and control strategies, including increasing tobacco product prices, adopting comprehensive smoke-free laws, and implementation of national public education media campaigns, might have influenced the reduction of cigarette smoking in youths (2). However, the lack of decline in overall tobacco use from 2011 to 2014 is concerning and indicates that an estimated 4.6 million youths continue to be exposed to harmful constituents, including nicotine, present in tobacco products (Table). Youth use of tobacco in any form, whether it be combustible, noncombustible, or electronic, is unsafe (1); regardless of mode of delivery, nicotine exposure during adolescence, a critical time for brain development, might have lasting adverse consequences for brain development (1), causes addiction (3), and might lead to sustained use of tobacco products. Rapid changes in use of traditional and emerging tobacco products among youths underscore the importance of enhanced surveillance of all tobacco use. Sustained efforts to implement proven tobacco control policies and strategies are necessary to prevent youth use of all tobacco products. In April 2014, FDA issued a proposed rule to deem all products made or derived from tobacco subject to FDA jurisdiction, and the agency is reviewing public comments on the proposed rule (8). Regulation of the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products coupled with full implementation of comprehensive tobacco control and prevention strategies at CDC-recommended funding levels could reduce youth tobacco use and initiation (1,2,9). Because use of emerging tobacco products (e-cigarettes and hookahs) is increasing among middle and high school students, it is critical that comprehensive tobacco control and prevention strategies for youths should address all tobacco products and not just cigarettes. 1Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC; 2Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC; 3Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration (Corresponding contributor: René A. Arrazola, [email protected], 770-488-2414.) References US Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2014. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/50th-anniversary/index.htm. US Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2012. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2012/index.htm. US Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking: nicotine addiction: a report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 1988. Available at http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/B/Z/D. CDC. Key outcome indicators for evaluating comprehensive tobacco control programs. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services CDC; 2005. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/key_outcome. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, H.R. 1256 (2009). Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ31/html/PLAW-111publ31.htm. Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Miech RA, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the future, national survey results on drug use: 1975–2014: overview, key findings on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; 2015. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: summary of national findings, NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4863. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014. Available at http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf. Food and Drug Administration. Deeming tobacco products to be subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; regulations on the sale and distribution of tobacco products and required warning statements for tobacco products. Federal Register: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2014. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/04/25/2014-09491/deeming-tobacco-products-to-be-subject-to-the-federal-food-drug-and-cosmetic-act-as-amended-by-the. CDC. Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs—2014. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2014. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/best_practices/index.htm. What is already known on this topic? Tobacco use and addiction most often begins during youth and young adulthood. Youth use of tobacco in any form is unsafe and might have lasting adverse consequences on their developing brains. What is added by this report? In 2014, an estimated 4.6 million youths, including 3.7 million high school and 900,000 middle school students, reported current use (use on one or more days in the past 30 days) of any tobacco product. From 2011 to 2014, statistically significant increases were observed in e-cigarette and hookah use among high school and middle school students, while statistically significant decreases were observed in the use of cigarettes, cigars, tobacco pipes, bidis, and snus. The increases in current use of e-cigarettes and hookahs offset the decreases in other tobacco products, resulting in no change in overall current tobacco use among youths. What are the implications for public health practice? In 2014, nearly one in four high school students and one in 13 middle school students reported current use of any tobacco product. Because the use of emerging tobacco products (e-cigarettes and hookahs) is on the rise among middle and high school students, it is critical that comprehensive tobacco control and prevention strategies for youths should address all tobacco products and not just cigarettes. TABLE. Estimated percentage of tobacco use in the preceding 30 days by product,* school level, sex, and race/ethnicity — National Youth Tobacco Survey, United States, 2014 Tobacco product Sex Race/Ethnicity Total Female Male Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic† Non-Hispanic other race % (95% CI) % (95% CI) % (95% CI) % (95% CI) % (95% CI) % (95% CI) % (95% CI) Estimated no. of users§ High school students Electronic cigarettes 11.9 (9.7–14.5) 15.0 (12.4–18.2) 15.3 (12.4–18.8) 5.6 (3.7–8.5) 15.3 (11.8–19.5) 9.4 (6.8–12.9) 13.4 (11.2–16.1) 2,010,000 Hookah 9.8 (8.3–11.5) 8.9 (7.5–10.4) 9.4 (8.0–11.0) 5.6 (4.3–7.2) 13.0 (10.5–16.0) 6.0 (4.0–8.8) 9.4 (8.2–10.7) 1,380,000 Cigarettes 7.9 (6.8–9.1) 10.6 (9.0–12.4) 10.8 (9.3–12.5) 4.5 (3.6–5.8) 8.8 (7.2–10.7) 5.3 (3.5–7.8) 9.2 (8.1–10.4) 1,370,000 Cigars 5.5 (4.6–6.7) 10.8 (9.5–12.3) 8.3 (7.1–9.7) 8.8 (6.8–11.4) 8.0 (6.5–9.8) 2.6 (1.7–4.2) 8.2 (7.2–9.2) 1,200,000 Smokeless tobacco 1.2 (0.9–1.6) 9.9 (8.1–12.1) 7.8 (6.4–9.5) 1.1 (0.6–2.0) 3.1 (2.3–4.1) —¶ — 5.5 (4.6–6.7) 830,000 Snus 0.8 (0.6–1.2) 3.0 (2.2–4.0) 2.4 (1.8–3.2) 0.6 (0.4–1.1) 1.5 (1.0–2.3) — — 1.9 (1.5–2.4) 280,000 Pipes 0.9 (0.7–1.3) 2.1 (1.6–2.9) 1.9 (1.4–2.5) — — 1.5 (1.0–2.2) — — 1.5 (1.2–2.0) 220,000 Bidis 0.6 (0.4–0.8) 1.2 (0.9–1.6) 0.8 (0.6–1.2) — — 1.1 (0.7–1.7) — — 0.9 (0.7–1.2) 130,000 Dissolvable tobacco 0.4 (0.2–0.6) 0.8 (0.5–1.1) 0.6 (0.4–0.9) — — 0.7 (0.4–1.2) — — 0.6 (0.5–0.8) 80,000 Any tobacco product use** 20.9 (18.8–23.2) 28.3 (25.6–31.1) 26.5 (23.9–29.4) 17.2 (14.8–20.0) 26.7 (23.0–30.7) 15.3 (11.5–20.1) 24.6 (22.6–26.7) 3,720,000 ≥ 2 tobacco product use†† 10.0 (8.6–11.6) 15.3 (13.4–17.4) 15.1 (13.3–17.1) 5.4 (4.0–7.3) 12.6 (10.5–15.1) 7.0 (4.7–10.1) 12.7 (11.2–14.3) 1,910,000 Middle school students Electronic cigarettes 3.3 (2.5–4.3) 4.5 (3.4–5.9) 3.1 (2.2–4.2) 3.8 (2.5–5.6) 6.2 (4.8–7.9) — — 3.9 (3.0–5.0) 450,000 Hookah 2.6 (1.9–3.5) 2.4 (1.9–3.0) 1.4 (1.1–1.9) — — 5.6 (4.4–7.1) — — 2.5 (2.0–3.0) 280,000 Cigarettes 2.0 (1.5–2.6) 3.0 (2.3–3.9) 2.2 (1.6–3.1) 1.7 (1.1–2.9) 3.7 (2.7–5.1) — — 2.5 (2.1–3.0) 290,000 Cigars 1.4 (1.0–2.1) 2.4 (1.7–3.5) 1.4 (0.9–2.4) 2.0 (1.3–2.9) 2.9 (2.2–3.8) — — 1.9 (1.5–2.5) 220,000 Smokeless tobacco — — 2.1 (1.4–3.1) 1.7 (1.1–2.6) — — 1.3 (0.9–2.0) 2.4 (1.4–4.1) 1.6 (1.2–2.2) 180,000 Snus — — 0.7 (0.4–1.2) — — — — — — — — 0.5 (0.3–0.8) 50,000 Pipes — — 0.6 (0.4–0.9) 0.5 (0.3–0.8) — — 0.9 (0.6–1.4) — — 0.6 (0.4–0.8) 60,000 Bidis 0.3 (0.2–0.5) — — — — — — 0.6 (0.4–0.9) — — 0.5 (0.3–0.9) 60,000 Dissolvable tobacco — — 0.4 (0.2–0.6) — — — — — — — — 0.3 (0.1–0.5) 30,000 Any tobacco product use 6.6 (5.4–8.1) 8.8 (7.6–10.1) 6.2 (5.1–7.4) 7.3 (5.6–9.3) 11.8 (9.9–14.1) 6.4 (4.1–9.9) 7.7 (6.7–8.9) 910,000 ≥2 tobacco product use 2.4 (1.8–3.1) 3.8 (3.0–4.7) 2.5 (1.9–3.3) 2.0 (1.3–3.2) 5.0 (4.2–5.9) — — 3.1 (2.6–3.7) 360,000 FIGURE 1. Estimated percentage of high school students who used tobacco in the preceding 30 days, by tobacco product — National Youth Tobacco Survey, United States, 2011–2014 Alternate Text: The figure above is a bar chart showing the estimated percentage of high school students who used tobacco in the preceding 30 days, by tobacco product, in the United States during 2011-2014.

You're a lot more likely to find high school and middle school students using electronic cigarettes or even hookahs than traditional cigarettes, according to a new CDC report. Among high schoolers, cigarette use dived from more than 13% to 9.2% in 2014, but the use of e-cigarettes tripled from 4.5% to over 13% the same year, having already tripled from 1.5% in 2011, reports the Los Angeles Times. Hookah use nearly doubled to 9.4%, knocking cigarettes into third place and worrying health experts who warn that using the water pipes, unlike some other alternatives, carries many of the same risks as smoking cigarettes. Overall, 24.6% of high schoolers and 7.7% of middle school kids used some kind of tobacco product last year, the study found. CDC Director Tom Frieden calls the results "alarming" and warns that e-cigarette use is getting kids hooked on nicotine, the AP reports. "The idea that kids are better off using e-cigarettes is just the wrong way of thinking about it," he says, but others aren't so sure. "The CDC should be celebrating that we're seeing a decline in youth smoking," a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health tells the Times, adding that if e-cigarettes were a gateway to regular cigarettes, as some health advocates warn, teen smoking rates would be going up instead of down. (Earlier this year, California declared vaping a public health risk.)

Boeing and TRW disclosed the key results and limitations of Integrated Flight Test 1A in written reports released between August 13, 1997, and April 1, 1998. The contractors explained in a report issued 60 days after the June 1997 test that the test achieved its primary objectives, but that some sensor abnormalities were noted. For example, while the report explained that the sensor detected the deployed targets and collected some usable target signals, the report also stated that some sensor components did not operate as desired and the sensor often detected targets where there were none. In December 1997, the contractors documented other test anomalies. According to briefing charts prepared for a December meeting, the Boeing sensor tested in Integrated Flight Test 1A had a low probability of detection; the sensor’s software was not always confident that it had correctly identified some target objects; the software significantly increased the rank of one target object toward the end of the flight; and in-flight calibration of the sensor was inconsistent. Additionally, on April 1, 1998, the contractors submitted an addendum to an earlier report that noted two more problems. In this addendum, the contractors disclosed that their claim that TRW’s software successfully distinguished a mock warhead from decoys during a post-flight analysis was based on tests of the software using about one-third of the target signals collected during Integrated Flight Test 1A. The contractors also noted that TRW reduced the software’s reference data so that it would correspond to the collected target signals being analyzed. Project office and Nichols Research officials said that in late August 1997, the contractors orally communicated to them all problems and limitations that were subsequently described in the December 1997 briefing and the April 1998 addendum. However, neither project officials nor contractors could provide us with documentation of these communications. Although the contractors reported the test’s key results and limitations, they described the results using some terms that were not defined. For example, one written report characterized the test as a “success” and the sensor’s performance as “excellent.” We found that the information in the contractors’ reports, in total, enabled officials in the Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office and Nichols Research to understand the key results and limitations of the test. However, because such terms are qualitative and subjective rather than quantitative and objective, their use increased the likelihood that test results would be interpreted in different ways and might even be misunderstood. As part of our ongoing review of missile defense testing, we are examining the need for improvements in test reporting. Appendix I provides details on the test and the information disclosed. The Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office relied on an on- site engineer and Nichols Research Corporation to provide insight into Boeing’s work. The project office also relied on Boeing to oversee the performance of its subcontractor, TRW. Oversight was limited by the ongoing competition between Boeing and another contractor competing for the exoatmospheric kill vehicle contract because the Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office and its support contractors had to be careful not to affect competition by assisting one contractor more than another. Project officials said that they relied more on “insight” into the contractors’ work rather than oversight of that work. Nichols gained program insight by attending technical meetings, assessing test reports, and sometimes evaluating technologies proposed by Boeing and TRW. For more information on how the project office exercised oversight over its contractors’ technical performance, see appendix II. Boeing and TRW reported that post-flight testing and analysis of data collected during Integrated Flight Test 1A showed that deployed target objects displayed distinguishable features when observed by an infrared sensor. The contractors reported the test also showed that Boeing’s exoatmospheric kill vehicle sensor could collect target signals from which TRW’s software could extract distinguishable features and that the software could identify the mock warhead from other objects by comparing the extracted features to the features that it had been told to expect each object to display. However, there has been no independent verification of these claims. We talked with Dr. Mike Munn, who was, during the 1980s, the Chief Scientist for missile defense programs at Lockheed Missiles and Space Company. He agreed that a warhead and decoys deployed in the exoatmosphere likely display distinguishable differences in the infrared spectrum. However, the differences may not be fully understood or there may not presently be methods to predict the differences. Dr. Munn added that the key was in the ability to make both accurate and precise measurements and also to predict signatures accurately. He emphasized that robust discrimination depends on the ability to predict signatures and then to match in-space measurements with those predictions. The Phase One Engineering Team and Nichols Research Corporation have noted that TRW's software used prior knowledge of warhead and decoy differences, to the maximum extent available, to discriminate one object from the other and cautioned such knowledge may not always be available in the real world. National Missile Defense program officials said that after considerable debate among themselves and contractors, the program manager reduced the number of decoys planned for intercept flight tests in response to a recommendation by an independent panel, known as the Welch Panel.The panel, established to reduce risk in ballistic missile defense flight test programs, viewed a successful hit-to-kill engagement as a difficult task that should not be further complicated in early tests by the addition of decoys. After contemplating the advice of the Welch panel and considering the opinions of program officials and contractors who disagreed over the number and complexity of decoys that should be deployed in future tests, the program manager decided that early tests should include only one decoy, a large balloon. See appendix III for more information on the reduction of decoys in later tests. The Phase One Engineering Team was tasked by the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office to assess the performance of TRW’s software and to complete the assessment within 2 months using available data. The team's methodology included determining if TRW’s software was based on sound mathematical, engineering, and scientific principles and testing the software’s critical modules using data from Integrated Flight Test 1A. The team reported that although the software had weaknesses, it was well designed and worked properly, with only some changes needed to increase the robustness of the discrimination function. Further, the team reported that the results of its test of the software using Integrated Flight Test 1A data produced essentially the same results as those reported by TRW. Based on its analysis, team members predicted that the software would perform successfully in a future intercept test if target objects deployed as expected. Because the Phase One Engineering Team did not process the raw data from Integrated Flight Test 1A or develop its own reference data, the team cannot be said to have definitively proved or disproved TRW’s claim that its software successfully discriminated the mock warhead from decoys using data collected from Integrated Flight Test 1A. A team member told us its use of Boeing- and TRW-provided data was appropriate because the former TRW employee had not alleged that the contractors tampered with the raw test data or used inappropriate reference data. Appendix IV provides additional details on the Phase One Engineering Team evaluation. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Defense concurred with our findings. It also suggested technical changes, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Department's comments are reprinted in appendix VII. We conducted our review from August 2000 through February 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix VI provides details on our scope and methodology. The National Missile Defense Joint Program Office’s process for releasing documents significantly slowed our work. For example, the program office took approximately 4 months to release key documents such as the Phase One Engineering Team’s response to the professor’s allegations. We requested these and other documents on September 14, 2000, and received them on January 9, 2001. As arranged with your staff, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we plan to provide copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services; the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense; the House Committee on Armed Services; and the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense; and the Secretary of Defense; and the Director, Missile Defense Agency. We will make copies available to others upon request. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact Bob Levin, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, on (202) 512-4841; Jack Brock, Managing Director, on (202) 512-4841; or Keith Rhodes, Chief Technologist, on (202) 512-6412. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VIII. Boeing and TRW disclosed the key results and limitations of an early sensor flight test, known as Integrated Flight Test 1A, to the Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office. The contractors included some key results and limitations in written reports submitted soon after the June 1997 test, but others were not included in written reports until December 1997 or April 1998. However, according to project office and Nichols officials, all problems and limitations included in the written reports were communicated orally to the project management office in late August 1997. The deputy project office manager said his office did not report these verbal communications to others within the Program Office or the Department of Defense because the project office was the office within the Department responsible for the Boeing contract. One problem that was included in initial reports to program officials was a malfunctioning cooling mechanism that did not lower the sensor’s temperature to the desired level. Boeing characterized the mechanism’s performance as somewhat below expectations but functioning well enough for the sensor’s operation. We hired experts to determine the extent to which the problem could affect the sensor’s performance. The experts found that the cooling problem degraded the sensor’s performance in a number of ways, but would not likely result in extreme performance degradation. The experts studied only how increased noise affected the sensor’s performance regarding comparative strengths of the target signals and the noise (signal to noise ratio). The experts did not evaluate discrimination performance, which is dependent on the measurement accuracy of the collected infrared signals. The experts’ findings are discussed in more detail later in this appendix. Integrated Flight Test 1A, conducted in June 1997, was a test of the Boeing sensor—a highly sensitive, compact, infrared device, consisting of an array of silicon detectors, that is normally mounted on the exoatmospheric kill vehicle. However, in this test, a surrogate launch vehicle carried the sensor above the earth’s atmosphere to view a cluster of target objects that included a mock warhead and various decoys. When the sensor detected the target cluster, its silicon detectors began to make precise measurements of the infrared radiation emitted by the target objects. Over the tens of seconds that the target objects were within its field of view, the sensor continuously converted the infrared radiation into an electrical current, or signal, proportional to the amount of energy collected by the detectors. The sensor then digitized the signal (converted the signals into numerical values), completed a preliminary part of the planned signal processing, and formatted the signal so that it could be transmitted via a data link to a recorder on the ground. After the test, Boeing processed the signals further and formatted them so that TRW could input the signals into its discrimination software to assess its capability to distinguish the mock warhead from decoys. In post-flight ground testing, the software analyzed the processed data and identified the key characteristics, or features, of each signal. The software then compared the features it extracted to the expected features of various types of target objects. Based on this comparison, the software ranked each item according to its likelihood of being the mock warhead. TRW reported that the highest- ranked object was the mock warhead. The primary objective of Integrated Flight Test 1A was to reduce risk in future flight tests. Specifically, the test was designed to determine if the sensor could operate in space; to examine the extent to which the sensor could detect small differences in infrared emissions; to determine if the sensor was accurately calibrated; and to collect target signature data for post-mission discrimination analysis. In addition, Boeing established quantitative requirements for the test. For example, the sensor was expected to acquire the target objects at a specified distance. According to a Nichols’ engineer, Boeing established these requirements to ensure that its exoatmospheric kill vehicle, when fully developed, could destroy a warhead with the single shot precision (expressed as a probability) required by the Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office. The engineer said that in Integrated Flight Test 1A, Boeing planned to measure its sensor’s performance against these lower-level requirements so that Boeing engineers could determine which sensor elements, including the software, required further refinement. However, the engineer told us that because of the various sensor problems, of which the contractor and project office were aware, Boeing determined before the test that it would not use most of these requirements to judge the sensor’s performance. (Although Boeing did not judge the performance of its sensor against the requirements as it originally planned, Boeing did, in some cases, report the sensor’s performance in terms of these requirements. For a summary of selected test requirements and the sensor’s performance as reported by Boeing and TRW in their August 22, 1997, report, see app. V.) Table 1 provides details on the key results and limitations of Integrated Flight Test 1A that contractors disclosed in various written reports and briefing charts. Although the contractors disclosed the key results and limitations of the flight test in written reports and in discussions, the written reports described the results using some terms that were not defined. For example, in their August 22, 1997, report, Boeing and TRW described Integrated Flight Test 1A as a “success” and the performance of the Boeing sensor as “excellent.” We asked the contractors to explain their use of these terms. We asked Boeing, for example, why it characterized its sensor’s performance as “excellent” when the sensor’s silicon detector array did not cool to the desired temperature, the sensor’s power supply created excess noise, and the sensor detected numerous false targets. Boeing said that even though the silicon detector array operated at temperatures 20 to 30 percent higher than desired, the sensor produced useful data. Officials said they knew of no other sensor that would be capable of producing any useful data under those conditions. Boeing officials went on to say that the sensor continuously produced usable, and, much of the time, excellent data in “real-time” during flight. In addition, officials said the sensor component responsible for suppressing background noise in the silicon detector array performed perfectly in space and the silicon detectors collected data in more than one wave band. Boeing concluded that the sensor’s performance allowed the test to meet all mission objectives. Based on our review of the reports and discussions with officials in the Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office and Nichols Research, we found that the contractors’ reports, in total, contained information for those officials to understand the key results and limitations of the test. However, because terms such as “success” and “excellent” are qualitative and subjective rather than quantitative and objective, we believe their use increases the likelihood that test results would be interpreted in different ways and could even be misunderstood. As part of our ongoing review of missile defense testing, we are examining the need for improvements in test reporting. This report, sometimes referred to as the 45-day report, was a series of briefing charts. In it, contractors reported that Integrated Flight Test 1A achieved its principal objectives of reducing risks for subsequent flight tests, demonstrating the performance of the exoatmospheric kill vehicle’s sensor, and collecting target signature data. In addition, the report stated that TRW’s software successfully distinguished a mock warhead from accompanying decoys. The August 22 report, known as the 60-day report, was a lengthy document that disclosed much more than the August 13 report. As discussed in more detail below, the report explained that some sensor abnormalities were observed during the test, that some signals collected from the target objects were degraded, that the launch vehicle carrying the sensor into space adversely affected the sensor’s ability to collect target signals, and that the sensor sometimes detected targets where there were none. These problems were all noted in the body of the report, but the report summary stated that review and analysis subsequent to the test confirmed the “excellent” performance and nominal operation of all sensor subsystems. Boeing disclosed in the report that sensor abnormalities were observed during the test and that the sensor experienced a higher than expected false alarm rate. These abnormalities were (1) a cooling mechanism that did not bring the sensor’s silicon detectors to the intended operating temperature, (2) a power supply unit that created excess noise, and (3) software that did not function as designed because of the slow turnaround of the surrogate launch vehicle. In the report’s summary, Boeing characterized the cooling mechanism’s performance as somewhat below expectations but functioning well enough for the sensor’s operation. In the body of the report, Boeing said that the fluctuations in temperature could lead to an apparent decrease in sensor performance. Additionally, Boeing engineers told us that the cooling mechanism’s failure to bring the silicon detector array to the required temperature caused the detectors to be noisy. Because the discrimination software identifies objects as a warhead or a decoy by comparing the features of a target’s signal with those it expects a warhead or decoy to display, a noisy signal may confuse the software. Boeing and TRW engineers said that they and program office officials were aware that there was a problem with the sensor’s cooling mechanism before the test was conducted. However, Boeing believed that the sensor would perform adequately at higher temperatures. According to contractor documents, the sensor did not perform as well as expected, and some target signals were degraded more than anticipated. Boeing disclosed in the report that sensor abnormalities were observed during the test and that the sensor experienced a higher than expected false alarm rate. These abnormalities were (1) a cooling mechanism that did not bring the sensor’s silicon detectors to the intended operating temperature, (2) a power supply unit that created excess noise, and (3) software that did not function as designed because of the slow turnaround of the surrogate launch vehicle. In the report’s summary, Boeing characterized the cooling mechanism’s performance as somewhat below expectations but functioning well enough for the sensor’s operation. In the body of the report, Boeing said that the fluctuations in temperature could lead to an apparent decrease in sensor performance. Additionally, Boeing engineers told us that the cooling mechanism’s failure to bring the silicon detector array to the required temperature caused the detectors to be noisy. Because the discrimination software identifies objects as a warhead or a decoy by comparing the features of a target’s signal with those it expects a warhead or decoy to display, a noisy signal may confuse the software. Boeing and TRW engineers said that they and program office officials were aware that there was a problem with the sensor’s cooling mechanism before the test was conducted. However, Boeing believed that the sensor would perform adequately at higher temperatures. According to contractor documents, the sensor did not perform as well as expected, and some target signals were degraded more than anticipated. The report also referred to a problem with the sensor’s power supply unit and its effect on target signals. An expert we hired to evaluate the sensor’s performance at higher than expected temperatures found that the power supply, rather than the temperature, was the primary cause of excess noise early in the sensor’s flight. Boeing engineers told us that they were aware that the power supply was noisy before the test, but, as shown by the test, it was worse than expected. The report explained that, as expected before the flight, the slow turnaround of the massive launch vehicle on which the sensor was mounted in Integrated Flight Test 1A caused the loss of some target signals. Engineers explained to us that the sensor would eventually be mounted on the lighter, more agile exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which would move back and forth to detect objects that did not initially appear in the sensor’s field of view. The engineers said that Boeing designed software that takes into account the kill vehicle’s normal motion to remove the background noise, but the software’s effectiveness depended on the fast movement of the kill vehicle. Boeing engineers told us that, because of the slow turnaround of the launch vehicle used in the test, the target signals detected during the turnaround were particularly noisy and the software sometimes removed not only the noise but the entire signal as well. The report mentioned that the sensor experienced more false alarms than expected. A false alarm is a detection of a target that is not there. According to the experts we hired, during Integrated Flight Test 1A, the Boeing sensor often mistakenly identified noise produced by the power supply as signals from actual target objects. In a fully automated discrimination software program, a high false alarm rate could overwhelm the tracking software. Because the post-flight processing tools were not fully developed at the time of the August 13 and August 22, 1997, reports, Boeing did not rely upon a fully automated tracking system when it processed the Integrated Flight Test 1A data. Instead, a Boeing engineer manually tracked the target objects. The contractors realized, and reported to the Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office, that numerous false alarms could cause problems in future flight tests, and they identified software changes to reduce their occurrence. On December 11, 1997, Boeing and TRW briefed officials from the Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office and one of its support contractors on various anomalies observed during Integrated Flight Test 1A. The contractors’ briefing charts explained the effect the anomalies could have on Integrated Flight Test 3, the first planned intercept test for the Boeing exoatmospheric kill vehicle, identified potential causes of the anomalies, and summarized the solutions to mitigate their effect. While some of the anomalies included in the December 11 briefing charts were referred to in the August 13 and August 22 reports, others were being reported in writing for the first time. The anomalies referenced in the briefing charts included the sensor’s high false alarm rate, the silicon detector array’s higher-than-expected temperature, the software’s low confidence factor that it had correctly identified two target objects correctly, the sensor’s lower than expected probability of detection, and the software’s elevation in rank of one target object toward the end of the test. In addition, the charts showed that an in-flight attempt to calibrate the sensor was inconsistent. According to the charts, actions to prevent similar anomalies from occurring or impacting Integrated Flight Test 3 had in most cases already been implemented or were under way. The contractors again recognized that a large number of false alarms occurred during Integrated Flight Test 1A. According to the briefing charts, false alarms occurred during the slow turnarounds of the surrogate launch vehicle. Additionally, the contractors hypothesized that some false alarms resulted from space-ionizing events. By December 11, engineers had identified solutions to reduce the number of false alarms in future tests. As they had in the August 22, 1997, report, the contractors recognized that the silicon detector array did not cool properly during Integrated Flight Test 1A. The contractors reported that higher silicon detector array temperatures could cause noisy signals that would adversely impact the detector array’s ability to estimate the infrared intensity of observed objects. Efforts to eliminate the impact of the higher temperatures, should they occur in future tests, were on-going at the time of the briefing. Contractors observed that the confidence factor produced by the software was small for two target objects. The software equation that makes a determination as to how confident the software should be to identify a target object correctly, did not work properly for the large balloon or multiple-service launch vehicle. Corrections to the equation had been made by the time of the briefing. The charts state that the Integrated Flight Test 1A sensor had a lower than anticipated probability of detection and a high false alarm rate. Because a part of the tracking, fusion, and discrimination software was designed for a sensor with a high probability of detection and a low false alarm rate, the software did not function optimally and needed revision. Changes to prevent this from happening in future flight tests were under way. The briefing charts showed that TRW’s software significantly increased the rank of one target object just before target objects began to leave the sensor’s field of view. Although a later Integrated Flight Test 1A report stated the mock warhead was consistently ranked as the most likely target, the charts show that if in Integrated Flight Test 3 the same object’s rank began to increase, the software could select the object as the intercept target. In the briefing charts, the contractors reported that TRW made a software change in the model that is used to generate reference data. When reference data was generated with the software change, the importance of the mock warhead increased, and it was selected as the target. Tests of the software change were in progress as of December 11. The Boeing sensor measures the infrared emissions of target objects by converting the collected signals into intensity with the help of calibration data obtained from the sensor prior to flight. However, the sensor was not calibrated at the higher temperature range that was experienced during Integrated Flight Test 1A. To remedy the problem, the sensor viewed a star with known infrared emissions. The measurement of the star’s intensity was to have helped fill the gaps in calibration data that was essential to making accurate measurements of the target object signals. Boeing disclosed that the corrections based on the star calibration were inconsistent and did not improve the match of calculated and measured target signatures. Boeing subsequently told us that the star calibration corrections were effective for one of the wavelength bands, but not for another, and that the inconsistency referred to in the briefing charts was in how these bands behaved at temperatures above the intended operating range. Efforts to find and implement solutions were in progress. On April 1, 1998, Boeing submitted a revised addendum to replace an addendum that had accompanied the August 22, 1997, report. This revised addendum was prepared in response to comments and questions submitted by officials from the Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office, Nichols Research Corporation, and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service concerning the August 22 report. In this addendum, the contractors referred in writing to three problems and limitations that had not been addressed in earlier written test reports or the December 11 briefing. Contractors noted that a gap-filling module, which was designed to replace noisy or missing signals, did not operate as designed. They also disclosed that TRW’s analysis of its discrimination software used target signals collected during a selected portion of the flight timeline and used a portion of the Integrated Flight Test 1A reference data that corresponded to this same timeline. The April 1 addendum reported that a gap-filling module that was designed to replace portions of noisy or missing target signals with expected signal values did not operate as designed. TRW officials told us that the module’s replacement values were too conservative and resulted in a poor match between collected signals and the signals the software expected the target objects to display. The April 1, 1998, addendum also disclosed that the August 13 and August 22 reports, in which TRW conveyed that its software successfully distinguished the mock warhead from decoys, were based on tests of the software using about one-third of the target signals collected during Integrated Flight Test 1A. We talked to TRW officials who told us that Boeing provided several data sets to TRW, including the full data set. The officials said that Boeing provided target signals from the entire timeline to a TRW office that was developing a prototype version of the exoatmospheric kill vehicle’s tracking, fusion, and discrimination software, which was not yet operational. However, TRW representatives said that the test bed version of the software that TRW was using so that it could submit its analysis within 60 days of Integrated Flight Test 1A could not process the full data set. The officials said that shortly before the August 22 report was issued, the prototype version of the tracking, fusion, and discrimination software became functional and engineers were able to use the software to assess the expanded set of target signals. According to the officials, this assessment also resulted in the software’s selecting the mock warhead as the most likely target. In our review of the August 22 report, we found no analysis of the expanded set of target signals. The April 1, 1998, report, did include an analysis of a few additional seconds of data collected near the end of Integrated Flight Test 1A, but did not include an analysis of target signals collected at the beginning of the flight. Most of the signals that were excluded from TRW's discrimination analysis were collected during the early part of the flight, when the sensor’s temperature was fluctuating. TRW told us that their software was designed to drop a target object’s track if the tracking portion of the software received no data updates for a defined period. This design feature was meant to reduce false tracks that the software might establish if the sensor detected targets where there were none. In Integrated Flight Test 1A, the fluctuation of the sensor’s temperature caused the loss of target signals. TRW engineers said that Boeing recognized that this interruption would cause TRW’s software to stop tracking all target objects and restart the discrimination process. Therefore, Boeing focused its efforts on processing those target signals that were collected after the sensor’s temperature stabilized and signals were collected continuously. Some signals collected during the last seconds of the sensor’s flight were also excluded. The former TRW employee alleged that these latter signals were excluded because during this time a decoy was selected as the target. The Phase One Engineering Team cited one explanation for the exclusion of the signals. The team said that TRW stopped using data when objects began leaving the sensor’s field of view. Our review did not confirm this explanation. We reviewed the target intensities derived from the infrared frames covering that period and found that several seconds of data were excluded before objects began to leave the field of view. Boeing officials gave us another explanation. They said that target signals collected during the last few seconds of the flight were streaking, or blurring, because the sensor was viewing the target objects as it flew by them. Boeing told us that streaking would not occur in an intercept flight because the kill vehicle would have continued to approach the target objects. We could not confirm that the test of TRW’s discrimination software, as explained in the August 22, 1997, report, included all target signals that did not streak. We noted that the April 1, 1998, addendum shows that TRW analyzed several more seconds of target signals than is shown in the August 22, 1997, report. It was in these additional seconds that the software began to increase the rank of one decoy as it assessed which target object was most likely the mock warhead. However, the April 1, 1998, addendum also shows that even though the decoy’s rank increased the software continued to rank the mock warhead as the most likely target. But, because not all of the Integrated Flight Test 1A timeline was presented in the April 1 addendum, we could not determine whether any portion of the excluded timeline might have been useful data and if there were additional seconds of useful data whether a target object other than the mock warhead might have been ranked as the most likely target. The April 1 addendum also documented that portions of the reference data developed for Integrated Flight Test 1A were also excluded from the discrimination analysis. Nichols and project office officials told us the software identifies the various target objects by comparing the target signals collected from each object at a given point in their flight to the target signals it expects each object to display at that same point in the flight. Therefore, when target signals collected during a portion of the flight timeline are excluded, reference data developed for the same portion of the timeline must be excluded. Officials in the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office’s Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office and Nichols Research told us that soon after Integrated Flight Test 1A the contractors orally disclosed all of the problems and limitations cited in the December 11, 1997, briefing and the April 1, 1998, addendum. Contractors made these disclosures to project office and Nichols Research officials during meetings that were held to review Integrated Flight Test 1A results sometime in late August 1997. The project office and contractors could not, however, provide us with documentation of these disclosures. The current Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office deputy manager said that the problems that contractors discussed with his office were not specifically communicated to others within the Department of Defense because his office was the office within the Department responsible for the Boeing contract. The project office’s assessment was that these problems did not compromise the reported success of the mission, were similar in nature to problems normally found in initial developmental tests, and could be easily corrected. Because we questioned whether Boeing’s sensor could collect any usable target signals if the silicon detector array was not cooled to the desired temperature, we hired sensor experts at Utah State University’s Space Dynamics Laboratory to determine the extent to which the sub-optimal cooling degraded the sensor’s performance. These experts concluded that the higher temperature of the silicon detectors degraded the sensor’s performance in a number of ways, but did not result in extreme degradation. For example, the experts said the higher temperature reduced by approximately 7 percent the distance at which the sensor could detect targets. The experts also said that the rapid temperature fluctuation at the beginning and at the end of data acquisition contributed to the number of times that the sensor detected a false target. However, the experts said the major cause of the false alarms was the power supply noise that contaminated the electrical signals generated by the sensor in response to the infrared energy. When the sensor signals were processed after Integrated Flight Test 1A, the noise appeared as objects, but they were actually false alarms. Additionally, the experts said that the precision with which the sensor could estimate the infrared energy emanating from an object based on the electrical signal produced by the energy was especially degraded in one of the sensor’s two infrared wave bands. In their report, the experts said that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory analyzed the precision with which the Boeing sensor could measure infrared radiation and found large errors in measurement accuracy. The Utah State experts said that their determination that the sensor’s measurement capability was degraded in one infrared wave band might partially explain the errors found by Lincoln Laboratory. Although Boeing’s sensor did not cool to the desired temperature during Integrated Flight Test 1A, the experts found that an obstruction in gas flow rather than the sensor’s design was at fault. These experts said the sensor’s cooling mechanism was properly designed and Boeing’s sensor design was sound. The Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office used several sources to monitor the contractors’ technical performance, but oversight activities were limited by the ongoing exoatmospheric kill vehicle contract competition between Boeing and Raytheon. Specifically, the project office relied on an engineer and a System Engineering and Technical Analysis contractor, Nichols Research Corporation, to provide insight into Boeing’s work. The project office also relied on Boeing to oversee TRW’s performance. The deputy manager of the Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office told us that competition between Boeing and Raytheon limited oversight to some extent. He said that because of the ongoing competition, the project office monitored the two contractors’ progress but was careful not to affect the competition by assisting one contractor more than the other. The project office primarily ensured that the contractors abided by their contractual requirements. The project office deputy manager told us that his office relied on “insight” into the contractors’ work rather than oversight of that work. The project office gained insight by placing an engineer on-site at Boeing and tasking Nichols Research Corporation to attend technical meetings, assess test reports, and, in some cases, evaluate Boeing’s and TRW’s technologies. The on-site engineer was responsible for observing the performance of Boeing and TRW and relaying any problems back to the project office. He did not have authority to provide technical direction to the contractors. According to the Ground Based Interceptor Project Management Office deputy manager, Nichols essentially “looked over the shoulder” of Boeing and TRW. We observed evidence of Nichols’ insight in memorandums that Nichols’ engineers submitted to the project office suggesting questions that should be asked of the contractors, memorandums documenting engineer’s comments on various contractor reports, and trip reports recorded by the engineers after various technical meetings. Boeing said its oversight of TRW’s work complied with contract requirements. The contract between the Department of Defense and Boeing required Boeing to declare that “to the best of its knowledge and belief, the technical data delivered is complete, accurate, and complies with all requirements of the contract.” With regard to Integrated Flight Test 1A, Boeing officials said that they complied with this provision by selecting a qualified subcontractor, TRW, to develop the discrimination concepts, software, and system design in support of the flight tests, and by holding weekly team meetings with subcontractor and project office officials. Boeing officials stated that they were not required to verify the validity of their subcontractor’s flight test analyses; rather, they were only required to verify that the analyses seemed reasonable. According to Boeing officials, both they and the project office shared the belief that TRW possessed the necessary technical expertise in threat phenomenology modeling, discrimination, and target tracking, and both relied on TRW’s expertise. National Missile Defense Joint Program Office officials said that they reduced the number of decoys planned for intercept flight tests in response to a recommendation by an independent panel, known as the Welch Panel. The panel, established to reduce risk in ballistic missile defense flight test programs, viewed a successful hit-to-kill engagement as a difficult task that should not be further complicated in early tests by the addition of decoys. In contemplating the panel’s advice, the program manager discussed various target options with other program officials and the contractors competing to develop and produce the system’s exoatmospheric kill vehicle. The officials disagreed on the number of decoys that should be deployed in the first intercept flight tests. Some recommended using the same target set deployed in Integrated Flight Test 1A and 2, while others wanted to eliminate some decoys. After considering the differing viewpoints, the program manager decided to deploy only one decoy—a large balloon—in early intercept tests. As flight tests began in 1997, the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office was planning two sensor tests—Integrated Flight Test 1A and 2— and 19 intercept tests. The primary objective of the sensor flight tests was to reduce risk in future flight tests. Specifically the tests were designed to determine if the sensor could operate in space; to examine the extent to which the sensor could detect small differences in infrared emissions; to determine if the sensor was accurately calibrated; and to collect target signature data for post-mission discrimination analysis. Initially, the next two flight tests were to demonstrate the ability of the competing kill vehicles to intercept a mock warhead. Integrated Flight Test 3 was to test the Boeing kill vehicle and Integrated Flight Test 4 was to test the Raytheon kill vehicle. Table 1 shows the number of target objects deployed in the two sensor tests, the number of objects originally planned to be deployed in the first two intercept attempts, and the number of objects actually deployed in the intercept attempts. By the time Integrated Flight Tests 3 and 4 were actually conducted, Boeing had become the National Missile Defense Lead System Integrator and had selected Raytheon’s exoatmospheric kill vehicle for use in the National Missile Defense system. Boeing conducted Integrated Flight Test 3 (in October 1999) and Integrated Flight Test 4 (in January 2000) with the Raytheon kill vehicle. However, both of these flight tests used only the mock warhead and one large balloon, rather than the nine objects originally planned. Integrated Flight Test 5 (flown in July 2000) also used only the mock warhead and one large balloon. Program officials told us that the National Missile Defense Program Manager decided to reduce the number of decoys used in Integrated Flight Tests 3, 4, and 5, based on the findings of an expert panel. This panel, known as the Welch Panel, reviewed the flight test programs of several Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs, including the National Missile Defense program. The resulting report,which was released shortly after Integrated Flight Test 2, found that U.S. ballistic missile defense programs, including the National Missile Defense program, had not yet demonstrated that they could reliably intercept a ballistic missile warhead using the technology known as “hit-to-kill.” Numerous failures had occurred for several of these programs and the Welch Panel concluded that the National Missile Defense program (as well as other programs using "hit-to-kill" technology) needed to demonstrate that it could reliably intercept simple targets before it attempted to demonstrate that it could hit a target accompanied by decoys. The panel reported again 1 month after Integrated Flight Test 3 and came to the same conclusion. The Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization testified at a congressional hearing that the Welch Panel advocated removing all decoys from the initial flight tests, but that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization opted to include a limited discrimination requirement with the use of one decoy. Nevertheless, he said that the primary purpose of the tests was to demonstrate the system’s “hit-to-kill” capability. Program officials said there was disagreement within the Joint Program Office and among the key contractors as to how many targets to use in the early intercept flight tests. Raytheon and one high-ranking program official wanted Integrated Flight Tests 3, 4, and 5 to include target objects identical to those deployed in the sensor flight tests. Boeing and other program officials wanted to deploy fewer target objects. After considering all options, the Joint Program Office decided to deploy a mock warhead and one decoy—a large balloon. Raytheon officials told us that they discussed the number of objects to be deployed in Integrated Flight Tests 3, 4, and 5 with program officials and recommended using the same target set as deployed in Integrated Flight Tests 1A and 2. Raytheon believed that this approach would be less risky because it would not require revisions to be made to the kill vehicle’s software. Raytheon and program officials told us that Raytheon was confident that it could successfully identify and intercept the mock warhead even with this larger target set. One high-ranking program official said that she objected to reducing the number of decoys used in Integrated Flight Test 3, because there was a need to more completely test the system. However, other program officials lobbied for a smaller target set. One program official said that his position was based on the Welch Panel’s findings and on the fact that the program office was not concerned at that time about discrimination capability. He added that the National Missile Defense program was responding to the threat of “nations of concern,” which could only develop simple targets, rather than major nuclear powers, which were more likely to be able to deploy decoys. The Boeing/TRW team also wanted to reduce the number of decoys used in the first intercept tests. In a December 1997 study, the companies recommended that Integrated Flight Test 3 be conducted with a total of four objects—the mock warhead, the two small balloons, and the large balloon. (The multi-service launch system was not counted as one of the objects.) The study cited concerns about the inclusion of decoys that were not part of the initially expected threat and about the need to reduce risk. Boeing said that the risk increased significantly that the exoatmospheric kill vehicle would not intercept the mock warhead if the target objects did not deploy from the test missile as expected. According to Boeing/TRW, as the types and number of target objects increased, the potential risk that the target objects would be different in some way from what was expected also increased. Specifically, the December 1997 study noted that the medium balloons had been in inventory for some time and had not deployed as expected in other tests, including Integrated Flight Test 1A. In that test, one medium balloon only partially inflated and was not positioned within the target cluster as expected. The study also found that the medium rigid light replicas are the easiest to misdeploy and the small canisterized light replica moved differently than expected during Integrated Flight Test 1A. In 1998, the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office asked the Phase One Engineering Team to conduct an assessment, using available data, of TRW’s discrimination software even though Nichols Research Corporation had already concluded that it met the requirements established by Boeing. The program office asked for the second evaluation because the Defense Criminal Investigative Service lead investigator was concerned about the ability of Nichols to provide a truly objective evaluation. The Phase One Engineering Team developed a methodology to (1) determine if TRW’s software was consistent with scientific, mathematical, and engineering principles; (2) determine whether TRW accurately reported that its software successfully discriminated a mock warhead from decoys using data collected during Integrated Flight Test 1A; and (3) predict the performance of TRW’s basic discrimination software against Integrated Flight Test 3 scenarios. The key results of the team’s evaluation were that the software was well designed; the contractors accurately reported the results of Integrated Flight Test 1A; and the software would likely perform successfully in Integrated Flight Test 3. The primary limitation was that the team used Boeing- and TRW- processed target data and TRW-developed reference data in determining the accuracy of TRW reports for Integrated Flight Test 1A. The team began its work by assuring itself that TRW’s discrimination software was based on sound scientific, engineering, and mathematical principles and that those principles had been correctly implemented. It did this primarily by studying technical documents provided by the contractors and the program office. Next, the team began to look at the software’s performance using Integrated Flight Test 1A data. The team studied TRW’s August 13 and August 22, 1997, test reports to learn more about discrepancies that the Defense Criminal Investigative Service said it found in these reports. Team members also received briefings from the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Boeing, TRW, and Nichols Research Corporation. Team members told us that they did not replicate TRW’s software in total. Instead, the team emulated critical functions of TRW’s discrimination software and tested those functions using data collected during Integrated Flight Test 1A. To test the ability of TRW’s software to extract the features of each target object’s signal, the team designed a software routine that mirrored TRW’s feature-extraction design. The team received Integrated Flight Test 1A target signals that had been processed by Boeing and then further processed by TRW. These signals represented about one-third of the collected signals. Team members input the TRW-supplied target signals into the team’s feature-extraction software routine and extracted two features from each target signal. The team then compared the extracted features to TRW’s reports on these same features and concluded that TRW’s software-extraction process worked as reported by TRW. Next, the team acquired the results of 200 of the 1,000 simulations that TRW had run to determine the features that target objects deployed in Integrated Flight Test 1A would likely display.Using these results, team members developed reference data that the software could compare to the features extracted from Integrated Flight Test 1A target signals. Finally, the team wrote software that ranked the different observed target objects in terms of the probability that each was the mock warhead. The results produced by the team’s software were then compared to TRW’s reported results. The team did not perform any additional analysis to predict the performance of the Boeing sensor and its software in Integrated Flight Test 3. Instead, the team used the knowledge that it gained from its assessment of the software’s performance using Integrated Flight Test 1A data to estimate the software’s performance in the third flight test. In its report published on January 25, 1999, the Phase One Engineering Team reported that even though it noted some weaknesses, TRW’s discrimination software was well designed and worked properly, with only some refinement or redesign needed to increase the robustness of the discrimination function. In addition, the team reported that its test of the software using data from Integrated Flight Test 1A produced essentially the same results as those reported by TRW. The team also predicted that the Boeing sensor and its software would perform well in Integrated Flight Test 3 if target objects deployed as expected. The team's assessment identified some software weaknesses. First, the team reported that TRW’s use of a software module to replace missing or noisy target signals was not effective and could actually hurt rather than help the performance of the discrimination software. Second, the Phase One Engineering Team pointed out that while TRW proposed extracting several features from each target-object signal, only a few of the features could be used. The Phase One Engineering Team also reported that it found TRW’s software to be fragile because the software was unlikely to operate effectively if the reference data—or expected target signals—did not closely match the signals that the sensor collected from deployed target objects. The team warned that the software’s performance could degrade significantly if incorrect reference data were loaded into the software. Because developing good reference data is dependent upon having the correct information about target characteristics, sensor-to-target geometry, and engagement timelines, unexpected targets might challenge the software. The team suggested that very good knowledge about all of these parameters might not always be available. The Phase One Engineering Team reported that the results of its evaluation using Integrated Flight Test 1A data supported TRW’s claim that in post-flight analysis its software accurately distinguished a mock warhead from decoys. The report stated that TRW explained why there were differences in the discrimination analysis included in the August 13, 1997, Integrated Flight Test 1A test report and that included in the August 22, 1997, report. According to the report, one difference was that TRW mislabeled a chart in the August 22 report. Another difference was that the August 22 discrimination analysis was based on target signals collected over a shorter period of time (see app. I for more information regarding TRW’s explanation of report differences). Team members said that they found TRW’s explanations reasonable. The Phase One Engineering Team predicted that if the targets deployed in Integrated Flight Test 3 performed as expected, TRW's discrimination software would successfully identify the warhead as the target. The team observed that the targets proposed for the flight test had been viewed by Boeing’s sensor in Integrated Flight Test 1A and that target-object features collected by the sensor would be extremely useful in constructing reference data for the third flight test. The team concluded that given this prior knowledge, TRW’s discrimination software would successfully select the correct target even in the most stressing Integrated Flight Test 3 scenario being considered, if all target objects deployed as expected. However, the team expressed concern about the software’s capabilities if objects deployed differently, as had happened in previous flight tests. The Phase One Engineering Team’s conclusion that TRW’s software successfully discriminated is based on the assumption that Boeing’s and TRW’s input data were accurate. The team did not process the raw data collected by the sensor’s silicon detector array during Integrated Flight Test 1A or develop their own reference data by running hundreds of simulations. Instead, the team used target signature data extracted by Boeing and TRW and developed reference data from a portion of the simulations that TRW ran for its own post-flight analysis. Because it did not process the raw data from Integrated Flight Test 1A or develop its own reference data, the team cannot be said to have definitively proved or disproved TRW’s claim that its software successfully discriminated the mock warhead from decoys using data collected from Integrated Flight Test 1A. A team member told us its use of Boeing- and TRW-provided data was appropriate because the former TRW employee had not alleged that the contractors tampered with the raw test data or used inappropriate reference data. The table below includes selected requirements that Boeing established before the flight test to evaluate sensor performance and the actual sensor performance characteristics that Boeing and TRW discussed in the August 22 report. We determined whether Boeing and TRW disclosed key results and limitations of Integrated Flight Test 1A to the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office by examining test reports submitted to the program office on August 13, 1997, August 22, 1997, and April 1, 1998, and by examining the December 11, 1997, briefing charts. We also held discussions with and examined various reports and documents prepared by Boeing North American, Anaheim, California; TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, California; the Raytheon Company, Tucson, Arizona; Nichols Research Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama; the Phase One Engineering Team, Washington, D.C.; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, Massachusetts; the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office, Arlington, Virginia, and Huntsville, Alabama; the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Washington D.C.; the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Huntsville, Alabama; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Mission Viejo, California, and Arlington, Virginia; and the Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia. We held discussions with and examined documents prepared by Dr. Theodore Postol, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Dr. Nira Schwartz, Torrance, California; Mr. Roy Danchick, Santa Monica, California; and Dr. Michael Munn, Benson, Arizona. In addition, we hired the Utah State University Space Dynamics Laboratory, Logan, Utah, to examine the performance of the Boeing sensor because we needed to determine the effect the higher operating temperature had on the sensor’s performance. We did not replicate TRW’s assessment of its software using target signals that the Boeing sensor collected during the test. This would have required us to make engineers and computers available to verify TRW’s software, format raw target signals for input into the software, develop reference data, and run the data through the software. We did not have these resources available, and we, therefore, cannot attest to the accuracy of TRW’s discrimination claims. We also examined the methodologies, findings, and limitations of the review conducted by the Phase One Engineering Team of TRW’s discrimination software. To accomplish this task, we analyzed the Phase One Engineering Team’s “Independent Review of TRW EKV Discrimination Techniques” dated January 1999. In addition, we held discussions with Phase One Engineering Team members, officials from the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office, and contractor officials. We did not replicate the evaluations conducted by the Phase One Engineering Team and cannot attest to the accuracy of their reports. We reviewed the decision by the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office to reduce the complexity of later flight tests by comparing actual flight test information with information in prior plans and by discussing these differences with program and contractor officials. We held discussions with and examined documents prepared by the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office, the Institute for Defense Analyses, Boeing North American, and the Raytheon Company. Our work was conducted from August 2000 through February 2002 according to generally accepted government auditing standards. The length of time the National Missile Defense Joint Program Office required to release documents to us significantly slowed our review. For example, the Program Office required approximately 4 months to release key documents such as the Phase One Engineering Team’s response to the professor’s allegations. We requested these and other documents on September 14, 2000, and received them on January 9, 2001.

The Department of Defense (DOD) awarded contracts to three companies in 1990 to develop and test exoatmospheric kill vehicles. One of the contractors--Boeing North American--subcontracted with TRW to develop software for the kill vehicle. In 1998, Boeing became the Lead System Integrator for the National Missile Defense Program, and chose Raytheon as the primary kill vehicle developer. Boeing and TRW reported that the June 1997 flight test achieved its primary objectives, but that some sensor abnormalities were detected. The project office relied on Boeing to oversee the performance of TRW. Boeing and TRW reported that deployed target objects displayed distinguishable features when being observed by an infrared sensor. After considerable debate, the program manager reduced the number of decoys planned for intercept flight tests in response to a recommendation by an independent panel. The Phase One Engineering Team, which was responsible for completing an assessment of TRW's software performance within two months using available data, found that although the software had weaknesses, it was well designed and worked properly, with only some changes needed to increase the robustness of the discrimination function. On the basis of that analysis, team members predicted that the software would perform successfully in a future intercept test if target objects deployed as expected.

Congressional recognition that the patent system plays a role in supporting U.S. innovation led to the September 16, 2011, enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), P.L. 112-29 . Among many other amendments to the Patent Act of 1952 (the "Patent Act"), the AIA required the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to "conduct a study on effective ways to provide independent, confirming genetic diagnostic test activity where gene patents and exclusive licensing for primary genetic diagnostic tests exist." The AIA also included provisions directed towards the patentability of two distinct categories of inventions. The new law states that tax strategies "shall be deemed insufficient to differentiate a claimed invention from the prior art." The AIA also prohibits the issuance of a patent "directed to or encompassing" a human organism. Under the new statutory provisions, no patent may issue to a tax strategy per se , or to an invention directed to or encompassing a human being, no matter how innovative that invention might be. The 2012 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. addressed both diagnostic tests and the concept of patentable subject matter. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that a patent claiming a method of optimizing therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as Crohn's disease, was invalid. In so doing, the Court stressed that patents could not issue on "laws of nature" and "natural phenomena." Further, an invention must do "significantly more than simply describe these natural relations" to be patented. Some observers believe that Mayo v. Prometheus will significantly impact research into biotechnology and personalized medicine in the United States. In particular, some believe that patents on diagnostic methods will be difficult to obtain or enforce in the future, dampening incentives to innovate. On the other hand, other commentators believe that Mayo v. Prometheus follows established legal principles and appropriately maintains critical medical and scientific data within the public domain. This report will review the Supreme Court's decision and briefly consider its implications for innovation and public health. At its simplest, biotechnology is technology based on biology; it involves the use of a broad range of techniques and procedures for modifying living organisms to suit human purposes. Biotechnology has applications in engineering, manufacturing, food science, and, most prominently, medicine, in which it has facilitated a number of innovations. Without biotechnology, a variety of cell and tissue culture technologies, pharmaceuticals, and combined diagnostic-therapeutic treatments could not exist. The biotechnology industry is relatively young and exhibits significant growth potential. Revenue for 2012 is expected to increase 3.9% to $87 billion, and the five-year annual growth rate for 2012 to 2017 is projected to reach 8.7%. By comparison, the GDP of the United States is expected to expand 2.1% annually through 2017. The biotechnology industry first attained profitability in 2009, due in part to rising revenue and increasing cost efficiencies. Profit for 2012 is expected to reach nearly $5 billion. The structure of the biotechnology market is currently rather fragmented. The three largest actors, Amgen Inc., Roche Holding AG, and Monsanto Co., account for 14.0%, 11.5%, and 5.8% market share respectively, while the remaining 68.7% is held by hundreds of smaller firms. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) within the industry steadily grew from 2007 to 2012, with further increases expected through 2017. As a result, despite a projected expansion of the industry, the number of operators is expected to remain flat. Human health technologies represent the most significant component of the biotechnology market, accounting for 57% of revenues. Pharmaceuticals are expected to remain the most significant component of the biotechnology market for the foreseeable future, with growth in this segment likely outpacing the rest of biotechnology. According to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), more than 900 biotechnology medicines are under development. Within the field of human health, personalized medicine represents a major avenue of growth. Personalized medicine involves tailoring medical treatment to the individual characteristics of each patient, as well as classifying individuals based on their susceptibility to a particular disease or their response to a specific treatment. Preventative or therapeutic interventions can then be concentrated on those who will benefit, resulting in more efficient and effective treatment. Among the first and most prominent examples of such interventions is Genentech's Herceptin and its companion HER2 diagnostic test. Herceptin, a "targeted" breast cancer therapy, is prescribed only for patients whose genetic tests reveal an over-expression of the HER2 protein. Since the Herceptin/HER2 "theranostic" intervention was introduced in 1998, it has been joined by numerous other such drug-diagnostic combinations. The market for such diagnostic and therapeutic treatments is estimated to grow by 10% annually, reaching $42 billion by 2015. Biotechnology companies often rely heavily on intellectual property rights, as patents are often the most crucial asset in a research-intensive sector that at times produces products that may be readily imitated. Adequate patent protection improves the likelihood that biotechnology companies can appropriate their R&D results and may reduce copying by competitors. Investors in biotechnology firms are generally well aware of the importance of patents, and the survival of such firms may depend on their convincing investors that they have a strong intellectual property protection strategy. Venture capital (VC) serves as the primary source of funding for small biotechnology firms. Start-ups with patenting activity receive greater and more diverse VC funds, with one study finding that by filing at least one patent application, a firm increases its chance of obtaining VC funding by 97%. VC firms must carefully weigh the economic value of a company's patent portfolio in determining whether to make an investment, and the security of intellectual property is a key component in this analysis. If changes in regulation lead to insufficient protection for biotechnology patents, VC firms may reduce investments in biotechnology and shift their focus to other, less risky industries. Innovation in the biotechnology industry is impacted by the U.S. patent system, which allows an inventor to seek the grant of a patent by preparing and submitting an application to the USPTO. USPTO officials known as examiners then determine whether the invention disclosed in the application merits the award of a patent. USPTO procedures require examiners to determine whether the invention fulfills certain substantive standards set by the patent statute. To be patentable, the invention must be novel, or different, from subject matter disclosed by an earlier patent, publication, or other state-of-the-art knowledge. In addition, an invention is not patentable if "the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." This requirement of "nonobviousness" prevents the issuance of patents claiming subject matter that a skilled artisan would have been able to implement in view of the knowledge of the state of the art. The invention must also be useful, a requirement that is satisfied if the invention is operable and provides a tangible benefit. Even if these requirements of novelty, nonobviousness, and utility are met, an invention is not patentable unless it falls within at least one category of patentable subject matter. According to Section 101 of the Patent Act, an invention which is a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" may be patented. The range of patentable subject matter under this statute has been characterized as "extremely broad." The courts and USPTO have nonetheless concluded that certain subject matter, including abstract ideas and laws of nature, is not patentable under Section 101. This report further discusses this legal standard below. In addition to these substantive requirements, the USPTO examiner will consider whether the submitted application fully discloses and distinctly claims the invention. In particular, the application must enable persons skilled in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. If the USPTO allows the patent to issue, its owner obtains the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States the patented invention. Those who engage in those acts without the permission of the patentee during the term of the patent can be held liable for infringement. Adjudicated infringers may be enjoined from further infringing acts. The patent statute also provides for an award of damages "adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer." The maximum term of patent protection is ordinarily set at 20 years from the date the application is filed. At the end of that period, others may employ that invention without regard to the expired patent. Patent rights do not enforce themselves. Patent owners who wish to compel others to respect their rights must commence enforcement proceedings, which most commonly consist of litigation in the federal courts. Although issued patents enjoy a presumption of validity, accused infringers may assert that a patent is invalid or unenforceable on a number of grounds. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) possesses nationwide jurisdiction over most patent appeals from the district courts. The Supreme Court enjoys discretionary authority to review cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Section 101 of the Patent Act of 1952 allows a patent to issue upon a "process," which the statute elsewhere defines to mean a "process, art, or method." Process patents claim a series of steps that may be performed to achieve a specific result. Process patents typically relate to methods of manufacture or use. A process patent may claim a method of making a product, for example, or a method of using a chemical compound to treat a disease. Although the statutory term "process" is broad, courts and the USPTO have nonetheless established certain limits upon the sorts of processes that may be patented. In particular, abstract ideas, mathematical algorithms, mental processes, and scientific principles have been judged not to be patentable. The Supreme Court has described these sorts of inventions as the "basic tools of scientific and technological work" that should be "free to all men and reserved exclusively to none." Prior to its issuance of Mayo v. Prometheus , the Supreme Court most recently considered Section 101 in Bilski v. Kappos . That 2010 decision addressed a claimed risk hedging method, useful in particular for commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market. The Federal Circuit had earlier held that the claimed hedging method did not constitute patentable subject matter because it (1) was not tied to a particular machine or apparatus and (2) did not transform a particular article into a different state or thing. The Supreme Court subsequently agreed to hear the appeal and affirmed the Federal Circuit's patentability determination, although it did so under different reasoning. According to a majority of the Court, the "machine-or-transformation" test should not serve as the exclusive test for determining whether a claimed method was patent-eligible or not. As Justice Kennedy explained, although patents that did not meet the machine-or-transformation standard were rarely granted in earlier eras, this test "would create uncertainty as to the patentability of software, advanced diagnostic medicine techniques," and other technologies of the Information Age. As a result, while the machine-or-transformation test provided a "useful and important clue" towards deciding the patentability of methods, it was not the "sole test." The Court nonetheless agreed with the Federal Circuit that the claimed hedging method was an "unpatentable abstract idea." The Court reasoned that allowing a patent to issue on the hedging method "would pre-empt use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea." The Federal Circuit was therefore affirmed. Following Bilski v. Kappos , whether diagnostic methods appropriately constitute patentable subject matter remained uncertain. As noted previously, at one point the Court's decision suggests that "advanced diagnostic medicine techniques" might be patented. On the other hand, the Court confirmed that "laws of nature" could not be patented and explained that broadly preemptive claims were likely unpatentable. Diagnostic methods might well be classified under either of these headings. Two years after deciding Bilski v. Kappos , the Supreme Court would address the patentability of diagnostic methods in Mayo v. Prometheus . Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. is the sole licensee of two patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,355,623 and 6,680,302) claiming methods for determining optimal dosages of thiopurine drugs used to treat autoimmune diseases. Stated generally, the patents claim methods of (a) administering a thiopurine drug to a patient, and (b) determining the levels of the drug or the drug's metabolites in red blood cells in the patient. The measured metabolite levels are then compared to known metabolite levels. If the measured metabolite levels in the patient are outside the known range, then the physician should increase or decrease the level of drug to be administered so as to reduce toxicity and enhance treatment efficacy. Claim 1 of the `623 patent, which reads as follows, was representative of the claims of the two patents at issue: A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising: (a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and (b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8x10 8 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x10 8 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject. Prometheus brought suit against Mayo Clinic Rochester and Mayo Collaborative Services (collectively "Mayo") for infringement of the `623 and `302 patents. The District Court held that the two patents did not comprise patentable subject matter because they claimed a natural law—namely the correlation between thiopurine metabolite levels and the toxicity and efficacy of thiopurine drug dosages. Following an appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed. Applying the machine-or-transformation test, the Court of Appeals concluded that the patent claims called for the transformation of the human body or of blood taken from the body. Following its decision in Bilski v. Kappos , the Supreme Court directed the Federal Circuit to rehear the appeal in Mayo v. Prometheus . The Court of Appeals again concluded that the claims of the `623 and `302 patents constituted patentable subject matter. According to Judge Lourie, the claims of Prometheus were "drawn not to a law of nature, but to a particular application of naturally occurring correlations, and accordingly do not preempt all uses of the recited metabolite levels and drug efficacy or toxicity." Following the second Federal Circuit opinion in Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court again vacated the decision of the lower court . In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Breyer, the Court concluded that the claims were directed towards natural laws and were therefore unpatentable. The Court reviewed its precedents in order to explain that phenomena of nature and abstract concepts could not be patented because the "monopolization of these basic tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." The earlier cases recognized that all inventions at some level embody or apply laws of nature, however, and that processes that applied natural laws in a particular, useful way were eligible for patenting under Section 101 of the Patent Act. Applying these principles to the case at hand, the Court recognized that the claims in part recited "laws of nature," in particular relationships between the concentration of thiopurine metabolites and the likelihood that a dosage of a thiopurine drug will prove ineffective or harmful. However, the claims included steps in addition to the law of nature—in particular, they called for "administering" the thiopurine drug and "determining" the level of the relevant metabolites, "wherein" the drug dosage should be adjusted. According to Justice Breyer, the question before the Court was whether the claims amounted merely to the natural laws, or whether they added enough to the statement of the correlations to qualify as patent-eligible processes that applied natural laws. The Court reasoned that the three additional claimed steps did not suffice to render the claimed inventions patentable subject matter. Justice Breyer explained that the "administering" step referred simply to the relevant audience of the invention, namely, physicians who treat patients with certain diseases with thiopurine drugs. However, merely limiting the use of a natural law to a particular technological environment cannot render the principle patentable. Similarly, the "determining" step merely advised physicians to measure the level of metabolites in a patient's blood—a step that had been done for years and was routine in the field. Justice Breyer stated that conventional or obvious pre-solution activity did not convert an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such law. Finally, the "wherein" clauses simply informed physicians that they should take account of pertinent natural laws in their practices. According to Justice Breyer, an unpatentable law of nature does not become patentable merely by advising individuals to use the law. As a result, the Court concluded that the three steps recited in the claim did not "transform unpatentable natural correlations into patentable applications of those regularities." The Supreme Court's opinion in Mayo v. Prometheus addressed a number of additional contentions raised during the litigation. First, the Court rejected the argument that the Prometheus patents satisfied the machine-or-transformation test. The Federal Circuit had reasoned that the patents-in-suit transformed both human blood (by analyzing it to measure metabolite levels) and the human body (by administering a thiopurine drug). Justice Breyer countered that the claims at issue required only that the metabolite levels be measured, not that human blood be transformed. And he also explained that the transformation of the human body was not pertinent to the patentability determination, for that claim limitation merely identified the group of individuals who might be interested in applying the law of nature. The Court also responded to the position that virtually any step beyond a statement of a law of nature should be deemed to fulfill Section 101 standards. Under this view, Section 101 might be satisfied fairly readily; other requirements imposed under the Patent Act, including novelty and nonobviousness, would play a more significant role in deciding whether patent should issue or not. Justice Breyer rejected this proposal, stating that the policy concerns that underlie Section 101 were distinct from those of the other patentability requirements. Third, the Court responded to concerns that rejecting the Prometheus patents would discourage diagnostic research. Justice Breyer observed that other interested parties had asserted that patents claiming the body's natural responses to illness and medical treatment should not be granted because they might limit physician access to critical scientific data. In view of these competing views, the Court was reluctant to depart from precedent denying patents on natural laws. The Supreme Court decision in Mayo v. Prometheus has prompted diverse reactions. Some patent lawyers with biotechnology backgrounds have reportedly issued scathing reviews of its opinion, with one describing it as "the worst patent decision in the history of the Supreme Court." Another is reported as stating that under "Breyer's analysis, potentially every patent in biotechnology is not valid because most use 'natural processes.'" For example, suppose that a researcher discovers a new marker—such as a protein expressed by a gene that indicates a propensity to develop cancer or is an indicator of Alzheimer's disease. Under Mayo v. Prometheus , this innovation might be considered a natural phenomenon that is not patentable. Others offered more measured criticism. Some believe that the Supreme Court did not provide sufficient guidance on the criteria needed to develop an unpatentable natural law into a patentable application of a natural law. In their view, the extent to which future diagnostic methods may be patented is unclear. This lack of clarity may discourage firms that need to support costly research and development programs in the area of diagnostics. Still other observers believe that the impact of Mayo v. Prometheus will be most keenly felt by firms focused upon diagnostics and personalized medicine. According to patent attorney Warren Woessner, predictive diagnostic methods that depend on the presence or absence of a marker, as well as diagnostic methods that measure the level of a marker, may be subject to narrow patents or may be difficult to patent at all. Christopher Holman, a member of the faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, views the Supreme Court opinion as allowing clinical labs to conduct testing "without patents in their way," to the particular detriment of small biotech companies. On the other hand, some interested parties believe that Mayo v. Prometheus was correctly decided. Patent attorney Richard H. Stern asserted that the Supreme Court issued "a very high quality piece of legal craftsmanship" that resolved numerous issues with respect to Section 101 and provided sufficient guidance to the intellectual property community. In addition, the American Medical Association explained that the Supreme Court "prevented irreparable harm to patient care" by ensuring that "critical scientific data remain widely available for sound patient care and innovative medical research." The chair of the AMA Board, Robert M. Wah, explained that "[m]edical innovations that provide insight into natural human biology must remain freely accessible and widely disseminated. Blocking this information from physicians and researchers inhibits future discoveries." Still others observe that the patent laws of other nations disallow patents on diagnostic methods. For example, Article 53(c) of the European Patent Convention states that "European patents shall not be granted in respect of ... diagnostic methods practiced on the human or animal body." As a result, the ruling in Mayo v. Prometheus is not necessarily out of step with global intellectual property norms. Finally, a third group of observers believe that the impact of Mayo v. Prometheus upon the medical field as a whole will not be significant. Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University, stated that "I don't see any reason to believe the medical world will look much different because of this decision; some players will be harmed, some will benefit." Following the Supreme Court's opinion in Mayo v. Prometheus , considerable attention has been placed upon another well-publicized litigation, Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office . More commonly known as Myriad —after the name of the patent holder—this litigation may determine whether patents may appropriately issue on isolated deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) molecules that encode sequences identical to human genes. The USPTO has allowed inventors to obtain patents on genes for some 30 years. But some observers believe that the reasoning of Mayo v. Prometheus may have an impact upon these patents because they are arguably directed towards a product of nature. The Myriad litigation commenced on May 12, 2009, when the Association for Molecular Pathology and 19 other plaintiffs, including individual physicians, patients, and researchers, filed a lawsuit against the USPTO, Myriad Genetics, Inc. ("Myriad"), and the Directors of the University of Utah Research Foundation. The plaintiffs challenged several patents owned by Myriad that claim isolated human genes known as BRCA1 and BRCA2. Certain alterations or mutations in these genes are associated with a predisposition to breast and ovarian cancers. Due to its intellectual property rights, Myriad is the sole commercial provider of genetic testing related to breast and ovarian cancer associated with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The plaintiffs asserted that Myriad's gene patent claims were invalid because, in their view, human genes were naturally occurring materials that do not constitute patentable subject matter. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sided with the plaintiffs and held that Myriad's gene patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. Judge Sweet reasoned that Myriad's claimed isolated DNA was not "markedly different from native DNA as it exists in nature" and therefore could not be patented. Following an appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed this holding. The Court of Appeals reasoned that "isolated" DNA is not merely "purified" DNA—rather, it has been "manipulated chemically so as to produce a molecule that is markedly different from that which exists in the body." Under this reasoning, human genes consist of patentable subject matter. The Supreme Court subsequently agreed to hear the Myriad case but did not issue a ruling in the matter. Rather, on March 26, 2012, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter back to the Federal Circuit with instructions to reconsider the appeal in view of Mayo v. Prometheus . On August 12, 2012, the Federal Circuit again held that isolated human genes could be patented because, as explained by the Court of Appeals, "each of the claimed molecules represents a nonnaturally occurring composition of matter." It remains to be seen whether the Federal Circuit will rehear and reconsider its decision, or whether the Supreme Court will rule on the matter itself. One other aspect of the Myriad litigation bears mention. Myriad has also raised the argument that the plaintiffs do not possess "standing" to pursue their lawsuit because they are not directly harmed by the existence of the patents. If this argument proves to be successful, a determination of whether genes may be patented or not would await future litigation. Should the courts reach a definitive ruling about gene patenting in Myriad , the implications for the biotechnology industry could potentially be significant. Dennis Crouch, a member of the law faculty of the University of Missouri, observed that under the reasoning of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, "essentially all gene patents are invalid." Because the USPTO has reportedly issued patents covering over 40,000 genes, the Myriad ruling will potentially impact a significant amount of intellectual property. Some observers believe that Mayo v. Prometheus may prompt legislative review of the patentability of diagnostic methods, gene patents, and biotechnology more generally. If Congress believes that the current circumstances with respect to patentable subject matter are satisfactory, then no action need be taken. Should Congress choose to take action, however, a number of options exist. One possibility is an amendment to Section 101 of the Patent Act stipulating that certain subject matter is or is not patentable. An example of this approach may be found in legislation introduced, but not enacted, in the 110 th Congress. The Genetic Research and Accessibility Act, H.R. 977 , would have provided: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may be obtained for a nucleotide sequence, or its functions or correlations, or the naturally occurring products it specifies. The proposed amendment would not have applied to a patent issued prior to the date of enactment of the Genetic Research and Accessibility Act. Another option is to allow patents on particular inventions to issue, but to limit the remedies available to proprietors of such patents. The Patent Act currently stipulates that damages and injunctions are not available for patent infringement caused by "a medical practitioner's performance of a medical activity" under certain circumstances. This provision could potentially be amended to include other categories of inventions. Such an approach was taken by the Genomic Research and Diagnostic Disability Act of 2002, which was introduced, but not enacted, in the 107 th Congress. That legislation would have created a research exemption from infringement for research on genetic sequence information and an infringement exemption for genetic diagnostic testing. In Mayo v. Prometheus , the Supreme Court arguably limited the ability of medical innovators to patent diagnostic methods. The implications of this ruling for other laws and products of nature, including human genes, may soon be realized. Some have welcomed judicial decisions that narrow the scope of patentable subject matter, asserting that these patents are harmful to healthcare and medical research. On the other hand, some believe that patents in these fields provide powerful incentives for innovation and public disclosure of new technologies. As judicial rulings continue to influence the availability of patent protection in the healthcare and biotechnology fields, interested parties may encourage Congress to clarify the doctrine of patentable subject matter through legislative amendments.

The recent enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), P.L. 112-29, suggests congressional interest in patents on diagnostic methods. In particular, Section 27 of the AIA required the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to conduct a study on the patenting of genetic diagnostic tests. The 2012 decision of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. also addressed these sorts of patents. The Court's decision arguably placed severe limitations on the ability of inventors to obtain diagnostic method patents. Some observers have welcomed Mayo v. Prometheus, asserting that patents on diagnostic methods are harmful to healthcare and medical research. On the other hand, detractors of the opinion state that patents provide powerful incentives for innovation and public disclosure of new technologies. They believe that the Supreme Court's decision will negatively impact medical research in the areas of biotechnology and personalized medicine. The holding in Mayo v. Prometheus may impact another well-publicized litigation, Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. More commonly known as Myriad—after the name of the patent holder—this litigation may determine whether patents may appropriately issue on human genes. Congressional policymakers may contend that current circumstances with respect to patentable subject matter are satisfactory and therefore may advocate that no further legislative action need be taken. Should Congress choose to take action, however, a number of options exist. One possibility is an amendment to the Patent Act stipulating that certain subject matter is or is not patentable. Another is to allow patents on particular inventions to issue, but to limit the remedies available to proprietors of such patents.